Tribunal Orders Boss to Pay £23,500 for Racial Harassment of Irish Worker

The tribunal found that Mick Atkins repeatedly called Bernadette Hayes a 'potato' and subjected her to other derogatory terms over a six-month period. According to the tribunal, Hayes was called 'potato', 'Paddy', and 'pikey' by Atkins between December 2023 and June 2024. This harassment claim centered on comments made by the boss during that timeframe, leading to significant personal consequences for Hayes. The tribunal heard that Hayes was signed off sick in summer 2024, suffering panic attacks and insomnia due to the harassment. Hayes came to dread going into work at building contractor West Leeds Civils, where the incidents occurred.

Bernadette Hayes began working for the civil engineering contractor in 2021 as an office and finance manager. The tribunal ruled the boss racially harassed bookkeeper Bernadette Hayes, establishing a clear violation of workplace conduct standards. Hayes alleged that Mick Atkins and his business partner Marcus Smith embarrassed her by making these comments, including on WhatsApp, creating a hostile work environment. The legal proceedings examined not only Atkins' behavior but also Hayes' own communications during this period.

The tribunal was told Bernadette Hayes herself had used the word 'potato' and sent a potato emoji to Mick Atkins. Employment judge Sophie Buckley concluded Bernadette Hayes used 'potato' to 'fit in' and 'make it seem okay', and did not regularly use the term to describe herself. The specific evidence that led the tribunal to this conclusion about Hayes' intent remains unclear from available records. This complication in the case highlights the nuanced assessment tribunals must make when evaluating workplace interactions and the context behind specific language use.

Bernadette Hayes alleged that the persistent comments from Atkins and Smith created an atmosphere where she felt targeted and humiliated. The tribunal's ruling validated her experience of racial harassment despite the complication regarding her own use of terminology. The case demonstrates how workplace banter can cross into unlawful territory when it targets protected characteristics like national origin.

The fallout for Mick Atkins has been severe and extends far beyond the financial penalty. Atkins has been unable to sleep due to bombarded calls on his firm's 24-hour hotline after the tribunal ruling. He has received death threats, including a call from an Irish man threatening to 'pay you a visit'. Atkins has been subjected to abusive messages and threats online, including calls from withheld numbers. The company's 24-hour phone number has been ringing every ten minutes due to the backlash, creating operational disruptions for the business.

Atkins has had to delete his social media due to the backlash. He is considering wrapping up his business due to the fallout from the tribunal decision. His daughter has also been receiving negative attention as a result of the case. The current status of Atkins's business and whether he has officially decided to wrap it up remains uncertain amid this ongoing turmoil. Authorities' measures to address the death threats and abusive messages received by Atkins have not been detailed in available reports.

In a separate employment tribunal case, Andrew Estcourt won £66,295 in compensation after a tribunal ruled his dismissal was unfair. Estcourt was sacked for being 'obstructive' after expressing doubts about his boss James Irving's competence over three months. The tribunal concluded Andrew Estcourt's sacking was due to his protected disclosures about his boss's competence, qualifying as whistleblowing protection. The exact protected disclosures made by Estcourt about his boss's competence that led to his unfair dismissal ruling have not been specified in tribunal documents.

Another employment tribunal awarded Ilda Esteves £1,425 in compensation after ruling she was subjected to harassment by a colleague who repeatedly called her 'auntie'. The tribunal heard that Esteves informed colleague Charles Oppong she found 'auntie' offensive, but he defended it as a term of respect in Ghanaian culture. Oppong also told Ilda Esteves she would be a 'good match for the older staff member'. Employment Judge George Alliott found Charles Oppong's evidence 'poor' and evasive, and that his purpose was probably an offensive attempt at humour.

Ilda Esteves's other claims of harassment, discrimination, victimisation, and unlawful deduction of wages were unsuccessful in her tribunal case. The reasons why these additional claims were unsuccessful have not been detailed in the tribunal's published findings. This outcome highlights how employment tribunals evaluate multiple claims separately, with success on one claim not guaranteeing success on others. The case illustrates the complex legal standards applied to workplace conduct cases and the specific evidence required to substantiate different types of employment law violations.