Click here to read the full article: Harassment may not justify sacking if investigation is unfair
The full article has been republished below with the author’s kind permission.
In the case of a worker losing his job for mimicking an accent, the employment tribunal’s ruling underscores the importance of a thorough and impartial process.
A recent employment tribunal decision has given bosses a stark warning that it will not necessarily be fair to sack an employee simply over findings of “reprehensible” harassment.
In the case of K Davies v Oscar Mayer Ltd, the claimant, an engineering storeman with nearly 27 years’ service, was accused of greeting his manager in a mock Irish accent by saying and repeating: “Top of the morning to ya!” while listening to Irish music in the company’s store.
The manager, who was at the time accompanying an external auditor with auburn hair, regarded the comment as unwanted harassment and was concerned that the reference could be interpreted as a stereotypical remark about people of Irish heritage.
A disciplinary process into allegations of racial harassment was conducted and ultimately the tribunal acknowledged that although the comments were “reprehensible”; contrary to what the employer found, there was no evidence to suggest that the comments amounted to racial harassment in the workplace context.
The tribunal heavily criticised the employer’s investigation and disciplinary process. It found that the appointed investigator was not impartial, there were apparent inconsistencies in witness statements, the investigation was not thorough and there was a failure to explore Davies’s version of events properly.
The tribunal was clear in its message that employers must ensure a fair process and even the most serious allegations must be handled with an impartial and thorough investigation.
Interestingly, the tribunal examined what it considered to be the line between behaviour worthy of discipline and behaviour warranting dismissal. It did not condone Davies’s behaviour and emphasised how accent mockery can carry offensive connotations, but ultimately it considered that the dismissal was disproportionate and unfair.
The ruling is a reminder that employers should remain cautious before reaching for the sack and always take account of context, an employee’s work history and all mitigating factors. According to the tribunal, Davies’s decades of service and clean disciplinary record were not given the appropriate weighting before he was unfairly dismissed.
Davies’s subsequent £16,000 payout is a warning that dismissal should not be a shortcut for an employer’s irritation or embarrassment.
It underscores the importance of conducting a thorough and impartial investigation, grounded in fairness, credible evidence and proper procedure, to ensure decisions are legally sound and to prevent costly, reputationally damaging outcomes.
For further information, please get in touch with James Townsend. Alternatively, telephone on 020 7465 4300
