Claimant v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of jurisdiction. The claimant had only 9 months' service and did not meet the 2-year qualifying period required under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that while Mr Davies misnaming the claimant four times was less favourable treatment, it was not because of race but due to Mr Davies' arrogance and lack of respect toward subordinates. The tribunal noted he had also misnamed a white British member of staff. Other allegations (comments about brain, questioning role, aggressive tone, intellectual bullying, dismissal) were either not less favourable treatment or not related to the claimant's race.
The tribunal upheld harassment in relation to Mr Davies misnaming the claimant four times. The conduct was unwanted and had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment. It was related to race because the incorrect name used had direct connotation with race. Mr Davies lacked intention to offend but failed to take care not to be offensive.
Facts
The claimant, a successful area sales manager of British Indian heritage, worked for the respondent for 9 months. In March 2022, the new Sales Director Mr Davies spent a day with him. The meeting went badly from the start: the claimant was late, unprepared, and had no confirmed customer appointments. During their time together in the car and at McDonald's, Mr Davies repeatedly called the claimant by the wrong name (Vikesh instead of Viveak) despite being corrected, made critical comments about the claimant's mindset, and questioned his work performance. The situation escalated, the claimant called Mr Davies racist and refused to continue, and Mr Davies told him he was terminated. The actual dismissal decision was made by Mr Thomas with approval from Mr Sharp.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of qualifying service (9 months vs 2 years required). The tribunal dismissed all direct discrimination claims, finding the treatment was not because of race but due to Mr Davies' management style and the confrontational nature of their encounter. However, the tribunal upheld one harassment claim: Mr Davies' repeated mispronunciation of the claimant's name was unwanted conduct related to race that created a hostile and offensive environment. The tribunal awarded £8,000 injury to feelings (top of lower Vento band) plus interest.
Practical note
Repeatedly mispronouncing an employee's name after correction can constitute race-related harassment even without discriminatory intent, particularly where the incorrect name has racial connotations and the employee's name has cultural significance.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1801565/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Business Development Manager / Area Sales Manager
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No