The complainant is a Hungarian national of the Roma community.  In 2010 he alleged that two colleagues made racial slurs against him, including comments relating to ‘white power’ and making the Nazi salute.  He received slaps to his neck while eating his lunch and on three occasions in one week he tasted soap in his sandwiches.  The complainant made a number of verbal complaints.  He also reported the matter to the Gardaí.  He alleges that his manager shouted at him for going to the Gardaí and Citizens Information Centre.  The respondent asserts that the complaints were investigated and that it formally interviewed the two alleged offenders who both denied the allegations. 

The Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant was subjected to racial slurs and degrading and humiliating treatment by the two co-workers.  She found that the complainant was required to put his complaint formally in writing while the respondent took a very informal approach to the matter, no formal notes were kept, no outcome of the enquiries no sanctions given etc.  She was also satisfied that the respondent had “no policy or procedure in the workplace to deal with an allegation of harassment”.  She preferred the evidence of the complainant finding his evidence clear and convincing.

A number of questions arise including what aspect of the race ground is in play. Is it nationality because he is Hungarian, or was it because of his Roma origins, perhaps ethnicity or ethnic origins?  In addition, no link has been made between whatever aspect of race is in play and the white supremacy comments and salute.  Frankly, most people regardless of their race, nationality or ethnic origin could be intimidated by such behaviour being directed at them.  As always, it is noted that not all of the information that was before the Equality Officer was necessarily included in the decision.

Due to the response of the employer to what the Equality Officer describes as abuse of a serious nature she held that it was reasonable that the complainant sought the assistance of third parties.  Ultimately the respondent was not entitled to rely on the defence provided in the Acts as it had no policy or procedure in place in addition to the failure to take definitive action to deal with the complaint.

The complainant also alleged victimisation and the Equality Officer accepted that although the complainant was treated differently in the workplace it did not amount to victimisation.

The complainant was awarded €20,000 in respect of the harassment.

Why this case is of interest

• Employers who have no policies and procedures in place to deal with harassment cannot hope to defend any such claims before the Tribunal.
• While the complainant asserted that his different treatment after making  his complaints amounted to victimisation which was not upheld, had it been asserted that the different treatment was as provided for in section 14A(1)(b), what would an employer have to do to defend it in terms of 14A(2)(b)?