Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Latest NewsPublic sectorDisciplineDiscipline and grievancesDismissal

Immigration officer wins £16k after ‘unfair’ probe into alleged racist slurs

by Ashleigh Webber 30 Nov 2020
by Ashleigh Webber 30 Nov 2020 Gary Perkin / Shutterstock.com
Gary Perkin / Shutterstock.com

A former Border Force officer who was alleged to have used racist slurs at work has been awarded more than £16,000 after an employment tribunal found the disciplinary process used by the Home Office was unfair.

The London South Employment Tribunal found that Joel Gold, although dismissed on the “potentially fair” ground of gross misconduct, was subjected to an unfair investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal process that gave him “no chance of establishing his innocence”.

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary procedures: six common mistakes

Unfair dismissal: allegations of bad faith in disciplinary procedures

Investigations and Covid-19: employers need a pandemic-proof toolkit

Colleagues claimed they had witnessed Gold using racially offensive language, including a reference to Vietnamese nationals as “Gooks”, a co-worker as “Paki” and a black colleague as “King of the Jungle”.

He was also alleged to have used the term “Taliban Tom” and said he would not hire any “fat women”, but these allegations did not form part of the investigation.

There was a considerable delay before the Home Office began investigating the co-workers’ claims against Gold. Some 10 weeks passed between the first allegation being reported and the first witness being interviewed, and as no notes were kept by the witness about the incident, the tribunal said some memories would have “inevitably faded”.

Both witnesses did not get on well with the claimant, which was not adequately considered by the investigating manager. Once the Home Office determined they were not lying about the incidents, even though some details were disputed, it was assumed that Gold had been lying. He was not given adequate opportunity to explain his version of events.

Other failings in the disciplinary process identified by the tribunal included the disciplinary hearing relying on evidence gathered during interviews carried out by the same investigating manager; the investigating manager drawing conclusions that were “unreliable” and “went beyond her mandate”; the respondent basing its decisions on witness statements that were in a different format to those given to Gold; and failing to give Gold “the benefit of the doubt”.

When the claimant apologised for giving possible offence, it was suggested by the investigating manager this was evidence of guilt, even though he had preceded the statement with a denial that he had said anything which could cause offence.

Judge Timothy Russell said: “Essentially, there appears to have been insufficient concern to make the procedure fair for this employee. The focus was, whilst attempting to follow Home Office procedure, to find fault with the claimant and either ignore or give no or little credence to his alternative explanation.

“There was no obvious attempt to step back and consider the overall fairness of procedure. The overall feeling one has, I have, is that the claimant had no chance of establishing his innocence and the die was cast at an early stage… It was simply that the bar was set too high, unfairly so, for the claimant to prove his innocence.

“The claimant’s own explanation and/or defence was brushed aside time and time again in favour of the witnesses who spoke against him.”

The judgment said the decision to dismiss Gold was made “without the balancing act one would expect to see in a considered and fair analysis of the evidence, especially by a large well-resourced organisation”.

“The respondent was too ready to give the witnesses against him the benefit of the doubt and too reluctant to do the same for the claimant and although one cannot expect a perfect procedure for any dismissal, a reasonable employer owes it to any employee, certainly a long service employee in a managerial position, to identify and examine closely any flaws in the accusations made,” the judge added.

The tribunal said the Home Office should have considered further training for Gold, which would have “reflected the stated purpose of the disciplinary procedure”.

It was ordered to pay the claimant £16,371.27 in compensation.

HR Director opportunities on Personnel Today

Browse more HR director jobs

Ashleigh Webber
Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is editor at OHW+ and part of the Personnel Today editorial team. Prior to joining Personnel Today in 2018, she covered the road transport sector for Commercial Motor and Motor Transport.

previous post
Sharp fall in London jobs compared with EU capitals
next post
High Court: Government failed gig workers’ health and safety

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Boris Johnson’s partygate fixed penalty notice: any lessons...

14 Apr 2022

What should an investigation into employee misconduct involve?

6 Apr 2022

Unison to appeal against trade union detriment ruling

4 Apr 2022

Football and HR: 10 employment law issues in...

18 Feb 2022

HR processes delay Sue Gray Downing Street lockdown...

28 Jan 2022

Worker taped to chair loses £500k unfair dismissal...

20 Jan 2022

Flexible working requests behind growing number of tribunal...

17 Jan 2022

Cleaner who attended work with Covid-19 was unfairly...

12 Jan 2022

Top 10 HR questions December 2021: NHS Covid...

4 Jan 2022

Former McDonald’s chief to return $105m gained in...

17 Dec 2021
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+