PRIVATE &

CONFIDENTIAL

p
PENINSULA

Peninsula Face2Face Report

Sam Dickinson

Subject: Disciplinary Hearing

Employer Name: MASJID E TAUHEEDUL ISLAM

Log No: 117388

Employee Name: Suhail Manya

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2024

Date of Report: 20 November 2024

Peninsula, Victoria Place, Manchester M4 4FB

 PRIVATE &
CONFIDENTIAL

p
PENINSULA

Peninsula Face2Face Report

Sam Dickinson

Subject: Disciplinary Hearing

Employer Name: MASJID E TAUHEEDUL ISLAM

Log No: 117388

Employee Name: Suhail Manya

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2024

Date of Report: 20 November 2024

Peninsula, Victoria Place, Manchester M4 4FB

CASE REPORT
BACKGROUND

1. MASJID E TAUHEEDUL ISLAM (the Employer) are a Mosque in Blackburn.

2. Sam Dickinson (SDI) was instructed, on behalf of Peninsula Face2Face, to hold and conduct
a Disciplinary Hearing on behalf of MASJID E TAUHEEDUL ISLAM for Employee, Suhail
Manya (SM).

3. SM is employed in the capacity of Imaam and began their employment on 01 March 2004.

4. SM was suspended from work and invited to an investigation into concerns that arose in
respect of their employment.

5. Following the conclusion of an investigation process, SM was formally invited to attend a

Disciplinary Hearing in writing dated 12 November 2024 to answer to the allegations as
detailed in this report.

MEETING

6. The Disciplinary Hearing was scheduled on 18 November 2024 and SM failed to attend. SDI
contacted SM and provided the opportunity to conduct the hearing by written submissions.
SM did not respond and therefore, SDI proceeded in SM’s absence.

FINDINGS

7. The role of the Peninsula Face2Face Consultant is to provide an impartial service, and they
are not acting as a representative of the business. Whilst there is a commercial relationship
between the Employer and Peninsula Face2Face in the provision of a Human Resources
function, the Consultant is at all times acting impartially.

8. These findings are a summary of the evidence provided to SDI. SDI recommends that the
appendices to this report are read in conjunction with SDI’s summary findings below, as only
the material points have been discussed within this report. Full discussions have not been
repeated here.

9. The Consultant is instructed by the business, via Peninsula Face2Face to participate in a

hearing and to write a report when the hearing has been concluded. The Consultant does not
dictate what steps the business will take, nor are they the decision maker. The Employer will
decide if they agree with the findings made and whether to follow the recommendations or
not. The Consultant is in no way influenced by the Employer and is at liberty to make their
own findings and recommendations.

10. For clarity, it is not within the remit of the Face2Face Consultant to investigate whether the
evidence provided is genuine but to accept it in good faith, and where no evidence exists, to
determine an outcome based on the ‘Balance of Probabilities’ supported by reasonable
justification. It is also not within the Consultants remit, nor does the Consultant possess the
qualifications, to investigate an employee’s feelings, opinions, and/or make decisions on belief
without any substantial support.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 2 of 16
Company Confidential
 11. SDI considered the following documents as part of this Disciplinary procedure:

Appendix no. Document Dated

Invite Letter:
1. a. Invite Letter 07/11/24
b. Rescheduled Disciplinary Invite Letter 12/11/24
2. Trust Deed 30/11/88
3. Further Letter for Suhail 07/11/24
Evidence Bundle
a. Investigation Summary compiled by the Employer

