Possible Racial Bias with Redundancy

JamoLew

nora_nora said:

Exactly. I'd be more concerned that I'm seen as angry and troublesome & be asking myself why people may have that perception of me. 

See - I would be surprised if people didn't say that about me - as I know at times I am and can be (maybe passionate about what I believe in rather than angry though)
My colleagues and I often have "banter" around it 
It's usually the people who won't recognise or admit to their own flaws and failings that are the worst to work with

Bungle5393

JamoLew said:

nora_nora said:

Exactly. I'd be more concerned that I'm seen as angry and troublesome & be asking myself why people may have that perception of me. 

See - I would be surprised if people didn't say that about me - as I know at times I am and can be (maybe passionate about what I believe in rather than angry though)
My colleagues and I often have "banter" around it 
It's usually the people who won't recognise or admit to their own flaws and failings that are the worst to work with

This is the thing though - I have no idea where this perception has come from. I consider myself to be pretty self-aware and actually shy away from difficult conversations and confrontational situations. I will do them when the situation warrants it, but it's certainly not my default style.
Had someone brought this to my attention then I could have done something about it, but no-one did.

KatrinaWaves

JamoLew said:

nora_nora said:

Exactly. I'd be more concerned that I'm seen as angry and troublesome & be asking myself why people may have that perception of me. 

See - I would be surprised if people didn't say that about me - as I know at times I am and can be (maybe passionate about what I believe in rather than angry though)
My colleagues and I often have "banter" around it 
It's usually the people who won't recognise or admit to their own flaws and failings that are the worst to work with

At the same time though they have made complaints about other staff that have not been found to be ‘correct’ so hardly the bants you describe... 

nora_nora

Bungle5393 said:

nora_nora said:

The tone of those emails speak volumes about how they perceived you as an employee & would make me ask myself if there may be a reason my employers might see me as a bothersome complainer who has to be battled with and thinks he is in charge of training etc. Is there anything about yourself you can think of that may have given them the impression you are difficult and perhaps a bit above yourself? Genuine question. Talking from experience, if you're lucky ( with such a weak argument) they might offer you £1,500 to go away although i suspect that won't be enough for you in which case it will probably be struck out as vexatious & they will be awarded costs against you. Personally, I'd walk away while you still can. There's nothing in those emails pertaining to racial bias.

I am genuinely at a loss to understand where this has come from. Throughout the 5 years I worked for the business, I always gave 100% and always believed I was open to feedback and got on well with everyone I worked with. When we went through a restructure in early 2019, I came out of that as 3rd out 11 based on the selection criteria used at the time.
I did have responsibility for co-ordinating the training department from October last year until a new manager was recruited (never happened), and I did a branch and roots review of everything training-related across the business and put in place a significant amount of change and improvement.
I have high standards - and won't apologise for that - so I guess sometimes that can come across as arrogance. But the remit of my job was to provide leadership and maximise the performance of the business, so having high standards and holding people to account (as well as the coaching and support that goes along with this) is part of that remit.

Sounds like the bit in bold pretty much wraps it up. Clearly something about the manner in which you went about it came over badly as they seem of the opinion you are angry & everything is a battle with you, but i have a feeling you just don't want to hear that.

nora_nora

Manxman_in_exile said:

Apologies to anyone who found the previous post offensive in any way...

Kindly keep your racial bias to yourself 

Manxman_in_exile

JamoLew said:

nora_nora said:

Exactly. I'd be more concerned that I'm seen as angry and troublesome & be asking myself why people may have that perception of me. 

See - I would be surprised if people didn't say that about me - as I know at times I am and can be (maybe passionate about what I believe in rather than angry though)
My colleagues and I often have "banter" around it 
It's usually the people who won't recognise or admit to their own flaws and failings that are the worst to work with

Well - in all honesty I wouldn't be surprised either.

I was shocked to discover that my colleagues occasionally found me temperamental, moody and unapproachable.  But at least finding out gave me the opportunity me to do something about it!  Apparently I once walked out of the office while somebody else was having a conversation with me.  I hadn't realised -  I thought he'd finished!

I blame the management culture in the NHS!  Why listen to the plebs?

Middlestitch

Bungle5393 said:

What I'm interested in is where the nickname has come from, why they thought it was appropriate, and what other contexts was it used in. 
I have a new SAR in specifically for these terms, as my original SAR didn't necessarily have the parameters to pick up all the emails (I suspect there are many more).

To me, this is a bit of a smoking gun - and my new SAR may well reveal additional usage of this term. I fully appreciate I can't 100% prove my case, but can my employer 100% prove that there was no bias shown when this nickname seems to be in regular use? 


Thanks to everyone for your responses and thoughts. This is not a case of toys back in the pram - I genuinely feel that I have been unfairly treated, so want to see this through to its natural conclusion (whatever that might be).

You may do yourself a lot of damage in the process. In your first post you referred to 'shaking the tree'. The snag with shaking trees is you don't know what will come down you - delicious fruit? A bang on the bonce from a coconut? The outpourings of a flock of incontinent pigeons?

