So I have been sacked for racial abuse...

Pricivius

Uncertain wrote: »

A week's statutory notice counts towards the year so if the OP started on the 1st of February it is worth checking dates very carefully.

Good point, Uncertain - for some reason I though OP was sacked yesterday. Check your start date, OP...

paddedjohn

He got sacked on the 23rd so a week later is the 30th, 31days in January so 1day short, does this matter?

Uncertain

paddedjohn wrote: »

He got sacked on the 23rd so a week later is the 30th, 31days in January so 1day short, does this matter?

Notice begins the day AFTER it is issued, so maybe not 1 day short.

Does this matter? it could be vital!

It wouldn't be the first employer to fall foul of this whilst trying to be clever.

Sambucus_Nigra

Uncertain wrote: »

Notice begins the day AFTER it is issued, so maybe not 1 day short.

Does this matter? it could be vital!

It wouldn't be the first employer to fall foul of this whilst trying to be clever.

1st Feb was a Wednesday - less likely to start a new job on a Weds than on the 6th which was a Monday.

Uncertain

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

1st Feb was a Wednesday - less likely to start a new job on a Weds than on the 6th which was a Monday.

Quite possibly however there is little point is guessing.

I was simply pointing out that many dismissals happen just short of the magic year and it wouldn't be the first time an employer has messed up their date calculations. Generally they forget the statutory notice or when notice actually starts.

fedupnow

I find it hard to believe two security guards are so easily offended. I find it easier to believe they enjoy throwing their weight around after a few drinks and have got together to come up with a defence for their behaviour.

Personally, I'd be furious if a couple of geezers decided to complain on my behalf.

Korell is a grown woman who works in security and is likely more than capable of speaking up for herself.

I wonder if they thought she needed their interference because she is a woman or because she is black.

EDIT: Of course they know what they heard isn't enough for dismissal, which is why they have embroidered and elaborated until the op has supposedly declared he can't take orders off his boss because he's black.

I bet the cctv has already gone missing.

moneyistooshorttomention

lazer wrote: »

Firstly - I don't think you were being racist or sexist.
If the person had ginger hair - you could have called them ginger Dave - noticing something about someone is not racist and as long as they are not offended by it - no harm done.

Regardless of whether or not you were being racist - I do not believe your work has followed the correct disciplinary procedures - do you have an employment handbook or anything?
They have sacked you on the basis of statements of 2 other employees without even asking for your side of the story - for all they know the whole thing could be a lie from the 2 other employees - they should have at least had a disciplinary meeting woth you before sacking you - otherwise it appears to be unfair dismassal.

Agreed.

I've been reading through this thread and was wondering whether anyone would mention that OP might just as easily have called someone "gingerharry" or, in my case, "HippyMoneyistooshort" (as in ageing hippy). To me, it all comes in the same light and is to be taken in context. The context being that it was said to a friend in a jokey sort of way and she responded by having a laugh.

We know who we are talking to and what we think of each other and sometimes speak accordingly. If an uptight rigid sort of person who I know doesnt like me called me "HippyMoney" through gritted teeth and cold eyes - then I would take offence. If a friend calls me that and grins while saying it - then I'll burst out laughing. That's the difference. I've said myself before now "You can tell those two are friends - look at the way they are trading insults with each other" (ie in a laughing, jokey sort of way). Two strange guys facing up to each other on the street trading insults on the other hand and I would be waiting for fists to start flying.

zzzLazyDaisy

fedupnow wrote: »

I find it hard to believe two security guards are so easily offended. I find it easier to believe they enjoy throwing their weight around after a few drinks and have got together to come up with a defence for their behaviour.

Personally, I'd be furious if a couple of geezers decided to complain on my behalf.

Korell is a grown woman who works in security and is likely more than capable of speaking up for herself.

I wonder if they thought she needed their interference because she is a woman or because she is black.

What people often don't 'get' though, is that the racial or sexual 'banter' doesn't have to offend the person it was directed at. It might offend another person in the group, who is also perfectly entitled to make a complaint.

Also, a work's party is classed as 'work's time' for employment related claims. There was a big case about this in the late 90's which resulted in many major companies cancelling their christmas parties that year

It really does not matter if the person making the remarks was just joking around and didn't mean any offence. What matters is the whether the recipient of the comment was offended (receipient being extended to others in the group who were offended by his remarks).

Employers are required to uphold certain standards and to comply with equality laws. Employees don't have to agree with it, but if they don't want to put their job at risk, they should observe these standards when they are on works time.

TopQuark

Some people are suggesting that it's ridiculous to be offended by remarks made to another person.

I'm guessing these same people wouldn't be bothered in the slightest then, if someone referred to their mother as a prozzie or called their wife a minger?

My OH is French and was once hilariously referred to as a 'cheese-eating surrender monkey'. OH had no idea what this meant. I replied to the speaker that we didn't usually keep company with 'trigger-happy rednecks', so the occasion was new for us. Interestingly enough, he didn't seem to see the humour in my response. Funny that eh?

fedupnow

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

What people often don't 'get' though, is that the racial or sexual 'banter' doesn't have to offend the person it was directed at. It might offend another person in the group, who is also perfectly entitled to make a complaint.

Also, a work's party is classed as 'work's time' for employment related claims. There was a big case about this in the late 90's which resulted in many major companies cancelling their christmas parties that year

It really does not matter if the person making the remarks was just joking around and didn't mean any offence. What matters is the whether the recipient of the comment was offended (receipient being extended to others in the group who were offended by his remarks).

Employers are required to uphold certain standards and to comply with equality laws. Employees don't have to agree with it, but if they don't want to put their job at risk, they should observe these standards when they are on works time.

mmm. You're likely correct.

I'd still be angry though. I work in a very male environment and there is nothing worse than some jumped up geezer 'stepping in to help out.' It undermines me and is patronising and, yes, sexist. They wouldn't do it to a guy, don't do it to me.