b. Letter of suspension for Suhail, 16th May 2024

O- c. Trustee Committe Minutes 20240429

jfrl d. Incident 0 witness statements, 26th Mar 2024

& e. Witness Statement of ImtiazAJi

» f, First letter of apology from Sufyan, 29th Mar 2024

g. Imran Desai confirming resignation letter

■; h. Membership Review & Action, 27th Mar 2024

■j i. Membership Review & Action, 27th Mar 2024

■til j. Urgent - Concerned Members, 29th Mar 2024

»' k. Important notice Trustees & Exec, 28th Mar 2024

l. 4 Conditions signed (under duress). 33th Mar 2024

m. Suhail refused apology i.WhatsApp), 2nd May 2024 Various

4. B- n. Letter & apology letter published. 18th May 2024

■ i o. Letter & apology letter published, 18th May 2024

p. Letter & apolog)' letter published, 18th May 2024

• q. 15th May Intimidation

* r. Sharing suspension letter Part 1

* s» Sharing Suspension Letter Part 2

t Breach of suspension P1

♦ u. Evidence U_ Breach of Suspension P2

SF v. Evidence U- Breach of suspension, 19th May 2024

£1 w, Evidence V- Breach of suspension, 22nd May 2024

• x. Evidence Cd- Incident 0 witness statements, 26th Mar 2024

-J y. Investigation Report

■iI z. Disciplinary Procedure ACAS

5. Trade Union and Third-Party HR Correspondence Various

6. Investigation Communications Various
7. SDI Written Submissions 19/11/24
8. Job Description Various

12. SDI notes that SM’s Disciplinary Hearing invite letter dated 12 November 2024 states the
following:

“You are advised that if allegations 1, 2, 3, 5 and/or 6 are substantiated, whether in part of in
full, we may consider them to be gross misconduct under Disciplinary Rules and your
employment may be summarily terminated.

You are advised that if allegation 4 is substantiated, whether in part or in full, we may consider
them to be serious misconduct under Disciplinary Rules and you may be given a warning, or a
final written warning if deemed appropriate/’

13. Dispute over authority of Trustees to conduct disciplinary process.

14. SDI considers appendix 6, an email exchange between SM’s Trade Union Representative and
a Third- Party HR provider, Cube HR, appointed by the Executive Committee.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 3 of 16
Company Confidential
 15. SDI notes that in appendix 6, the following claims were made:

a. Claire Wilkinson (CW), from Cube HR, was asked to investigate the matter and was
appointed by the Executive Committee. SDI notes that this was after the investigation
process had concluded and SM was invited to a disciplinary.

b. CW raised concerns regarding SM not receiving the evidence bundle. The

subsequent initial date for the investigation was postponed and rescheduled for the
18th of November 2024, therefore, SDI is satisfied that SM has now been given
appropriate time to consider the evidence.

c. CW disputes that the Board of Trustees has authority to conduct an investigation or

initiate a disciplinary process. SDI considers the following:

i. Government guidance regarding charities, states the following:

“Your trustee board is responsible for the governance of your charity and
must run it in a way that complies with your charity's governing document and
the law.”

“Trustees have independent control over, and legal responsibility for, a

charity's management and administration.”

ii. SDI considers Government guidance regarding the role of Trustee’s and
Employees, which states:

7.7 Staff and volunteers

As part of your overall responsibility for the charity, you and your co-trustees have
responsibilities towards any volunteers or staff.

You must ensure that:

• the charity complies with relevant law including employment, pension, equality and
health and safety law
• volunteers are clearly distinct from employees in terms of responsibilities and rights;
for example by not requiring volunteers to work set hours, nor paying them more than
expenses they actually incur

You should ensure that:

• people are clear about what they are supposed to do. through appropriate job
descriptions for staff or role descriptions for volunteers
• people are aware of the rules and boundaries within which they must work, for
example, when representing or speaking on behalf of the charity
• people work safely
• people know what to do if there's a problem
• people know what they need to report and who they report to
• senior managers are not disqualified (see below)

iii. SDI therefore considers that the Board of Trustees do have the authority to
conduct such a process.

d. Ian McCluskey (IM), SM’s Trade Union Representative, states that SM received a
‘Reinstatement and Apology’ from the elected Executive Committee. However, SDI
notes that SM did not resign and was not dismissed at the time of allegedly receiving
such a letter. SDI also notes that they have not had sight of such a letter.

