Taxi Driver Online

This one again

Can't be bothered looking back, but certainly zero evidence presented below of how the 'unfair treatment' was due specifically to race...

(And you'd maybe think that the article here might avoid the use of the words 'black taxi drivers' lest it be misconstrued, but I suppose the rest of the piece makes it clear that black refers to skin colour as opposed to the type of vehicle.)


Taxi drivers win payout over racial discrimination

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c997xlzlz92o

Two black taxi drivers have been awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds after an employment tribunal found a council racially discriminated against them.

The man and woman, who are a couple and British nationals of Nigerian descent, were found to have been treated unfairly by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) licensing officers.

The tribunal said the council's approach to the case, beyond making staff take equality training, was "shocking".

The council, which was told to pay £155,500 and £123,000 to the man and woman respectively, said it had apologised to the couple.

The tribunal found the man had been subjected to "severe stress" by the way he was dealt with by the council when "baseless allegations" were made against him.

It found the council's handling of the matters left him feeling "powerless and small".

The woman was a victim of "vitriolic and oppressive" questioning and was the subject of an "unfair investigation", it said.

Her resulting anxiety was at times "incapacitating" to the point where she could not work, the tribunal found.

The authority said the case was a "complex and long-running matter" but the tribunal said it felt the council's response had been insufficient.

It said the behaviour inflicted was "significant and long-term race discrimination against two of its licensed drivers, by a number of officers of the council, over a number of years".

The council had refused to acknowledge "any validity in many of the [couple's] grievances", it said.

"There is no apology or recognition by [the council] that this was anything other than a mistake," it added.

The couple previously alleged that they suffered discrimination in Reading following another incident in 2016.

A tribunal found in 2023 that the man had been treated differently because of his race in the town.

In a statement, a BDBC spokesperson said: "We fully considered the judgement and apologised to the drivers for the incidents, and our handling of them, that led to them feeling they needed to bring this action and the distress it caused them.

"We acknowledge the outcome of this remedy hearing and have fully complied with the ruling and the payment of compensation to the people involved.

"Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is committed to upholding the highest standards in our operations.

"We are determined to ensure that lessons are learned and appropriate changes are being made."

based on what is above this sounds like a lot of gilding the lily to make it sound like they were treated worse than leppers in order to get a nice big compo payout. Although I would imagine a massive chunk of that will have gone to the NWNF solicitors "advising them"

I do find there is something of a superiority complex in some people of african origin so I can imagine something that might seem innocuous to you or me is a massive slur in their minds

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I suspect every other council in the surrounding area is searching their cupboards or checking eBay for the world's largest barge pole.

And I don't blame them for it.

_________________
IDFIMH

A tad strange that the BBC report above doesn't name the two claimants - I mean, their names have been reported before, and it's in the pubic domain, so seems a wee bit odd...

Anyway, this is on the Personnel Today website (I assumed that would be called Human Resources Today nowadays ), and contains a couple of paragraphs about the substantive issues.

But still no smoking gun here as regards what the racial discrimination angle is all about


Taxi drivers awarded £278k in race discrimination claim

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/taxi- ... ion-claim/

Two taxi drivers have been awarded a combined £278,000 after an employment tribunal found that a council discriminated against them on the grounds of race.

The male and female claimants, Mr Olumade and Ms Akinleye, are of Nigerian descent and are a couple, worked as self-employed taxi drivers for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

A remedy hearing has ruled that the male claimant should be paid £155,000 in compensation and the woman £123,000, encompassing payouts for loss of earnings and injury to feelings, including “severe stress”.

They claimed that the authority had failed to promote equality and diversity ever since African drivers had been able to gain a Hackney Carriage Drivers (HCD) licence in 2013.

Mr Olumade accused the council of “favouring white drivers over African, acceding to requests of white taxi drivers to investigate and have a word with or speak to the African drivers”.

Licensing officers at the local authority treated both claimants unfairly, including subjecting Ms Akinleye to “vitriolic questioning” and an “unfair investigation”, the tribunal heard.

The tribunal said it felt the council’s response to complaints made by the drivers was insufficient and “shocking”, amounting to little more than making staff take equality training.

It said the behaviour inflicted was “significant and long-term race discrimination against two of its licensed drivers, by a number of officers of the council, over a number of years”.

