Carlisle Employment Tribunal recently ruled in the case of Hoch v Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications of Cumbria. The ruling stated that Mr W Hoch had been subjected to racial and homophobic abuse by his employer, leaving him terrified.
In the judgement, Judge Hodgson found that Mr Hoch, who worked as a buyer for Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications in Cumbria from December 2014 until his resignation on 30 April 2018, was a victim of racial and homophobic comments.
Despite the employer - Mr Atkinson - insisting that the comments were office banter and a sign of a good working relationship, the Judge found that Mr Hoch had not encouraged the comments.
About one year after Mr Hoch has commenced working for the company, the owner - Mr Atkinson - began addressing Mr Hoch using racially offensive terms such as ‘foreign ****’ and the ‘N word’, with this form of address being used more frequently than his name. Other members of staff followed suit.
Mr Atkinson later began using homophobic slurs, such as ‘gay ****’ to address Mr Hoch, and told him to ‘get back to the Wendy house’ - which led to him being regularly teased by other colleagues about his appearance.
In August 2017, Mr Hunter - a co-worker of Mr Hoch - posted a picture on Snapchat of Mr Hoch’s head superimposed onto the body of an emaciated black child.
Throughout 2017 and January 2018 the slurs continued until in January, Mr Hoch recorded an exchange between himself and Mr Hunter. During this exchange, Mr Hoch was addressed with a string of racial and abusive slurs, despite Mr Hoch threatening to report Mr Hunter.
Mr Hoch resigned in April 2018 citing the fact that he frequently received abuse from Mr Atkinson and found it threatening, degrading, racist and a violation of his personal self - resulting in him having to seek medical attention.
Mr Atkinson offered Mr Hoch a grievance hearing which Mr Hoch declined on the grounds that he hearing would be conducted by the company’s HR representative - who was also Mr Atkinson’s wife.
Mrs Atkinson, who stated that she had more than 20 years experience in HR, then suggested that the hearing could be conducted by a cleaner employed by the company and who was a personal friend. Mr Hoch again declined.
The Employment Tribunal said that Mr Hoch’s rejection of both meetings was entirely reasonable and that the suggestion by Mrs Atkinson that either she or a cleaner conduct the grievance procedure was clearly wholly inappropriate. As a result of this, the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was also upheld as Mr Hoch had no access to a fair grievance process, which resulted in him taking a lower-paid job elsewhere.
In evidence, Mrs Atkinson claimed to have processed written complaints about Mr Hoch’s difference in demeanour from other staff but could not produce the evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal questioned how someone with her HR experience could misplace paperwork. The Tribunal found her to be totally lacking in any credibility.
Mr Hoch and his witness - another company employee - were found to have given straightforward evidence.
The Tribunal - in finding in favour of Mr Hoch - awarded him a total of £52,686, made up of the sum of £1,524 by way of basic award; the sum of £500 by way of compensatory award; the sum of £22,000 by way of injury to feelings award in respect of the harassment claim related to race; the sum of £5,000 by way of injury to feelings in respect of the harassment claim related to sexual orientation; the sum of £5,000 by way of aggravated damages; the sum of £4,500 by way of damages for personal injury; the sum of £10,804 by way of interest; the sum of £3,326 by way of grossing up of the taxable element of these awards and the sum of £2,032 in respect of the failure to provide written statement of particulars.