e. IM states that it is clear in the constitution of the mosque who has the authority. SDI
notes:

i. The Trust Deeds, appendix 2, whilst initiated in 1988 and have not been
updated since, state the following:

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 4 of 16
Company Confidential
 stall l e Open tn <»1 • pci ten* P fifing
ol a
on and che «i£« a™1 childim
eluded In his membership,
nt for Sieehership shall i’** ,’C to the
defined
Executive Committee here: nsl i.er
such details, as the Commits duil
name aedress occupation and personal
»

6 ’ Every member shall pay a subscription

rate of n per month or < such orher
C u : er•Stiers
S;.,J< rl.--.de- Tl- = "-
l-itr become due os» admission i
theieafLet at the Annual General Me
The Commitcee shall have pj<we to r
in «nv particular*'case.
t its discretion
The Conrdttec shall have powc t
i-
LC elect honorary members of the Asrcciat

ii. SDI considers that the terms Membership, as used above, and that of an
Employee are different. Membership is subject to the terms Trust Deeds.

iii. SDI can confirm that SM is an employee and receives their salary by PAYE.
Whilst SDI has not been presented with SM’s Contract of Employment, SDI
is satisfied that SM is an employee with service since March 2004.

iv. The Trust Deeds define the role of the Executive Committee as:
13. The Co8unicc.ee shall conduce the general business
of the Association and in particular shall be responsible
for : ~
[a] The maintenants repair heating lighting
c* mon general upkeep nr trie buildings
and pife^lses owned by the Association.
|b] The collection of subscriptions the
authorization of expenditure the banking of
the Association funds the payment of bills and
the supervision of the accounts of the Association.

The use of the premises of the Association

le]
the provision of religions worship and Instruction
and the supervision of teachers and classes.

v. SDI notes that no reference is made to the managing of employees.

vi. SDI notes that the document discusses the expulsion of members, and not
employees.

f. SDI notes that IM has no authority to decide if Peninsula has a place within the
process or whether the process has concluded.

g. IM further states, “we have no interest in any evidence which they wish to produce”.
SDI notes the following:

i. Official Unite Union documentation states the following to members:

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 5 of 16
Company Confidential
 “A disciplinary hearing is when your employer will consider all the evidence
collated in support of the allegation against you, and it is your opportunity to
respond to or counter the allegation. ° - Click Here

Therefore, SDI considers, that by taking the approach IM has suggested

would not allow SM to have sight of relevant evidence and therefore would
place SM at detriment. SDI also notes that it is in direct contradiction to the
comments of CW.

ii. SDI consider the ACAS Code of Practice, point 17, which states:

“The companion should be allowed to address the hearing to put and sum up
the worker's case, respond on behalf of the worker to any views expressed
at the meeting and confer with the worker during the hearing. The companion
does not, however, have the right to answer questions on the worker’s behalf,
address the hearing if the worker does not wish it or prevent the employer
from explaining their case.” - CODE OF PRACTICE ON DISCIPLINARY AND
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

16. SDI considers the following case law to determine that an Iman is considered an employee,
and therefore, subject to processes of which an employee may face:

a. Hasan v Redcoat Community Centre

b. President of the Methodist Conference v Preston

c. Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National
Insurance [1968]

d. Ur-Rehman v Doncaster Jahia Mosque

e. Singh v Management Committee of the Bristol Sikh Temple & Ors.

17. SDI notes that the above referenced case law are all examples of religious settings where
roles such as the Imam are considered that of an employee and therefore, whilst considering
the legal responsibilities of the Trustees that is appropriate such a process is followed.

18. SDI further notes that no other disciplinary process has previously been required for an
employee, and therefore, a precedent has not been set.

19. The Charity Commission recently has held meetings with the Charity after raising concerns
about the charity. The Charity Commission has provided regulatory advice to the charity and
determined an action plan which takes place. The Charity Commission have stated the
following:

“Trustees are legally responsible for administering and managing the affairs of their charity.
They must ensure that it is solvent and well run. This applies to each of the Trustees as
individuals. They cannot avoid or hand over this responsibility. If you are a trustee it is
therefore important that you take an active role in the Charity and ensure you perform your
duties well.”

