Shaima Dallali’s appeal against unfair dismissal by National Union of Students
JVL Introduction
Sacked President of the NUS, Shaima Dallali, has appealed the travesty of justice involved in her dismissal.
It occurred last November after intense pressure on the NUS by the government and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and reeked of political malice.
Her appeal is on five grounds
(a) Direct/indirect discrimination on grounds of her protected beliefs (section 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010)
(b)Direct race discrimination on grounds of her association with the Palestinian people (section 13)
(c) Direct/indirect discrimination on grounds of her religion (section 13 and 19)
(d)Direct religious discrimination on grounds of her association / perceived association with other Muslims (section 13)
(e) Harassment related to religion and/or belief and/or race
Her strongly-worded appeal to the Employment Tribunal is reposted here.
Shaima Dallali’s appeal against unfair dismissal by National Union of Students
Carter Ruck Press Release, 17 March 2023
Shaima Dallali – National Union of Students
Shaima Dallali, who was elected President of the NUS on 28 March 2022 and started in that full-time employed position on 1 July 2022, has commenced Employment Tribunal proceedings against the NUS. The proceedings follow Ms Dallali’s dismissal on 1 November 2022, which she contends formed part of a course of discriminatory conduct against her. Ms Dallali has also lodged an appeal to the NUS pursuant to its internal appeals procedure.
Ms Dallali has deeply held, publicly-articulated beliefs on the right of Palestinians to live free of occupation. As the NUS has belatedly had to accept, Ms Dallali’s pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist beliefs amount to protected beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. She has publicly articulated those beliefs throughout her adult life, just as she has consistently and repeatedly condemned antisemitism.
Following her election, Ms Dallali was the subject of numerous complaints as well as personal abuse and threats, to the effect that her past articulation of her anti-Zionist beliefs amounted to antisemitism. There were also complaints that related purely to her association with other Muslims and Muslim human rights organisations which sought – falsely – to attribute all of their reported views to her.
Upon receipt of these complaints, the NUS began the process that would lead to Ms Dallali’s dismissal. Ms Dallali considers that she was disadvantaged at every single stage of that process. By way merely of example, the lead complainant against her was consulted on who should investigate the complaints against her and what the terms of reference for the investigation should be. Ms Dallali was not. Every single complaint against her was investigated, however baseless or inherently discriminatory. The complaints were also publicised, such that these allegations, however distorted, will follow her for the rest of her life. During the disciplinary process, Ms Dallali was repeatedly required to defend or renounce the views expressed by other Muslims, despite never having expressed those views herself.
The NUS refused even to take into account Ms Dallali’s written submissions. At the disciplinary hearing, Ms Dallali was not permitted to have legal representation, but, remarkably, the NUS allowed the Leading Counsel who had undertaken the investigation into the complaints against her to play a dual role as investigator and presenting officer. During the disciplinary and appeal, the NUS repeatedly failed to take any steps to facilitate the calling of a number of witnesses whom Ms Dallali had identified as being able to give evidence which was important to her defence.
Finally, Ms Dallali first learned that she had been dismissed, not from the NUS (her employer) itself, but via an article posted on Twitter by a news website, which by that time had already managed to obtain comments on the dismissal from the lead complainant, all before Ms Dallali had even been told of the decision. This was one of three occasions where the NUS either leaked, or allowed to be leaked, highly sensitive and clearly confidential information concerning Ms Dallali into the public domain, seemingly without any proper regard for her welfare or for its own strict rules requiring such processes to be confidential.
Despite the absence of a fair disciplinary process, the NUS was still not able to uphold the vast majority of the complaints against Ms Dallali. She was ultimately dismissed for four tweets, as follows:
First, three tweets which had been directed at the lead complainant. Yet the NUS accepted that those tweets – all of which had been tweeted by Ms Dallali before she was even an elected representative of the NUS – were not antisemitic. Instead it found that they were “discourteous”, despite the fact that they simply (Ms Dallali maintains) reflected engagement in what is a mainstream controversial debate (particularly in the context of student politics).
