Guildhall victimised lecturer

London Guildhall University subjected one of its senior law lecturers to unlawful victimisation on four occasions over three years, an industrial tribunal has found.

Amir Majid first brought a claim of discrimination against the university in 1991 when he alleged that he was denied appointment to principal lecturer on the grounds of racial prejudice. He was supported on that occasion and in the recent tribunal by the Commission for Racial Equality.

In the 1991 settlement the university recognised that Dr Majid was a good candidate and undertook to create a job with a description advantageous to him. But this did not happen. The tribunal found that when a post was created and interviews held in October 1991 the university "established selection criteria which they knew the applicant could not meet and which they knew would give him a very slim chance of appointment".

The tribunal also found that when Dr Majid sought supervision experience, experience that the university said he needed for promotion, he was denied the chance. A memo by Bryony Conway, dean of the faculty of business, which the university only disclosed when obliged to by the court, effectively scotched Dr Majid's application.

The tribunal found: "Such conduct on the part of Dr Conway indicated a motive to damage the applicant's prospects."

When Dr Majid applied for a post in 1992 he was again victimised. The tribunal found: "Dr Conway formed a view adverse to Dr Majid. It was based on inadequate evidence and insufficient discussion or enquiry of him."

Dr Majid made another application in November 1993. This time he was placed last on a list of people entitled to performance-related pay. "The justifications for placing him last on the list are totally lacking in credibility," the tribunal found.

Dr Majid said: "The only way the LGU can put matters right is to promote me to principal lectureship. Additionally I am entitled to compensation for loss of salary and for the anguish and hurt inflicted upon me in the past five years."

The university declined to comment in detail, but said that it was considering an appeal.