20. SDI therefore considers that the Trustees have the authority to conduct such a process and
will therefore proceed with the disciplinary. SDI further notes that the trustees have not
authorised the role of Cube HR within the process and considers that they should not have no
further involvement in the case, unless otherwise instructed to do so.

21. SDI will now consider the allegations.

22. It is alleged that you have taken part in activities that have caused the Organisation to
lose faith in your integrity as an Imam, namely in regards of a misuse of confidential
information. Further particulars being:

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 6 of 16
Company Confidential
 a) It is alleged that Hafezi Desai (President/Chair of the Executive Committee) resigned
via letter dated 26th January 2024 and provided this to you via his nephew Mushtaq
Desai, to be submitted to the Executive Committee, however this was withheld from
the Executive Committee by yourself without proper authorization.

b) It is alleged that the Executive Committee received the letter on 28th April 2024,
approximately three months after the resignation.

c) It is alleged that your act of withholding confidential information caused confusion

and disorganization within the Executive Committee,

If the allegations above are substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard them as a
gross breach of trust and confidence in you and may be considered as gross
misconduct.

23. SDI considers appendix 4a:

a. In which the organisation conducted an internal investigation and outlines what the
initial concerns were.

b. Provides supporting evidence to confirm the chain of events.

24. The supporting evidence was as such:

a. Meeting Minutes in appendix 4c, conducted on 29 April 2024, confirm Hafezi Desai
(HD) resigned from their position within the organisation on 26 January 2024. SDI
notes both Trustees and Executive Committee members were present at this meeting.

b. Appendix 4e is a statement from Imtiaz Ali (IA) stating that they did not receive the
resignation until April 2024 from SM. SDI notes that no one statement can outweigh
the other, however, SDI must take the statement at face value and notes that SM has
not responded to the written submissions presented by SDI to gain further
clarification.

c. lA’s version of events is further clarified in appendix 4g by Sanaullah Ahmed (SA).

25. SDI contacted SM with questions, as evidenced in appendix 9, but received no response.

26. SDI notes in the absence of an Employee Handbook SDI will consider ACAS guidelines, in
which ACAS state the following regarding Gross Misconduct:

“Some acts count as 'gross misconduct’ because they are very serious or have very serious
effects.

If an employer finds there has been gross misconduct, they must still carry out an investigation
and a fair disciplinary procedure. They might then decide on dismissal without notice or
payment in lieu of notice.

Examples of gross misconduct at work could include:

• fraud

• physical violence

• 'gross negligence'- this means a serious lack of care to their duties or other
people

• serious insubordination- for example, refusing to follow policies or take

reasonable orders from a supervisor

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 7 of 16
Company Confidential
 What is seen as gross misconduct can depend on the organisation. Your organisation might
have its own policy or rules with examples.”

27. SDI does not consider the actions of SM to be that of Gross Misconduct, although does
note the potential impact upon the business, and therefore downgrades the
misconduct to Serious Misconduct.

28. SDI upholds the allegation as Serious Misconduct for the following reasons:

a. The actions of SM would not, in SDI’s consideration, meet the threshold for
‘gross negligence’, but does consider the actions of SM to be negligent.

b. Two statements, and meeting minutes with 18 Trustees I Executive Committee

members confirming the actions of SM.

c. The detriment that the organisation was placed at due to the actions of SM in
not submitting the resignation within an appropriate time frame.

29. It is alleged that you have taken part in activities that have caused the Organisation to
lose faith in your integrity as an Imam, namely as you have displayed intimidating
behaviour and incited violence against members of the congregation. Further
particulars being:

a) it is alleged that following an incident between yourself, Sufyan Desai and Shafiq
Desai, you approached them aggressively and shouted comments. Examples
being, but are not limited to:

(i) It is alleged that you made a comment along the lines of, “Now say it. I’m no
longer fasting”, then further “Go on, say it again”.