You really are increasingly coming over as someone who is on a vendetta against their former employer for no better reason than you can't accept you were not seen as a vital employee, and thus were chosen for redundancy. Anger and hurt feelings are inevitable, but few people go to such extremes to try and prove that the process was unfair, purely on the basis of a nickname they didn't even know about. Nothing you have said in this increasingly lengthy thread suggests you have ever been treated in a racially discriminatory fashion. It just seems to be a straw to clutch at to help you cope with an event which has hit you particularly badly.

The e-mails you've already seen are hardly flattering. Given how badly you've coped with seeing those, are you really sure it's wise to ask for more of the same - or possibly even less flattering? Sometimes people get the blinkers on and are so concerned to have their say/get back at the employer that they fail to look at what they are doing to their own mental health and well being.

Some personal legal advice sounds a good idea, but please, for your own sake, listen to it even if you don't like it.

noitsnotme

Manxman_in_exile said:

noitsnotme said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The Isle of Man isn't in the UK and never has been, so I suppose you are technically of a different nationality to someone born in the UK itself.  On that basis you might be able to claim discrimination based on that; the protected category encompasses race, colour and nationality.  'Scottish' isn't a separate nationality legally speaking, therefore wouldn't fall under the same protections.  

I’d be interested to know the case law or legislation that you are referring to.   I understand that race discrimination can be claimed on the basis of national origin. If a Welsh person working elsewhere in the UK was dismissed because their manager didn’t like Welsh people it could certainly be challenged as unlawful race discrimination.

OP I don’t know how likely your claim would be to succeed, there isn’t enough information to hazard an opinion. You could speak to an employment law solicitor for a legal opinion. If you believe your Scottish nationality contributed to your dismissal then yes you can raise a claim under the Equality Act if you wish. 

You’re right - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/race-discrimination/

So does that mean despite being white British I can call myself ‘mixed race’ because I have Irish ancestry? 🤷‍♂️

You can call yourself what you like because the categories have become meaningless.  There's no such thing as "race" (or "mixed-race") - it's only in use because at the time that "discrimination" began to be recognised, "race" was a commonly accepted term that appeared to be "useful" in describing different peoples.

Call yourself whichever one you think most applies.  (Or call yourself anything!)

The more splintered these groups become, the more divisive they become.

Apparently there are 90+ "distinct" ethnic groups in China.  Apart from identifying which group to discriminate against next, I'm not sure there's much value in having that knowledge. 

I was being a bit tongue in cheek but I suspect that if I was to go around saying I was mixed race I would most likely upset some people who would no doubt start shouting about cultural appropriation.

lincroft1710

Given what seems to be HR's opinion of the OP, I can think of a far more insulting 4 letter acronym (possibly 7!) , which HR could have used. And no hint of racial bias!!

wilfred30

Middlestitch said:

Bungle5393 said:

What I'm interested in is where the nickname has come from, why they thought it was appropriate, and what other contexts was it used in. 
I have a new SAR in specifically for these terms, as my original SAR didn't necessarily have the parameters to pick up all the emails (I suspect there are many more).

To me, this is a bit of a smoking gun - and my new SAR may well reveal additional usage of this term. I fully appreciate I can't 100% prove my case, but can my employer 100% prove that there was no bias shown when this nickname seems to be in regular use? 


Thanks to everyone for your responses and thoughts. This is not a case of toys back in the pram - I genuinely feel that I have been unfairly treated, so want to see this through to its natural conclusion (whatever that might be).

You may do yourself a lot of damage in the process. In your first post you referred to 'shaking the tree'. The snag with shaking trees is you don't know what will come down you - delicious fruit? A bang on the bonce from a coconut? The outpourings of a flock of incontinent pigeons?

You really are increasingly coming over as someone who is on a vendetta against their former employer for no better reason than you can't accept you were not seen as a vital employee, and thus were chosen for redundancy. Anger and hurt feelings are inevitable, but few people go to such extremes to try and prove that the process was unfair, purely on the basis of a nickname they didn't even know about. Nothing you have said in this increasingly lengthy thread suggests you have ever been treated in a racially discriminatory fashion. It just seems to be a straw to clutch at to help you cope with an event which has hit you particularly badly.

The e-mails you've already seen are hardly flattering. Given how badly you've coped with seeing those, are you really sure it's wise to ask for more of the same - or possibly even less flattering? Sometimes people get the blinkers on and are so concerned to have their say/get back at the employer that they fail to look at what they are doing to their own mental health and well being.

Some personal legal advice sounds a good idea, but please, for your own sake, listen to it even if you don't like it.

Totally agree with this ^^^^

Plus, the OP appears to be blinkered by £ signs as they seem to be convinced that the employer will 'settle' before it reaches a tribunal.

IMO, it's more likely to go the other way.  The employer will back HR not an ex-employee who clearly rubbed people up the wrong way.  They no doubt knew that the OP's current action was a distinct possibility so are highly likely to be able to justify their scoring of the OP in the matrix system.