‘As blatant a case of political discrimination as it gets’

Saba Poursaeedi’s treatment illustrates how a suffocating ideological conformism has taken hold in our workplaces

Saba Poursaeedi

As a foot soldier (and one-time senior official) of the trade union movement, I have spent a large chunk of my life fighting for fairness and justice in the workplace. Like all trade unionists, I feel a deep sense of anger whenever I learn of instances where decent people – those whose only wish is to go to work and do a good job so as to provide for themselves and their family – are treated badly by their employer.

Once you get the bug as a trade union campaigner, it’s hard to shake off, and you find that your antennae immediately pick up the signals whenever an egregious example of workplace injustice is reported.

So when I heard about Saba Poursaeedi’s story, I knew that it was worthy of wider attention.

Saba, 36 years old and of Iranian stock, is a father of two from Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire. In October 2023, he started a new job on a fixed-term one-year contract as a recruitment assistant with Hightown, one of the country’s largest housing associations. By the following March, he had managed to secure a permanent position, having passed the interview for the separate, public-facing role of ‘resident involvement officer’. One manager wrote of his work to that point, ‘He has done himself and his team proud.’

After accepting the new position and signing on the dotted line, Saba voluntarily disclosed to Hightown that he had been selected as the Reform UK prospective parliamentary candidate for the nearby constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted and would fight the seat at the forthcoming general election. He provided an assurance to Hightown that his work duties and political activities would be kept entirely separate.

Saba had no reason to assume that his employer would object to his exercising his democratic right to stand in an election. But a short time later, he was called to a meeting with a company director and the head of human resources. At that meeting, he was told that his activities for Reform had created a ‘conflict of interest’, in that certain of the party’s policies did not align with the company’s ‘values’. The director cited in particular Reform’s position on immigration, net zero and building on green belt land. She said that Reform opposed all these things whereas the company supported them. As a consequence, it would no longer be permissible for Saba to work in his new permanent, public-facing position, and he would be required to revert to his old fixed-term role and depart the firm in October. Saba was told that he would be considered for future vacancies only if the role was ‘back office’.

Desperate to keep his job – his wife was, at the time, heavily pregnant with their second child – a stunned Saba offered to step back from his Reform activities. But that wasn’t good enough. According to the firm, the conflict of interest could not be mitigated. In the event, he was pushed out of the company in August, several weeks before the original fixed-term contract had been due to expire.

Saba is now taking Hightown to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of belief. In legal documentation, which I have seen, the company denied all the claims against it and defended its actions by asserting that, among other things, Reform was ‘in direct conflict’ with its ‘values’. As to Saba’s offer to withdraw from all Reform activities, the company stated, ‘[B]ecause the claimant already had a public profile which included photographs and descriptions of his beliefs, and had posted comments on X which were in conflict with [our] values, this would not be an option.’

Hightown cited various social media postings made by Saba as evidence of his supposed unworthiness for the role. Most of these postings criticised the policy of mass immigration in terms that no reasonable person, or anyone believing in freedom of expression, would conceivably regard as being outside the boundaries of legitimate debate. There was certainly nothing discriminatory about them. For example, in one he stated, ‘Any time someone asks me why I oppose immigration, I ask them if they know how many people are coming into the country each year. They usually go a bit quiet after that.’

More bizarrely, Hightown adduced as further evidence the fact that Saba had reposted a satirical sketch by the award-winning Daily Telegraph cartoonist Matthew ‘Matt’ Pritchett. The company alleged that the sketch was ‘racist’. It was nothing of the sort. It was merely a humorous dig at the prospect of a takeover of the newspaper by an Abu Dhabi fund.

Saba is determined to win justice through the tribunal system. But he needs financial support. He has launched a Crowdfunder which has one day left to run. I would urge readers to donate. For although we may not share his politics, Saba’s battle is our battle. The creeping restrictions on freedom of expression that we see taking hold throughout society generally are prevalent, too – perhaps especially so – in the workplace. They are a threat to all of us.

I continue to be active as a trade unionist, speaking regularly to ordinary workers. Many of them tell me that they have never known such an atmosphere of rigid ideological conformism – particularly so in the public and non-profit sectors, where hyper-progressivism is at its most militant. A suffocating group-think exists in many workplaces. The only diversity that is discouraged is diversity of thought and opinion. I am quite sure that, beyond the cases of injustice that reach the media, there are probably countless more that few ever know about, where the victim has quietly accepted their fate – perhaps because they are of limited financial means or don’t desire the publicity – and try to move on with their life.

Saba Poursaeedi was forced out of his job simply because he had the temerity to stand as a candidate for a political party that, at this moment, happens to be leading in the national opinion polls. If such a practice were allowed to become the norm, what might it mean for the future of democratic participation in our country?

As Saba told me when I contacted him, ‘When I was in that meeting, and they’d pulled the job away from me, I realised that this is why normal people don’t get involved in politics … I knew I had to fight this case because I had a chance to shed light on what we all know secretly in our workplaces – that we have to lie every day and parrot political garbage, otherwise we’ll be in trouble. I’m fighting this because what happened to me is as blatant a case of political discrimination as it gets.’

It would be easy for critics of Reform to turn a blind eye to Saba’s case, thinking it unworthy of their attention or concern. But those inclined to do so should be careful what they wish for. Though their own belief system may be reflected in the current institutional zeitgeist, that won’t necessarily always be the case. And when the pitchfork-wielders eventually come for them, they will, I am sure, be looking around for support.

‘I want to be the last person in Britain to be turfed out of a workplace for having independent thoughts. That can only happen if I fight this all the way,’ Saba said.

All power to him for that.

Saba’s Crowdfunder can be found here.

---

A reminder that you can follow me on X/Twitter: @PaulEmbery