(ii) It is alleged that you made a comment along the lines of, “You want to fight
me, why don’t you fight me now”.

(iii) It is alleged that you made a comment along the lines of, “He and his
brother have troubled me for 20 years”, then further “His dad has troubled
me for 20 years”.

(iv) It is alleged that you made a comment along the lines of, “The Committee
have underpaid me since 2009”, then further, “Look how they treat me”.

(v) It is alleged that you made a comment along the lines of, “These shavtaans
(Devils) have been harassing me since 2009”.

b) It is alleged that your behavior caused a large crowd to gather which proceeded to
surround Shafig Desai, who pushed and shoved him, until he got in his car and left.

c) it is alleged that you have breached the sanctity of the mosgue which is of the utmost
importance in your role as an Imam.

If the allegations above are substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard them as a
gross breach of trust and confidence in you and may be considered as gross
misconduct.

30. SDI considers appendix 4y, which is MAF investigation report and notes:

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 8 of 16
Company Confidential
 23. On 26th March 2024, after the Asr prayer, an altercation occurred between SM, Sufyan, and
Shafiq Desai, two members of the mosque.

24. SM’s car was blocked in the parking lot, and when Sufyan admitted to blocking the car, a
verbal exchange escalated.

25. Shafiq later insulted SM outside the mosque, leading SM to confront him aggressively after
the Maghrib prayer. SM shouted accusations and challenged Shafiq publicly, causing a large
commotion.

26. This public altercation, involving yelling, accusations, and the gathering of a crowd, is seen
as an action that incited disunity and disorder among mosque members.

27. SM's behaviour in confronting Shafiq and shouting in a public space, while being restrained
by others, contributed to an atmosphere of division within the mosque community.

28. As an Imam, SM holds a leadership position where he is expected to maintain peace and
unity within the mosque. His actions, however, led to a disruption in the mosque and
contributed to divisions among members.

31. SDI considers the initial investigation by the employer, as evidenced in appendix 4a, which
states:

a. An incident involving SM’s car being blocked by a member of the congregation.

b. An exchange occurred in which SM allegedly called the member of the congregation,

Sufyan Patel (SP), a "fucking prick”. Both parties allegedly separated, and SM
allegedly made the comments within the allegations later the same day.

c. 20-30 people witnessed the incident.

d. A member of the congregation was getting pushed and shoved.

e. SDI notes that CCTV was not obtained of the event and was “recorded over.

32. Appendix 4f is an apology from SF for the incident which occurred and is dated 29 March
2024. However, the email from SF does not place the blame in their actions, but rather is
apologising for the incident having occurred. Both parties have signed the apology in appendix
4o.

33. SDI considers appendix 4a, in which the incident involving SM is documented within the
meeting minutes. The meeting was held on 29 April 2024.

34. SDI considers SM’s job description states:

a. Be able to interact with the community and understand challenges faced by them.

b. Have an awareness of mentoring, conflict resolution and community development.

c. Have the ability to deal with issues sensitively and diplomatically, consistent with
Islamic teachings and the laws of the country

d. To provide a unifying force for the community at times of conflict, stress and crises.

e. Interact with all persons and organizations, Muslim and non-Muslim, in a manner that
reflects positively on the Masjid.

f. Conduct himself at all times in ways that foster unity and a sense of inclusion among
all members of the local Muslim community and promote broad participation in
community activities

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 9 of 16
Company Confidential
 g. Will ensure that all communication administered by the Imam are conducive to good
community and peer relations, treated with the appropriate level of sensitivity (and
confidentiality), consistent with the Islamic teachings and the laws of the country and
reflective of the priorities and mission statement of the Masjid.

35. In the absence of an Employee Handbook, SDI considers ACAS, which states that violence
would be deemed as that of gross misconduct.