In a statement, a BDBC spokesperson told the BBC: “We fully considered the judgement and apologised to the drivers for the incidents, and our handling of them, that led to them feeling they needed to bring this action and the distress it caused them.

“We acknowledge the outcome of this remedy hearing and have fully complied with the ruling and the payment of compensation to the people involved.

“Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is committed to upholding the highest standards in our operations.

“We are determined to ensure that lessons are learned and appropriate changes are being made.”

In the couple’s remedy judgment, Employment Judge Rayner stated that BDBC had redacted documents and that one officer had “deliberately lied to the employment tribunal”.

Had a quick look at the new 'remedy judgement' which I think is basically about quantifying the compensation, and thus not so much about the substantive issues involved in the discrimination.

But, for example, the first claimant was awarded £55k for 'injury to feeling', which totalled £93k with interest added

But a quick skim suggests they were maybe milking it a bit - they were actually claiming nearly £3m for future loss of earnings, and other stuff, but the tribunal seemed to realise they were taking the pish in that regard

But take a quick look through this, which is the basis of the damages for the wife, essentially. But the claim that it was based on racism is presumably contained in the other decision documents

(And it's not clear what the stuff about the 'mobbing', 'assault' and the filling station incident are all about, without reading all the documents. Presumably.)



We accept her evidence as set out in her witness statement, in the
documents referred to in the bundle, including her medical notes, and
her oral testimony before the tribunal, that she suffered the following
injury to feeling, which was cumulative over the years the claims
represent:

a. She was offended by being referred to as Olumade's wife;

b. that her self-belief and confidence were eroded when she was falsely
accused or refusing a wheelchair passenger;

c. that she suffered stress and distress when her vehicle was singled
out for inspection and scrutiny, following the conviction of a fellow
taxi driver Mr Bulpitt;

d. that she found the questioning of her husband by Mr Draper and Mr
Wake in December 2017 to be vitriolic and oppressive, causing hurt,
trauma and emotional distress;

e. that being subjected to an interview under PACE following an issue
with Hampshire County Council, left her feeling traumatised;

f. that she suffered the additional stress of observing impacts upon her
husband's health;

g. that the circumstances led to her and her husband becoming
dependent upon their children's income and the kindness of friends
to assist with holidays;

h. that the unfair investigation of the claimants left her feeling anxious
and fearful for her family's welfare;

i. that the assault; mobbing and subsequent inadequate investigations
impacted her husband Mr Olumade, meaning that she was stressed
to the extent that she could not sleep while he was working and often
felt compelled to call him to check on his safety;

j. We accept her evidence that this left her with anxiety which could be
incapacitating and on occasions has meant that she was unable to
work.

k. We accept the claimant’s evidence of paragraph 19 that the failure
by the respondent in its equality duties not only eroded the trust Miss
Akinleye had, but also led to her working fewer hours for reasons of
safety, which in itself had a knock on effect on their income.

l. We find that the treatment of the claimant being summoned to a
subcommittee, and the inspection of the claimant’s vehicle by Mr
Draper in April 2022 left the claimant weary and fearful and that it left
her unsettled and unable to work ;

m. We accept her evidence in paragraph 23 of her witness statement
that following the incident, whilst refuelling the vehicle her mind
blanked out, she forgot her pin number and was held up at the pump
until Mr Olumade was able to pay. We accept her evidence that the
entire encounter left her feeling distraught and physically ill with
severe headaches and trembling for hours.

n. We find that the failure of the respondent to carry out any
investigation into this incident left the claimant feeling betrayed and
despised by BDBC.

o. We find that the claimant did seek medical help in December 2022 ,
and that as a result she was referred for counselling and therapy
which took many months.

p. We find that at the point she was referred, she told her medical
advisors that she was a self-employed taxi driver with the council and
that feelings of harassment and lack of support had been ongoing for
many years; she reported other taxi drivers and the council reporting
her for things she had not done; she got to the stage where she was
wearing a camera in order to have evidence of accusations so that
she could refute them; she said there was an ongoing process at
work with complaints about the way she had been treated and the
knock on effect had been significant stress and anxiety; she said
sometimes she thought other taxi drivers or passengers were saying
negative things when they were not but that she had insight into this;
that she got jumpy when driving if people talked her she was worried
there might be making complaint; she said she'd withdrawn into
herself, she used to take care of the garden, the allotment and now
she doesn't do it. On examination she was reported to be tearful,
with no signs of an underlying psychotic illness but anxious and
slightly on edge. Her GP referred her to psychological therapies
support service I talk on the 16 November 2022. See pages 163 to
165 remedies bundle.

q. We accept the claimant’s evidence that as a result of her treatment
and the treatment of her husband by BDBC that her and her family
have suffered emotional trauma and reputational harm as well as
suffering financial hardship.

