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.

Employment – The COVID-19 Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Many businesses confronted by the existential crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic took swift steps to shed staff. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, the requirements of employment law were not suspended and, for those who failed to comply with them, the chickens are now coming home to roost. The case concerned a graphic designer who was made redundant a few days after the first lockdown came into force. His employer, a small company, experienced a precipitous decline in sales…

Wind Turbine Technician Due Compensation for Severed Left Arm

Even the most careful employees can suffer industrial accidents for which even the most safety-conscious employers can be held responsible. The High Court made that point in the case of a technician whose left arm was traumatically amputated whilst he worked on the inner machinery of an offshore wind turbine. The technician, whose reputation for carefulness had earned him the nickname ‘Mr Safety’, was working within the housing of the turbine, which was on board ship and being prepared for…

Supreme Court Urges ‘Give and Take’ in Town or Village Green Dispute

Town or village greens (TVGs) are effectively sacrosanct against development and public access to them is heavily protected by law. However, they are often privately owned and, as an important Supreme Court ruling showed, that can create some stark conflicts of interest. The case concerned a 200-square-metre area on the quayside of a privately owned port. Entirely covered by concrete and long in use by HGVs and port vehicles, there was nothing bucolic about the site. The port’s owner erected a…