Canteen 'gangster' comment was racial harassment, but dismissal for conduct was fair
A production manager who was called a 'gangster' by a colleague in a canteen row had his racial harassment claim upheld, but his unfair dismissal claim failed because a later investigation was thorough.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #racial-harassment
- #canteen-incident
- #gangster-comment
- #trade-union-activity
- #one-sided-investigation
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a canteen altercation with a colleague.
- The colleague used the word 'gangster' which the tribunal found was related to the claimant's race.
- The initial investigation was one-sided and the claimant was suspended without being heard.
- A subsequent investigation by a different manager was thorough and fair.
- The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for racial harassment regarding the 'gangster' comment.
- The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and trade union detriments were not upheld.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with the respondent.
-
Became trade union representative
Claimant became an active member and representative of the GMB Trade Union.
-
Promoted to Production Team Leader
Claimant was promoted to Production Team Leader.
-
Canteen incident
An altercation occurred between the claimant and colleague Daveidas Susinka in the canteen. Susinka called the claimant a 'gangster'.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended without being given an opportunity to explain his version of events.
-
Claimant raised grievance
Claimant raised a grievance alleging racist language and unfair investigation.
-
Grievance partially upheld
Robert Burrows upheld part of the claimant's grievance, noting the disciplinary investigation had started without his knowledge.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal, citing race and union activities.
-
Appeal dismissed
Trevor Barr heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a colleague's use of the word 'gangster' during a canteen altercation was racial harassment, whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair due to trade union activities.
The outcome
The tribunal partially upheld the claimant's case. It found that the colleague's comment 'gangster' was related to the claimant's race and amounted to harassment. However, the tribunal did not uphold the claims for unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, or trade union detriments.
- The initial investigation was one-sided, but a subsequent investigation by a different manager was thorough and fair.
- The dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses.
- No compensation was awarded as the racial harassment claim was upheld but no damages were specified.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that initial investigations are balanced and give the employee a chance to explain before suspension.
- A single inappropriate comment can amount to racial harassment if it is related to race and creates an offensive environment.
- Even if an initial investigation is flawed, a later thorough investigation can remedy the process and make a dismissal fair.
- Trade union activities do not automatically protect an employee from dismissal for genuine misconduct.
A canteen dispute that led to a dismissal and a harassment claim
A production team manager with five years' service was dismissed after a canteen altercation with a colleague. During the argument, the colleague called the manager a 'gangster'. The manager, who was also a trade union representative, claimed this was a racial slur and that his dismissal was linked to his union activities.
The tribunal found that the 'gangster' comment was indeed related to the manager's race and amounted to harassment. However, the dismissal itself was fair. While the initial investigation was one-sided and the manager was suspended without being heard, a later investigation by a different manager was thorough and gave the manager a full opportunity to respond.
What the employer did right and wrong
The employer's initial handling was poor: the manager was suspended without explanation and the investigation started without his knowledge. But the employer corrected this by assigning a new investigator who conducted a balanced process. The tribunal noted that the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses given the manager's behaviour in the canteen.
Key takeaways for similar cases
This case shows that a flawed start does not necessarily doom a dismissal if the employer later carries out a proper investigation. It also highlights that a single comment can be racial harassment, even if it is not an overt racial slur. Employees should be aware that trade union membership does not give immunity from dismissal for genuine misconduct.
Similar cases
Racial harassment claim dismissed as out of time and unsupported by evidence
A tribunal dismissed a former NHS assistant practitioner's racial harassment claims, finding the allegations were not supported by evidence and were brought too late. The claimant was ordered to pay £5,000 costs for unreasonable conduct.
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Regional manager dismissed for failing to follow safeguarding policy: dismissal fair
A regional manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed after admitting she had not been following the employer's safeguarding policy for external reporting in secure settings.