Possible Racial Bias with Redundancy

Ditzy_Mitzy

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

I, too, initially thought the OP must be Ugandan.  Amin was the 'King of Scotland' after all.  But if he's white British, which he appears to be, then I can't see what the fuss is about.  Plenty of people have derogatory nicknames or are picked on for various characteristics they can't control.  I, for instance, have to put special effort into convincing others that I'm not a bit thick (well maybe I am, but you know what I mean) because I've got an Essex accent.  A real one, not an 'I went to private school and live in Hampstead but I'm cool and read the Guardian so attempt to sound like I'm from "da streets"'.  
'King', in isolation, is not an insult nor is 'Scotland'; especially as you live there.  Learning that others don't, perhaps, like you very much isn't nice and I'm sorry to hear it's happened to you.  It's a feature of every workplace, sadly, and it's not always going to lead to discrimination in the sense of legally protected characteristics.  It's possible not to be racist or homophobic or otherwise non-discriminatory in that sense and still be a nasty person.  

I often wondered whether some of my colleague at work referred to me as "that f******* Manx ****" (it was quite possible!) and whether I would be justified in regarding that as racist or merely abusive.  (Wouldn't bother me either way).

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.  

Bungle5393

Middlestitch said:

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?

I'm sorry if it's coming across like that - I'm not meaning to sound dismissive or argumentative.
Ultimately, I've lost my job and subsequently found out i've been referred to in a derogatory manner, using terminology that is both unprofessional and (IMO) offensive. I feel aggreived. My perception is that my nationality may have had an impact on my scoring, either directly or indirectly. 

Thrugelmir

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

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

Such as?

Just seems that you clutching at straws retrospectively to justify why your selection for redundancy was unfair.  That your 3 colleagues who retained their posts weren't the best candidates given the criteria and matrix that was set. People will always take redundancy personally. That's understandable. From a business perspective it's nothing personal. Just a task that needs to be performed. 

Bungle5393

Thrugelmir said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

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

Such as?

Just seems that you clutching at straws retrospectively to justify why your selection for redundancy was unfair.  That your 3 colleagues who retained their posts weren't the best candidates given the criteria and matrix that was set. People will always take redundancy personally. That's understandable. From a business perspective it's nothing personal. Just a task that needs to be performed. 

Perhaps I am. 
I would have had less of an issue with it if my subject access request had revealed nothing untoward.
I worked closely with 1 of the HR people and thought we had a very good relationship - to see now some of the things she wrote about me to her colleague is quite upsetting.

nora_nora

What exactly was the nature of the things said about you? Defamatory? Discriminatory? This is where i think you might have a problem here, context.
Rather than focusing on what you perceive as a derogatory name, what was actually said about you in context? 

Tealblue

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

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

Such as?

Just seems that you clutching at straws retrospectively to justify why your selection for redundancy was unfair.  That your 3 colleagues who retained their posts weren't the best candidates given the criteria and matrix that was set. People will always take redundancy personally. That's understandable. From a business perspective it's nothing personal. Just a task that needs to be performed. 

Perhaps I am. 
I would have had less of an issue with it if my subject access request had revealed nothing untoward.
I worked closely with 1 of the HR people and thought we had a very good relationship - to see now some of the things she wrote about me to her colleague is quite upsetting.

I fear that is always the risk people take when they make these wretched SARs. Seeing something in black and white (and often out of full context) can be hurtful and upsetting, especially when you are already feeling vulnerable because you've lost your job. 

Redundancy is always a shock, however 'obvious' it might have been that it was on the cards. It always feels personal and there is always a sense that if you'd been allowed to stick around you could have really helped the business - sometimes that could well be true.

Before you go any further with this, think hard about what you want the outcome to be. You may feel you want to get even/get your own back, but the process of doing so is often far harder on the person pursuing it than it will ever be on an employer who is doing little more than trying to survive in the choppiest of seas it will ever encounter. Putting yourself and your own well being first isn't always about getting revenge for having sight of documents which were never written with the intention of your seeing them, so won't have been composed with tact or diplomacy to the fore.

polgara

I assume then that your appeal was unsuccessful? Do you disagree with the scoring criteria - if so, how did the appeal panel respond to that.