Secondly, a tweet which had been published by Ms Dallali more than a decade earlier (when she was 18 years old). In the midst of the 2012 Israeli operation in Gaza, Ms Dallali tweeted an expression (in Arabic) that was often used in her community in relation to Palestine, which she did not appreciate at the time would be understood as antisemitic and did not intend it that way. When Ms Dallali ran for office 10 years later, she had no memory of the tweet, since which time she had tweeted many thousands of times. As soon as the decade- old tweet was drawn to her attention, Ms Dallali removed it and apologised publicly. She understands and wholly disavows its meaning. She has apologised fully and repeatedly since, much as both before and during her tenure as President of the NUS she has repeatedly made clear her opposition to all forms of racism, including antisemitism, while continuing to campaign to denounce the plight of the Palestinian people.
It is Ms Dallali’s position that these four tweets patently did not amount to a dismissible offence and that there can be no rational explanation for dismissing her on this (or any other) basis. She considers her dismissal (and the unfair process preceding it) to have been motivated by antipathy towards her protected anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian protected beliefs, the fact that she supported the Palestinians and her religion as a Muslim. Accordingly, Ms Dallali is seeking from the Employment Tribunal suitable declarations, compensation (including compensation for loss of earnings, stigma damages, personal injury, injury to feelings, and aggravated damages) on the following bases:
(a) Direct/indirect discrimination on grounds of her protected beliefs (section 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010)
(b)Direct race discrimination on grounds of her association with the Palestinian people (section 13)
(c) Direct/indirect discrimination on grounds of her religion (section 13 and 19)
(d)Direct religious discrimination on grounds of her association / perceived association with other Muslims (section 13)
(e) Harassment related to religion and/or belief and/or race
Shaima Dallali is being represented in this matter by Carter-Ruck (supported by Bindmans LLP) along with Karon Monaghan KC (Matrix Chambers) and Hannah Slarks (11KBW).
For further information, please contact lawyers@carter-ruck.com.
Employment tribunals quite often stop at the door before the hearing, is Shaima prepared for this, what would be acceptable for her to settle
I’m thinking we know if she wins they will keep coming for her, unless the complaints are declared vexatious and a clear finding that anti zionism is not anti semitism would set a precedent
Good Luck
So glad Shaima has the strength of character to proceed with this claim. ET is no walk in the park: I know, I have been there. It is so important that travesties like her story, are aired. Employees are less than likely to win(I think 30:70 in favour of employers), BUT her claims are so strong, that perhaps she will win. Even a settlement on the steps of the ET is a triumph against the establishment, and a letting of the festering hurt and and prejudice can be therapeutic. Good Luck Comrade, you are a phenomenally brave young woman.
I am appalled that the NUS was unable to find an appropriate resolution, sooner than this. It costs a fortune to even get this far, there is the jeopardy of costs,
“the NUS began the process that would lead to Ms Dallali’s dismissal.”
Who are “the NUS” in this case ?
I think you will find that it is not the Students who elected Ms Dallali but a group of unelected, middle aged professional bureaucrats.
I wish Shaima courage, inner peace and resilience whatever she decides to do.
We’d certainly owe Shaima a debt of gratitude for pursuing her Tribunal case to its conclusion (hopefully to a successful conclusion).
I’ve long thought the best way to prevent vexatious claims of antisemitism (construed to mean criticism of Zionism or of the behaviour of the Israeli government) is to ask the courts to rule on what antisemitism actually is.
This is relevant from 2010, where Zionists were humiliated and UCU won their case. Reading it brought me great joy
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/eemployment-trib-fraser-v-uni-college-union-judgment.pdf
I feel so ashamed when I read of such travesties of justice. It seems to be too easy to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism – which it isn’t. Yes, ashamed of those who are too weak to stand up to the pressure of the mainstream – or in this case of those claiming to speak for Jews – which they don’t.
Good luck to her
Shaima has been the victim of outrageous discrimination and a state led campaign of villification. I hope that she is able to achieve a measure of justice and not least her reinstatement in what is an elected post.
The cowardice of NUS’s bureaucrats is disgraceful
Firstly wishing you success in your appeal Shaima. As a student myself 40 years ago debate and disagreement was normal , but now it appears in universities it is easy to not only silence individuals but sack them as well.
Like another comment ,I ask myself , what has happened to the voice of those who elected you in the first place ?
Don’t wish to be picky but isn’t an appeal but a claim. Odds are a bit better than 30:70, closer to 50/50.