I mean there's not much there to suggest definitively that it's all down to racism, and a lot of that stuff is workaday things that many a driver will have to put up with, but can't put in a claim because there's no evidence it's based on race

To be fair, there's no doubt tons more evidence in the other decision documents, which are listed here in the link below. It would be quite interesting to read some of this with regard to licensing stuff like the inspections and interviews by LOs, and how it all came to be attributable to racism

But there are literally hundreds of pages here, and while it would be instructive to have a good look at it all, it looks potentially a very deep rabbit hole:

(The extract from the document pasted above is the 'remedy' decision, which is the last one in the list.)

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... 02853-2018

Most of the documents are actually quite short - preliminaries, reconsiderations, blah, blah.

But it's the second last one - the amended judgment - that's presumably the one with the most detail, and is over 200 pages

But, for example, a quick search for the word 'mobbing' reveals quite a good few paragraphs of narrative, including the likes of this:



So there's obviously lots of stuff about rank rammies, and inspection and enforcement stuff, etc etc

Therefore probably an interesting read, if anyone has the time and fortitude

(I've starred out the words above because the forum software won't display them anyway, but in the document itself they're not censored...)

And, Edders, if you think every authority doesn't take driver-on-driver complaints seriously, then worth reading some of the stuff in the main document.

And I'd guess the council is at least partly being held responsible for it all because they're investigating vexatious complaints, basically, but they're not investigating prima facie evidence of racism and harassment etc

Stuart I have always stated that it was MY local authority that had the policy of not accepting driver on driver complaints but I'm sure others do

furthermore I would venture to say that this pair probably did annoy and upset the other non African drivers but the LO's did not demonstrate sufficiently pro black approach to dealing with it

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Our LO’s do investigate driver on driver complaints but without strong evidence they usually “remind drivers of their responsibilities as licensed drivers”

Incidentally, I find most Nigerians to be the rudest and most obnoxious passengers, always trying to barter the price down and they have never heard of please and thank you. Apparently, it’s a culture thing!

Fair point about you saying you were only referring to your particular authority, Edders.

Anyway, I doubt if there's much in the way of a smoking gun, at least as far as the conduct of the local authority is concerned.

Had a quick look at some of the stuff, and basically the judgment seems to say that because licensing staff were saying that he was a 'difficult' individual to deal with, then that meant he was victimised because of his race, but without concrete and compelling evidence as far as I could see

On the other hand, and for example, he was complaining that the HCD knowledge test discriminated against black applicants, sort of thing, therefore...

I don't doubt there was an element of racial slurs and the like against the pair, but not from council staff, so how precisely the council is held to be responsible for it all in terms of damages is presumably only obvious from reading the whole thing.

But, of course, it's not a criminal case, so it's balance of probabilities stuff. So, in simple terms, it's all a bit 'he said/she said', and up to the tribunal which side to believe

A piece from a specialist publication called People Management, which is presumably what used to be called personnel management, or maybe human resources nowadays

Anyway, quite a lot of detail from the case as compared to the other articles above, so maybe worth a read if a lack of time to trawl through the 200+ plus pages in the judgment.

(Or maybe it can be put through ChatGPT, or one of those things, which will produce a summary of it all, but that's one particular rabbit hole I think best avoided )

But, I mean, where to start with some of this? A shedload of different issues involved, including stuff like enforcement and compliance procedures, data protection issues, cross-border enforcement, criminal prosecutions, etc etc.

And the problem with this kind of piece is that, even thought it's quite detailed, and no doubt a fair summary of the case, it simply brushes over a lot of the detail. For example, it says LOs can't *stop* cross-border cars, but in terms of the whole debate around this, I don't think they stopped it in the sense of pulling it over, but then again were the Reading LOs entitled to ask to see his badge? I mean, can't Reading Council prosecute plying for hire or guide dog cases on cross-border cars, for example?

