Control Room Operator’s Angry Comment Lands Employer in Legal Hot Water

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of…

Mar 15, 2021

Pexels shane aldendorff 1135453 819x1024

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of Eid.

The operator, who worked for a security company, was under strain due to a staff shortage arising from the festival and was anxious to find a guard to cover a day shift. He contacted the worker, who informed him that he could not start work until after 11am because he wanted to go to a mosque to pray.

Frustrated at that response, he retorted, “Do all Muslims have to go to prayers?” The worker was upset by that comment, viewing it as a derogatory statement concerning his faith. Following a testy exchange of texts, the operator apologised, explaining that he was under extreme pressure. The worker raised a formal grievance which was subsequently rejected.

After he launched proceedings against his employer, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the operator’s words amounted to harassment related to the worker’s religion, contrary to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The comment had been made in an angry and threatening manner, rather than in a spirit of open-minded enquiry.

The worker described the operator’s words as ‘crossing all the boundaries by hitting at my religion’ and he reasonably viewed them as unacceptable. The comment was particularly unwanted because it was made during Eid and created an intimidating, hostile, humiliating and offensive environment for the worker.

His other complaints against the employer were rejected, either on their merits or because they had been lodged outside statutory time limits. The amount of compensation due to him in respect of the single incident of harassment found proved would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

A Lack of Legal Expertise Can Be Fatal to Your Employment Tribunal Claim

It is only too easy for Employment Tribunal (ET) claims to founder at an early stage due to a lack of legal expertise. That very nearly happened in the case of a worker who got his employer’s name wrong when lodging an unfair dismissal complaint. When filing his claim via an online portal, the worker misidentified his former employer, a food wholesaler. As a result, his claim was initially rejected. It was later accepted after he amended his claim, giving the employer’s correct name. By that…

Bus Driver Sacked Whilst on Sick Leave Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

Dismissing a sick employee on medical grounds may be lawful and justified, but it is always something that is likely to attract close scrutiny by an Employment Tribunal (ET). In a case on point, a bus driver who was sacked whilst on sick leave, having suffered a stroke, succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim. The driver was hospitalised for 13 days following his stroke and was on sick leave for over six months prior to his dismissal. The DVLA had revoked his Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV)…

Offering Internships? You May Have to Pay the National Minimum Wage

Employers who offer unpaid internships often feel that they are acting benevolently in giving inexperienced people a chance to learn the ropes. However, many interns have a legal right to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and, as one case showed, a failure to remunerate them accordingly can have grave consequences. The case concerned two former unpaid interns at an online publishing company who complained to HM Revenue and Customs that they had not been paid the NMW. An investigation…