36. SDI also considers that SM's role as Imam is one of religious importance, and therefore has
taken consideration of the Qur’an, which states:

“Keep mosques clean and presentable and show excellent behavior because it is the house
of Allah. Allah says in Holy Quran 9:18 “He alone can keep the mosques of Allah in a good
and flourishing condition who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and observe prayer, and
pays the Zakat, and fears none but Allah; so there it is who may be among those who reach
the goal”.

“And remember the time when We made the House a resort for mankind and a place of
security; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of Prayer. And We commanded
Abraham and Ishmael, saying, ‘Purify My House for those who perform the circuit and those
who remain therein for devotion and those who bow down and fall prostrate in Prayer.’”
(2:126)”

37. SDI considers that in order for SM to maintain their role as Imam, they would have to
demonstrate the above quotation from the Qur’an.

38. SDI further considers the ACAS definition of Gross Misconduct, which has previously
been discussed within this report and finds that the actions of SM would amount to
Gross Misconduct for the following reasons:

a. SM is in a senior position within the organisation and has not demonstrated the
behaviours of someone in that position.

b. SM has acted in a manner which is aggressive and has caused violence within
the workplace.

c. SM has breached several aspects of their job description, as outlined above.

d. SDI considers that such acts would breach the trust and confidence of the
organisation due to not following the protocols required within the Qur’an, and
as such would cause substantial reputational damage to the organisation

e. SDI further considers the reputational damage caused by SM and their acts in
such a public setting.

39. It is alleged that you have taken part in activities that have caused the Organisation to
lose faith in your integrity as an Imam, namely as you have displayed intimidating
behaviour by threatening to gather a large crowd against a member of the Executive
Committee. Further particulars being:

a) It is alleged that you called Faruk Bharucha demanding that he come meet yourself
alone in your office at Hope and Help. Upon his refusal you threatened that “If you
don’t attend this meeting now, I will bring 200 people outside your house later
tonight”

If the allegation above is substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard them as a

gross breach of trust and confidence in you and may be considered as gross
misconduct.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 10 of 16
Company Confidential
 40. SDI notes that there is no evidence to support the above allegation, however, notes that the
allegation demonstrates similar behaviour to other accusations, of which are evidenced
through witness statements and CCTV.

41. SDI considers that there is no recording of the phone call.

42. SM has not responded to SDI’s questions.

43. SDI considers appendix 4h and 4i which address concerns regarding SM’s behaviour within
the workplace.

44. SDI has been provided with no evidence to substantiate the above allegation, however,
given the demonstrated behaviours of SM and evidence of such, SDI considers that on
the balance of probabilities SM did indeed conduct the actions within the allegations.
However, due to SDI determining on reasonable belief, SDI has downgraded the
misconduct to Serious Misconduct as it would not mee the threshold of Gross
Misconduct without evidence.

45. It is alleged that you have exhibited rude and objectionable behaviour after Sufyan
Desai and Shafiq Desai issued you a written apology on 29th March 2024. Further
particulars being:

a) It is alleged that despite receiving a written apology, you repeatedly refused to

accept it and claimed to have never received it, causing distress and disunity
amongst the members of the mosque.

If the allegations above is substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard it as serious

misconduct.

46. SDI notes that the following evidence provides evidence that an apology was sent by SF and
SD:

a. Appendix 4f

b. Appendix 4m

c. Appendix 4n

d. Appendix 4o

e. Appendix 4p

47. SDI has been provided with no evidence to support that SM either accepted or rejected
the apology and therefore does not uphold this allegation as it remains
unsubstantiated.

48. It is alleged that you have taken part in activities that have caused the Organisation to
lose faith in your integrity as an Imam, namely you have displayed behaviour which has
caused a disturbance inside the mosque on 15th May 2024. Further particulars being:

a) It is alleged that after leading the prayer you caused a commotion by demanding to
speak to the trustees. Your tone and behavior resulted in gathering of a large crowd
which put safety of the attendees and members of the mosque at risk, consequently
the police had to be called to diffuse the situation.

