In this case the issue for the tribunal was to consider whether the claimant had been unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his race and specifically whether he had suffered racial harassment. Essentially the allegations arise from one discrete incident involving a comment from the first named respondent. There was a general consensus as to the factual sequence of events, but clear disparity in the understanding and significance attached to the words used. 

The Tribunal considered the well-established case law in this area, particularly Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142 and held that the claimant failed to prove facts from which it could reasonably conclude that he has suffered discrimination on grounds of his race.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

Whilst the tribunal had to make a relatively straightforward finding of fact, such cases of an employee’s word against another employee or manager can obviously pose difficulties for employers. The harassment limb of this case is of note as it stresses the ‘objectivity’ of the test which the Tribunal must adopt. Whilst the claimant’s own perception must be taken into account, the tribunal must also take into account whether the alleged conduct “should reasonably be considered” as having the effect complained of (Article 4A(2) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997). 

Employees can be upset or hurt by a series of events or words used - but it does not automatically equate to harassment and the conduct must all be viewed through an objective, reasonable prism.