Racism on the Shop Floor – Employers Can Expect to Carry the Can

Some shop floors are rough and ready places where foul language abounds, but if a worker makes a racist or other discriminatory comment it is likely to be the employer who ends up carrying the legal can. An Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling underlined the necessity of keeping a lid on things and…

Feb 03, 2021

Pexels oleg magni 1005638 768x1024

Some shop floors are rough and ready places where foul language abounds, but if a worker makes a racist or other discriminatory comment it is likely to be the employer who ends up carrying the legal can. An Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling underlined the necessity of keeping a lid on things and nipping such conduct in the bud.

The case concerned a black machine operator who was furious that his line manager had reported him for alleged unsafe use of machinery. A fierce altercation developed between them on the shop floor, during which he alleged that the manager subjected him to an obscene racial slur. Following a disciplinary process, he was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct.

After he launched proceedings, the ET found that, when he complained about the slur, the factory’s general manager took a dismissive approach in describing the matter as irrelevant. That amounted to less favourable treatment because of his race. Turning a blind eye to what, if proven, would obviously have been a racist comment was in itself an act of unlawful race discrimination.

In also upholding the man’s racial harassment complaint, the ET found that his line manager had in fact made the racist comment, albeit in the heat of the moment. Facebook material emanating from the manager’s account suggested that he held, or at least sympathised with, some extreme views on race. The material, and the answers he gave when asked about it, indicated that he was more likely than most to refer to a black person in derogatory terms.

The man’s dismissal was unfair in that his complaint about the racial slur had been investigated only in a half-hearted and superficial manner. There was also a failure to properly address his complaint that his treatment was inconsistent in that his line manager had not been subjected to any disciplinary process.

The ET rejected the man’s other complaints of race discrimination together with his claim that his dismissal was racially motivated. Given his role in the altercation – he had thrown a cup at the wall and violence might have ensued had the men not been separated – the ET found that he was 30 per cent responsible for his dismissal. The amount of compensation payable to him by his former employer in respect of the upheld complaints would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Tribunal Condemns ‘Inept and Misjudged’ Workplace Bullying Investigation

Employers who fail to conduct workplace disciplinary proceedings fairly risk serious financial and reputational consequences. In one case, a company’s handling of a bullying investigation was roundly condemned as a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgment. The case concerned a business development manager who was accused of bullying a subordinate. Whilst accepting that she could sometimes be abrupt, she denied that she was a bully or that she had any intention to cause distress. She was…

Synthetic Football Pitch Triggers Information Rights Dispute

If you have environmental or health and safety concerns about a development in your area, you have a right to all the information you may need to mount a successful challenge. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made that point in a case concerning the controversial installation of a synthetic football pitch. The rubber crumb pitch, made of thousands of end-of-life tyres, was close to homes, a primary school and a leisure centre. A local resident was concerned about the use of chemicals in the…

Employment v Self-Employment – This is Why the Distinction Really Matters

Employment law has moved on in leaps and bounds since the bad old days of mass casual labour. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, a large number of people still go to work every day without any clear idea of whether they are employed or self-employed, or any understanding of why that distinction matters. The case concerned a van driver who worked for the same company (C1) for about 17 years before it was taken over by another (C2). The latter accepted that it was obliged by…