The claimant was Managing Director of a brand that was a trading division of the respondent. He was from an Irish traveller background and claimed unfair dismissal, as well as harassment based on race. He was dismissed on six months’ notice principally for reasons relating to ‘trading performance and staff attrition’.

The tribunal accepted that various disparaging comments relating to the claimant's Irish origin and/or traveller background were made by other management. It accepted that the claimant was referred to as a “pikey” or a “paddy”, “dressed like a gypsy” or a “gypo” or looked like a “tinker”. This harassment started at an initial meeting and continued throughout the claimant’s employment, particularly during business meetings and during post-work drinks.

While accepting that the conduct may have been intended in a light hearted manner, the tribunal was satisfied that it had the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. He was awarded £283,472.03, which included loss of earnings, bonuses, pension, life assurance, long-term illness insurance and injury to feelings.

Practical Lessons

What is interesting about the case is that only towards the end of the six month notice period did the claimant raise any issues relating to harassment. Further, at no point when employed did the claimant directly challenge those making the comments. The tribunal did, however, accept that he had legitimate reasons for this, not least that he feared he would lose his job.

The harassment allegations were considered by the respondent but only after the claimant’s notice period expired and what was described as a ‘modified grievance procedure’ was adopted. Farcically, others were interviewed as part of this process but the claimant was not amid a breakdown in communication between both parties. When such allegations are made employers must obviously take them seriously and that equally applies when the complainant’s employment has ceased, as was the case here. The size of the award is also significant in this case and a detailed breakdown is included in the judgment.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-e-bell-v-prime-time-recruitment-ltd-and-others-2401732-2016