If the allegation above is substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard it as a gross

breach of trust and confidence in you and may be considered as gross misconduct.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 11 of 16
Company Confidential
 49. SDI considers appendix 4a, the internal investigation, which outlines when SM received their
letter of suspension and allegedly informed those present that they had been suspended and
this then caused “circa 20 people began to shout and scream at the Trustees and in cases
not allowing them to leave the Mosque."

50. The actions alleged in the allegation can be evidenced in appendix 4q.

51. SDI considers SM’s roles and responsibilities:

4) General - Have no interference in the running of the Masjid or

interference in any of the General Committee's decision-making
processes. If any decisions are made by the General Committee are
contrary to Shariah, the Imam has every right to highlight the issue to the
committee members in an Islamic manner and together the matter shall
be clarified in consultation with other scholars.

52. SDI notes that such behaviour would not be the expected behaviours of an employee in such
seniority within the organisation.

53. SDI upholds the allegation as Gross Misconduct, for the following reasons:

a. SM has not demonstrated the behaviours expected of such a senior employee.

b. ACAS guidelines would determine SM’s actions to be that of Gross Misconduct

c. SM is in contradiction with the roles and responsibilities of the job role.

d. SDI notes that SM’s behaviours of similar occasions have caused the same type
of disturbances.

54. It is alleged that you have taken part in activities that have caused the Organisation to
lose faith in your integrity as an Imam, namely it is alleged that you have breached
confidentiality of your suspension notice dated 16th May 2024. Further particulars
being:

a) It is alleged that upon sharing the letter of suspension with yourself which clearly
stated that you must not discuss with employees and members, you proceeded to
share it with several individuals.

b) It is alleged that your act of breaching confidentiality of vour suspension terms

caused disturbance within the mosque.

c) It is alleged that despite being served your suspension notice on 16th May 2024, you
proceeded to carry out duties such as the call to prayer on 21st May 2024.

If the allegations above are substantiated, in part or in full, we may regard them as a
gross breach of trust and confidence in you and may be considered as gross
misconduct.

55. SDI considers MAF’s investigation report, which states:

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 12 of 16
Company Confidential
 35. Despite the suspension, SM continued to attend the mosque and perform duties such as
leading prayers and making public announcements, which violated the terms of his
suspension.

36. He openly disregarded the mosque’s decision, which further escalated tensions between him
and the mosque leadership.

37. His refusal to comply with the suspension is viewed as a clear act of insubordination.

38. SM's defiance of the suspension undermined the authority of the mosque's trustees and
executive committee. His actions demonstrated a lack of respect for mosque leadership and
protocol.

39. SM allegedly breached confidentiality of his suspension by disclosing the letter to members
of the congregation causing further disturbance.

56. SDI considers appendix 4a, the internal investigation, which outlines when SM received their
letter of suspension and allegedly informed those present that they had been suspended and
this then caused “circa 20 people began to shout and scream at the Trustees and in cases
not allowing them to leave the Mosque."

57. Appendix 4r and 4s evidence crowds gathering inside and outside the Mosque when SM was
suspended from their employment.

58. Appendix 4x evidences SM being informed in writing to keep their suspension confidential.

59. SDI considers SM’s letter of suspension, appendix 4b, in which the requirement for
confidentiality is considered.

60. SDI considers appendix 4v which is letter from the organisation to SM alleging the breach of
suspension:

“It has come to our attention that despite the clear terms of your suspension, you attended
Asar and Maghrib prayers at the Masjid on the 19th of May 2024. This action constitutes a
breach of the conditions outlined in your suspension letter."