I’ll be honest and say demonstrating a racial element won’t be easy and you’ll need to weigh up whether a potentially small financial gain (large payments at ET are very unusual) is worth the time, effort and stress when you can concentrate on moving on and getting another job.

Bungle5393

Tealblue said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

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

Such as?

Just seems that you clutching at straws retrospectively to justify why your selection for redundancy was unfair.  That your 3 colleagues who retained their posts weren't the best candidates given the criteria and matrix that was set. People will always take redundancy personally. That's understandable. From a business perspective it's nothing personal. Just a task that needs to be performed. 

Perhaps I am. 
I would have had less of an issue with it if my subject access request had revealed nothing untoward.
I worked closely with 1 of the HR people and thought we had a very good relationship - to see now some of the things she wrote about me to her colleague is quite upsetting.

I fear that is always the risk people take when they make these wretched SARs. Seeing something in black and white (and often out of full context) can be hurtful and upsetting, especially when you are already feeling vulnerable because you've lost your job. 

Redundancy is always a shock, however 'obvious' it might have been that it was on the cards. It always feels personal and there is always a sense that if you'd been allowed to stick around you could have really helped the business - sometimes that could well be true.

Before you go any further with this, think hard about what you want the outcome to be. You may feel you want to get even/get your own back, but the process of doing so is often far harder on the person pursuing it than it will ever be on an employer who is doing little more than trying to survive in the choppiest of seas it will ever encounter. Putting yourself and your own well being first isn't always about getting revenge for having sight of documents which were never written with the intention of your seeing them, so won't have been composed with tact or diplomacy to the fore.

Thanks for your reply Tealblue, very considered and absolutely bang on the money.

I do need to give it some thought, but I don't feel like I have achieved closure yet. This is the only way I can see of achieving that.

nora_nora

Bungle5393 said:

Tealblue said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Bungle5393 said:

Thrugelmir said:

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

Such as?

Just seems that you clutching at straws retrospectively to justify why your selection for redundancy was unfair.  That your 3 colleagues who retained their posts weren't the best candidates given the criteria and matrix that was set. People will always take redundancy personally. That's understandable. From a business perspective it's nothing personal. Just a task that needs to be performed. 

Perhaps I am. 
I would have had less of an issue with it if my subject access request had revealed nothing untoward.
I worked closely with 1 of the HR people and thought we had a very good relationship - to see now some of the things she wrote about me to her colleague is quite upsetting.

I fear that is always the risk people take when they make these wretched SARs. Seeing something in black and white (and often out of full context) can be hurtful and upsetting, especially when you are already feeling vulnerable because you've lost your job. 

Redundancy is always a shock, however 'obvious' it might have been that it was on the cards. It always feels personal and there is always a sense that if you'd been allowed to stick around you could have really helped the business - sometimes that could well be true.

Before you go any further with this, think hard about what you want the outcome to be. You may feel you want to get even/get your own back, but the process of doing so is often far harder on the person pursuing it than it will ever be on an employer who is doing little more than trying to survive in the choppiest of seas it will ever encounter. Putting yourself and your own well being first isn't always about getting revenge for having sight of documents which were never written with the intention of your seeing them, so won't have been composed with tact or diplomacy to the fore.

Thanks for your reply Tealblue, very considered and absolutely bang on the money.

I do need to give it some thought, but I don't feel like I have achieved closure yet. This is the only way I can see of achieving that.

Have they actually said anything defamatory or discriminatory other than the reference you take exception to? What was the actual context of the emails? I hate to say it but if all you are relying on is being called King of Scotland as a proven case or racial bias i think you'll be left even further from closure than you are now. 

polgara

Honestly if you’re after closure then see a therapist. In my experience watching ex and current employees lodging Employment Tribunals hasn’t helped them move past any real or perceived wrongs. In your case, for instance would you like to hear your ex-employer’s go into every detail of why you were the lowest performing employee in the group?