A mixed-race worker who accused his supervisor of making "hateful" comments about immigrants over breakfast in a works canteen has won €5,000 for racial harassment.
"Now they're coming over here and they're mixing with us. That's the problem," the supervisor was alleged to have told a group of colleagues who were eating together last July.
The claims were made as part of a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the worker against an unidentified manufacturer of medical devices - the WRC anonymising its decision because the case overlapped with matters under adjudication behind closed doors in a further Industrial Relations Act claim.
In his claim to the WRC, the worker explained that while he and his colleagues were having breakfast in the work canteen on the morning of 19 July 2023, "a conversation was started around immigration and refugees and their place in this country" and referring to "refugee centres and protests in the local community".
He alleged that his team leader, identified only as Ms H in the tribunal’s decision, stated: "What it used to be was that the men from these countries would come over here and get jobs and send the money back to their families. Now they’re coming over here and they’re mixing with us. That’s the problem."
The worker called it a "malicious and hateful comment regarding immigrants" and it was "a devastating blow" to him as a person from a mixed-race background.
He told the tribunal that he was an Irish citizen of mixed-race origin as his father was of African descent.
"The impact that that conversation had on me goes far beyond what I have been able to express in words. Like many others who have experienced racism, I have suffered from severe stress and anxiety because of this situation," the worker added.
Another worker declared during the conversation that he "didn’t want to be bumping into a bunch of foreigners", the worker alleged.
However, he said he believed this colleague was trying to be "funny in front of the group" and later apologised.
The company submitted that on foot of an initial, informal complaint by the worker, Ms H had "refuted making the comment".
However she expressed a willingness to meet him to "apologise to him for causing him distress", the firm told the WRC.
The firm said the worker expressed dissatisfaction with this and then lodged a formal grievance.
The conclusion of the company’s investigators was that "no-one was able to confirm the comments alleged to have been made by Ms H had in fact been made by her" on the date alleged.
However, the investigation "did not make any finding of fact on this and could not confirm or deny that the comments were made," the tribunal added.
The investigators; notes of their interview with Ms H noted that she "denied making the comments in that context but stated she had made some reference to it in a previous conversation".
There was no sworn evidence from Ms H before the WRC, who had been unfit to attend the hearing, the tribunal noted.
In her decision on the case, WRC adjudicator Orla Jones wrote: "I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the comments made in the course of the conversation in the canteen on July 19 had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant."
Ms Jones noted that during the investigation, the worker had repeatedly sought a transfer to another area of the plant, stating that he "did not feel comfortable" working under his supervisor, the tribunal was told.
However the company took the position that it could not arrange a transfer because training would be required.
Ms Jones called it "unsatisfactory" that the employer failed to engage further on the prospect of a transfer.
She wrote that the employer's response "fell short" of what the law required to reverse the effects of harassment and ruled the complaint well-founded, awarding the worker €5,000 in compensation.
Ms Jones rejected the claim that the worker had suffered less favourable treatment because of the refusal to transfer him away from the supervisor.
She also rejected a further claim by the worker alleging that that he had been penalised for making a complaint.