61 SDI confirms that appendix 4t and 4u evidence SM breaching their suspension by visiting the
premises.

62. However, this was later confirmed by the organisation that, due to the nature of the
organisation being that of a religious entity, the following would apply:

71s part of the disciplinary process there is a requirement that the person is not to attend the
workplace. Although, that would be the norm we understand that this should not relate to the
masjid as a workplace. IVe would like to clarify the point regarding the terms of your
suspension. While you are suspended from all duties at the Masjid and the Madrassa, this
does not extend to attending the Masjid for prayers."

63. SDI considers that conducting prayers would be a breach of suspension, but attending prayers
would not be due to the aforementioned evidence.

64. SDI upholds this allegation as gross misconduct for the following reasons:

a. CCTV evidence corroborate the events outlined within the allegation.

b. Informing the congregation of a suspension would be deemed a breach of

suspension.

c. SDI notes that there is no breach of suspension in attending prayers.

d. SDI considers that a breach of suspension could be considered as a breach of

trust and confidence.

65. SDI Considerations

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 13 of 16
Company Confidential
 66. SDI considers the case of Imam Abdul Sattar v Wembley Central Masjid in which it was
determined that the Imam was not unfairly dismissed after violence occurred within the
workplace due to a dispute and deemed the dismissal to be fair.

67. As part of the Disciplinary procedure, KT considered the following when considering
appropriate recommendations:

SM’s length of service that being 20 years.

No previous or live sanctions that SDI was made aware of.
SM’s position within the organisation as Imam which would require a high level of
trust and confidence.
SM has demonstrated behaviours against that of the Islamic Holy Book, and the
importance of demonstrating behaviours of the Qur’an within SM’s job role.
Supporting evidence to substantiate the concerns raised.
SM not participating within the process and the detrimental behaviour of SM’s Trade
Union Representative during the investigation process.

68. SDI upholds allegations 2, 5 and 6 as Gross Misconduct.

69. SDI downgrades allegations 1 and 3 from Gross Misconduct to Serious Misconduct.
However:

a. SDI notes that in the case of Mbubaegbu V Homerton University Hospital NHS
Foundation Trust UKEAT/02018/17/JOJ the judge held that an employer is
entitled to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct after a series of acts
which, when taken together, to be considered gross misconduct even if none
are sufficiently serious on their own. SDI finds that in isolation none of the
allegations constitutes gross misconduct, however collectively these do.
Furthermore, they breach the implied terms of trust and confidence.

b. SDI would like to place emphasis that both outcomes considered in conjunction
would be constitute that of gross misconduct as a pattern of behaviour is
established.

70. SDI does not uphold allegation 4.

71. SDI considers the following:

a. The breakdown in working relationship.

b. The breach of trust and confidence.

c. The reputational damage caused by SM.

RECOMMENDATIONS
72. Having given full and thorough consideration to the information presented SDI recommends
that SM is dismissed from their employment without notice.

73. Occurrences of gross misconduct are very rare because the penalty is dismissal without notice
and without any previous warning being issued. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list
of examples of gross misconduct. However, any behaviour or negligence resulting in a
fundamental breach of contractual terms that irrevocably destroys the trust and confidence
necessary to continue the employment relationship will constitute gross misconduct.

74. The organisation should consider training on Managing Behaviours and Harassment
Awareness.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 14 of 16
Company Confidential
 75. A Culture Review should be conducted by a consultant with specialist knowledge of the Islamic
faith. Culture Review is a business wide analysis of workplace culture and will explore
employee wellbeing, employee upskilling, management styles and practice and organisational
practice through an evidence based and independent overview which can avert the escalation
of situations within the workplace which often result in formal processes being initiated.

76. A copy of this report in its entirety should be made available to SM with the appropriate cover
letter and report appendices.

77. SDI is satisfied that the minutes produced are an accurate summary of the hearing and refers
to these whilst making their findings and recommendations.

78. It is a matter for the Employer to decide whether they wish to accept any or all of SDI
recommendations.

79. SM will have the right to appeal the decision that is made, and this should be done in line with
the existing Appeal policy.

Peninsula Face2Face
Page 15 of 16
Company Confidential