It will be a full Tribunal with lay members. Yes they are not easy even though less formal than a court
Solidarity. Very brave. lets hope you manage to win and defeat these nasty allegations from dangerous people.
Solidarity with Shaima who is clearly the victim of Islamophobia and also of the Zionist campaign of those who support Palestine
This is the typical way that the Israel lobby deals with anyone who is pro-Palestinian and (in this case more than a smack of Islamophobia) who is in any prominent position within the student field, academia or politics. This one is gaslighting and bullying a young Muslim woman, as they did a few years ago with another Muslim woman from Morocco who was the NUS president, and also MP Naz Shah, who was forced into a grovelling apology for tweeting a satirical cartoon by Norman Finklestein. The humiliating apology is another Zionist tactic used on many important figures as well. The ferreting in social media that goes back years for an ‘offensive’ tweet or even posting something controversial that is used in conversation, roots out anything that could be used, most often totally out of context, to damn or smear the person targeted. This has happened again and again, and often the key complainer is not from the institution involved, but one of the outside bodies like UK Lawyers for Israel or the CAA, or the Board of Deputies, or in this case the UJS, an affiliate of the ZF. Often it is MPs belonging to Friends of Israel. The accusations are often exaggerated or distorted to fit into the concept of ‘antisemitism’ and then taken up by the Jewish or right-wing media and sensationalised until it is picked up by ministers in the Tory government (or Starmer’s Labour) who then pile in to make sure the accused is either made to grovel with an apology (sometimes for making a correct statement), or removed from their position with the slurs intact, and the institution sanctioned and its funding removed. This is also the methodology used to get rid of Corbyn and other prominent people on the left (the list is very long), or put into a position of disgrace, (Stephen Sizer being banned by the Church) for exercising their freedom of speech or comment, being outspoken on Palestine, or meeting with people that the media of the Lobby do not like, which is then segued into accusations of antisemitism or the favourite, the conspiracy theory. All this is a threat to democracy, and silencing free speech.
As once a student I was proud to be a NUS member. Now I would be deeply ashamed and would tear up my membership card as I have my labour party card.
W
On simple grounds of a lack of due process in the hearing(s) conducted by the NUS, Ms Dallali should be cleared and her dismissal ruled as unfair. However, in the wake of the suspension and eventual expulsion of Labour Party members who poked their heads above the parapet to criticise the Israeli government and the Party’s brutal treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, I fear the worse. Consequently, her quest for justice might fall victim to the toxic political climate that has engulfed the issue of support for Palestinian rights
With that line up of legal representation, I would have thought Shaima stands a very good chance of winning. Very much hope she does.
Hey Doug, this looks like an inversion of the Fraser v UCU case where the tribunal ruled that Zionism is not a protected characteristic so the precedent has been set but that was for a defendant, UCU, not the complainant.
Employment tribunal rulings do not set precedents
Abe referred to the Naz Shah episode, and is of course correct that the cartoon was satirical. But I would add that the emotion at work behind posting it was complete and utter contempt for the Israeli state. And understandably so! Oh, right, and it was purely coincidental of course that her Facebook post came to light just nine/ten days before the local elections, the first elections Jeremy would be fighting as leader.
But the black propagandists – exactly as they did with Ken Livingstone a couple of days later – transformed what she said into something completely different, and actually went so far as to have their readers believe that Naz Shah actually wanted Israel – or the population of Israel – to be transported to the US, and that THEY – the journalists and columnists (so-called) and editors – believed she was serious, and did so for the obvious reason. As if!
In a timeline of events in the Guardian on April 27 2016, it actually starts with a falsehood:
Tuesday 26 April, 7:53am: Naz Shah’s Israel ‘transportation’ post emerges
Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel’s population to be “transported” out of the Middle East to America.
Needless to say, she was NOT arguing for the population of Israel to be transported to the US. And she didn’t use the word transported or transportation.
And guess who came up with the following totally twisted and repugnant and malevolent headline:
‘Labour MP Naz Shah backed plan to ‘relocate Israelis to America”
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-mp-naz-shah-backed-plan-to-relocate-israelis-to-america-1.64398
Yep, the Jewish Chronicle, who had absolutely no qualms about creating concern and consternation amongst the Jewish population in their quest to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and, as such, subvert democracy.