Then there's the implication that the council can do things that are really the domain of police, but to that extent the council is discriminating against the couple because they're black

Or the implication that they could stop the driver convicted of assault from working the same rank the assault happened on (on the other hand, surely reasonable to question why he was still badged after the conviction).

Or the passport checking stuff - reading this, you might just about be able to say that because overseas heritage drivers are subject to more detailed scrutiny than drivers like me, then that's racial discrimination


Taxi drivers awarded £278k in race discrimination claim

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/arti ... tion-claim

Tribunal finds employer formed opinions of the couple based on racial prejudice and ignored the racism they were subjected to

Two Black taxi drivers have been awarded £278,458 after a tribunal ruled they faced years of racial harassment and discrimination.

Adeshine Olumade and his partner Olufunke Akinleye are both British nationals of Nigerian descent and worked as self-employed taxi drivers for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC).

The Southampton tribunal found officers at BDBC formed opinions of both drivers based on racial prejudice and ignored the racism they were subjected to by their colleagues, causing a “significant” and ongoing negative impact on both drivers.

The panel found the employer viewed Olumade as a “problem” because he complained of racism and it treated Akinleye similarly because of her association with him.

Olumade was awarded £155,529 in compensation and Akinleye won £122,929 after she was also subjected to discrimination, including “vitriolic and oppressive” questioning causing “hurt, trauma and emotional distress”.

Background

In November 2006 Olumade was issued with a private hire drivers’ licence from the BDBC, using a Nigerian passport with indefinite leave to remain in the UK. In September 2009 he reapplied for the licence, this time with a UK passport.

On 29 October 2009 licensing officer Sheila Stevens wrote to immigration at Portsmouth Home Office to check if they had any concerns about his application. She claimed it was because he had missed a section on a form about countries he had lived in, but failed to explain why she had not instead asked Olumade to fill out the form properly.

The tribunal found he was treated differently to other applicants, as no other passports were sent to the Home Office. They found the fact he was a Black African man influenced the actions, determining it to be an act of direct discrimination as the referral was made because Stevens was “suspicious of him because of his race, colour and nationality”.

Linda Cannon, the licensing manager, said Olumade and Akinleye regularly accused the council of racism, with Olumade claiming they “did not give licences to Black taxi drivers”. She claimed Olumade was sometimes aggressive when trying to put his point across.

The tribunal found that attitudes towards him were prejudiced because of his race and nationality and the fact he raised issues of racism.

On 11 February 2016 Olumade and Akinleye went to church in Reading and, while parked, a licensing officer at Reading Borough Council asked to see Olumade’s licence. When Olumade asked why, the man took a picture of him and murmured ‘black’.

Two other men began filming his car, and Olumade asked what they were doing, before driving off. The licensing officer raised a concern that Olumade refused to identify himself and may have been an unlicensed user of a licensed vehicle.

No one contacted Olumade about the issue, despite the fact BDBC only had three Black cab drivers. Akinleye was not contacted for a statement.

The tribunal noted that licensing officers have no right to stop a vehicle, and there was no reasonable explanation for Olumade being stopped.

On 15 February Olumade was informed he was being investigated about three complaints. One was an incident of dangerous driving, the other was the incident with Reading council and the final complaint was the refusal of a fare from a customer who had a bike.

Stevens said in an email the meeting with Olumade would be “challenging”, which the tribunal found indicative of her negative attitude towards Olumade and prejudiced views.

During a meeting on 17 February, Olumade claimed the incident at Reading was racial harassment. Nothing was done about this complaint. He said the other complaints were third-party complaints and also racially motivated. The tribunal found Olumade did nothing wrong by refusing to take the customer with a bike.

The tribunal found Cannon made a conscious decision not to interview Akinleye, who was a witness at the Reading incident, ignoring evidence that might favour Olumade. As they interviewed two other white men present, the tribunal ruled Akinleye was discriminated against on the basis of sex and race.

The tribunal found there was a reluctance on the part of Cannon to accept that Olumade had done nothing wrong, and they found she was motivated by prejudice and a stereotypical view of Olumade.

