Possible Racial Bias with Redundancy

Manxman_in_exile

bradders1983 said:

As an aside, how would HR even know you were Scottish? HR where I work are five floors downstairs and wouldnt know me from Adam.  Amin.

FTFY.  

I'll get my coat before I get into trouble...

Thrugelmir

AskAsk said:

nora_nora said:

Racial bias does exist between different white races, some people wouldn't consider certain names used for Gypsies racist but I'm sure a traveler would see it differently. Regardless if it falls into technical racial bias, surely the real question here is why are HR even using that term and not having the professionalism to use his correct name when referring to him in written correspondence?  It's completely unprofessional if nothing else.

unless they thought it was a good idea to refer to staff anonymoulsy so that if it ever came to light, there was no evidence of who they were talking about.  stupid i know, but these people are stupid.

Code names are from unusual. If there's concerns over someone overhearing a conversation. Whether it be an individual, or something much larger that requires secrecy/discretion. 

Middlestitch

Bungle5393 said:

I was the only Scottish person in our team of 6. The selection criteria that were used to select which 3 of us were to be made redundant placed me at a disadvantage, and I also don't believe I was scored fairly as part of the process.

Upon receiving this information, it now seems this was potentially racially-motivated. Obviously I can't prove it 100%, but how many organisations would condone 2 x HR people (who should really know better) using a racially-based nickname to refer to one of the senior managers and think that was acceptable?

I'm in the process of lodging an Employment Tribunal (just finished period of early conciliation - they didn't respond), and wondered how people think this term would be viewed by a tribunal.

Going back to the original question - depends on who is sitting on the ET, always assuming it gets that far (unlikely). It is certainly vanishingly improbable that the use of a nickname, however unprofessional or childish such a practice might be judged, is going to be sufficient grounds for claiming racial discrimination in selection for redundancy.

AskAsk

Thrugelmir said:

AskAsk said:

nora_nora said:

Racial bias does exist between different white races, some people wouldn't consider certain names used for Gypsies racist but I'm sure a traveler would see it differently. Regardless if it falls into technical racial bias, surely the real question here is why are HR even using that term and not having the professionalism to use his correct name when referring to him in written correspondence?  It's completely unprofessional if nothing else.

unless they thought it was a good idea to refer to staff anonymoulsy so that if it ever came to light, there was no evidence of who they were talking about.  stupid i know, but these people are stupid.

Code names are from unusual. If there's concerns over someone overhearing a conversation. Whether it be an individual, or something much larger that requires secrecy/discretion. 

yes, but an intelligent person wouldn't use a code name that was pretty obvious!  If they were clever enough, they could have learnt Number 1, to number 6 and associate those to the employees in question.  trying to remember 6 numbers against 6 people is not exactly rocket science!

Bungle5393

Middlestitch said:

Bungle5393 said:

I was the only Scottish person in our team of 6. The selection criteria that were used to select which 3 of us were to be made redundant placed me at a disadvantage, and I also don't believe I was scored fairly as part of the process.

Upon receiving this information, it now seems this was potentially racially-motivated. Obviously I can't prove it 100%, but how many organisations would condone 2 x HR people (who should really know better) using a racially-based nickname to refer to one of the senior managers and think that was acceptable?

I'm in the process of lodging an Employment Tribunal (just finished period of early conciliation - they didn't respond), and wondered how people think this term would be viewed by a tribunal.

Going back to the original question - depends on who is sitting on the ET, always assuming it gets that far (unlikely). It is certainly vanishingly improbable that the use of a nickname, however unprofessional or childish such a practice might be judged, is going to be sufficient grounds for claiming racial discrimination in selection for redundancy.

Why would you think it wouldn't get to tribunal?

Thrugelmir

Is there something missing from the story that you haven't told us yet?  

Tealblue

Bungle5393 said:

bradders1983 said:

As an aside, how would HR even know you were Scottish? HR where I work are five floors downstairs and wouldnt know me from Adam.

It was a relatively small company, and the HR people worked closely with the 6 of us in the senior management team.

Been reading about the Polish worker who was awarded compensation for being called "Borat". There are lots of other nicknames that people have been called which tribunals have ruled upon favourably - Yoda, Gramps, Inspector Cleasau, Ironside, Sooty and Sweep, Thick Paddy to name a few.

Excitedly saying you're been 'reading about' sums it up: you've read snippets of reporting, not the whole findings of the tribunal in each case. All of those names have unfavourable connotations - and the crucial difference is that (a) the people were called by those names to their faces and (b) the name-calling was almost invariably accompanied by treatment which most fair-minded people would see as ranging from bullying to plain nastiness.

You may find that KOS actually stood for something else (rude, crude or otherwise unwise for HR to expand on), in which case that'll demolish your argument in seconds.

Bungle5393

Thrugelmir said:

Is there something missing from the story that you haven't told us yet?  

Such as?

Middlestitch

Bungle5393 said:

Middlestitch said:

Bungle5393 said:

I was the only Scottish person in our team of 6. The selection criteria that were used to select which 3 of us were to be made redundant placed me at a disadvantage, and I also don't believe I was scored fairly as part of the process.

Upon receiving this information, it now seems this was potentially racially-motivated. Obviously I can't prove it 100%, but how many organisations would condone 2 x HR people (who should really know better) using a racially-based nickname to refer to one of the senior managers and think that was acceptable?

I'm in the process of lodging an Employment Tribunal (just finished period of early conciliation - they didn't respond), and wondered how people think this term would be viewed by a tribunal.

Going back to the original question - depends on who is sitting on the ET, always assuming it gets that far (unlikely). It is certainly vanishingly improbable that the use of a nickname, however unprofessional or childish such a practice might be judged, is going to be sufficient grounds for claiming racial discrimination in selection for redundancy.

Why would you think it wouldn't get to tribunal?

Simple statistics suggest it won't. The huge backlog of cases means the earliest a full tribunal hearing is likely to be scheduled could be mid-2022, which is why ETs are pushing the parties to consider judicial mediation as an alternative.

You do seem to be very argumentative and dismissive of anyone who replies with something you would probably sooner not hear. Perhaps that might have played a part in the selection for redundancy process?

Bungle5393

Tealblue said:

Bungle5393 said:

bradders1983 said:

As an aside, how would HR even know you were Scottish? HR where I work are five floors downstairs and wouldnt know me from Adam.

It was a relatively small company, and the HR people worked closely with the 6 of us in the senior management team.

Been reading about the Polish worker who was awarded compensation for being called "Borat". There are lots of other nicknames that people have been called which tribunals have ruled upon favourably - Yoda, Gramps, Inspector Cleasau, Ironside, Sooty and Sweep, Thick Paddy to name a few.

Excitedly saying you're been 'reading about' sums it up: you've read snippets of reporting, not the whole findings of the tribunal in each case. All of those names have unfavourable connotations - and the crucial difference is that (a) the people were called by those names to their faces and (b) the name-calling was almost invariably accompanied by treatment which most fair-minded people would see as ranging from bullying to plain nastiness.

You may find that KOS actually stood for something else (rude, crude or otherwise unwise for HR to expand on), in which case that'll demolish your argument in seconds.

I've had it confirmed that KOS stands for 'King of Scotland'.

I have interpreted that phrase to be derogatory, especiallty given the context within which it was used. Given the term was never shared with me, I can only assume it is deemed to be offensive and therefore gives an indication as to potential racial bias when constructing and scoring the matrix used to select me for redundancy.

I had no visibility on the term up until submitting my subject access request, but it gives an insight into how I was viewed by at least 2 out of the 3 people who had a say in me being selected for redundancy.