On 19 February Olumade was assaulted by a white taxi driver, Paul Bulpitt, who threw hot liquid in his face. Olumade said Bulpitt told him he had “played the race card” to the council. He said Olumade and his wife were immigrants and should “go back to where they came from”.

Olumade was temporarily blinded and had to go to hospital. Bulpitt and another driver, Stuart Hart, pushed him and said if the council did not remove him from the rank they would do a “better job”.

Olumade emailed the licensing team saying something should be urgently done as “going to work has become highly intimidating” after the “horrendous vicious attack”. He stated that he was worried about going to work, and had the right to work without “fear of persecution, racial harassment, violent injury or death”.

The tribunal found there was no response from BDBC to Olumade’s reports, and there was no investigation into Bulpitt’s behaviour.

Bulpitt was later convicted of assault and given a restraining order against Olumade. However, he continued to work at the same taxi rank.

Olumade also raised the same complaints with the local authority, but there was no response. Following Olumade’s complaint to the council, multiple complaints were made against him by white taxi drivers.

On 30 June Andrew Wake, who has been a licensing officer for the council since 2016, wrote to Olumade saying it was investigating issues between drivers at the rank, hoping that drivers would resolve the issues and “focus on the job”.

The tribunal found this was unfair as it assumed there was fault on both sides, when Olumade had been attacked and the complaints against him were unsubstantiated. The tribunal found that Wake treated complaints from white taxi drivers more favourably compared to complaints from Olumade.

Akinleye complained that both her and her husband had unsubstantiated complaints put on their files, which could be used against them to criticise them in the future. The tribunal found in the absence of any other explanation this could be based on race, finding it was discrimination.

In September Olumade received an anonymous threatening letter at home, telling him he was not fit for the job and should just go before he made it worse for himself. He felt his life was being threatened and had concerns about his young children. The council took no action and told Olumade to direct his concerns to the police.

Olumade also made a number of other complaints of harassment and abuse at the taxi rank, but the tribunal found there was a “greater willingness and enthusiasm” to investigate complaints made against him than these concerns.

They found this was discrimination as it was motivated by the management team at BDBC disliking him because of his race. In total, Olumade made more than 80 allegations of race harassment and discrimination.

Akinleye made complaints she was referred to as “Olumade’s wife” rather than by her name, claiming she was treated differently because she was Black and a woman. In total, Akinleye put forward 43 allegations of race and sex discrimination.

Panel’s comments

Employment judge Rayner found officers at BDBC formed opinions of Olumade and Akinleye based on racial prejudice at an early stage and later ignored and denied the racist attitudes of white taxi drivers towards them.

The panel ruled both of them were subjected to “long-term and continuous” discrimination, which led to a significant injury to feeling.

They found Olumade suffered “severe stress” when the “baseless allegations” were made against him, and was left feeling “humiliated and unsafe” at work.

Akinleye found the questioning of her husband to be “vitriolic and oppressive” and caused her “hurt, trauma and emotional distress”, the panel ruled. She was left with “incapacitating” anxiety meaning she was unable to work, and she felt “betrayed and despised” by her employer, the panel found.

Lawyers’ comments

According to Katie Garcia, associate in the employment team at Birketts, the tribunal applied the highest compensation band because the racist incidents were not isolated but were “sustained” over many years.

“This case focuses on the necessity of proactive compliance and accountability in preventing discrimination claims,” she said, explaining that organisations should ensure diversity policies were not just in place but actively enforced.

She added that complaints of discrimination must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, noting that managers and senior officers should be held accountable for discrimination or failure to act.

Claire Brook, employment law partner at Aaron & Partners, said the case was a reminder that organisations “must apply their procedures consistently and without bias and ensure their systems are fair, transparent and responsive”.

She said employers must invest in regular, practical training so staff understood their duties under the Equality Act.

“Ensuring that employees can recognise, investigate and respond to racist behaviour or any other form of discriminatory conduct is essential. Training programmes on unconscious bias can safeguard against discriminatory practices and protect workers, organisations and those using their services,” added Brook.

As regards the statements from the lawyers at the end, I would say that that all sounds a bit like the employment law equivalent of ambulance chasing.

But I'd better not say that, because they're powerful and well-resourced lawyers

Maybe the Captain can assist.

_________________
IDFIMH