Dismissed after refusing to mediate with colleague who used racial slur: a case on reinstatement conditions
A cleaning operative was unfairly dismissed after refusing to attend mediation with a co-worker who had called him a 'golliwog' and 'cheeky monkey'. The tribunal awarded £29,251 in compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #harassment
- #golliwog
- #cheeky-monkey
- #reinstatement-condition
Key facts
- The claimant was a black Somalian cleaner with PTSD, anxiety and depression.
- A co-worker called the claimant a 'golliwog' and a 'cheeky monkey'.
- The claimant was suspended for alleged fraudulent hours and unacceptable behaviour.
- The grievance and appeal managers rejected the claimant's race discrimination complaints without proper investigation.
- The claimant was dismissed on 20 January 2021 after refusing to attend mediation with the co-worker.
- The tribunal found unfair dismissal and race harassment/discrimination, but not disability discrimination.
Timeline
-
Golliwog comment
Co-worker Susan Standing told the claimant he looked like a golliwog and showed him a picture on her phone.
-
Clocking incident
The claimant contacted the Control Room to adjust his start time; co-worker alleged he asked to be clocked in at 17:30 when he arrived at 17:50.
-
Cheeky monkey comment
During a disagreement, Susan Standing called the claimant a 'cheeky monkey'.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation into fraudulent hours and unacceptable behaviour.
-
Grievance submitted
The claimant submitted a grievance alleging race discrimination by Susan Standing and Ashley Creel.
-
Grievance meeting
Eric Dawson held a grievance meeting; the claimant repeated his allegations.
-
Grievance outcome
Eric Dawson rejected the grievance, concluding the 'cheeky monkey' comment was not racist.
-
Grievance appeal meeting
Mark Wilson held an appeal; he also suggested the comment was a term of endearment.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (fraudulent hours).
-
Appeal outcome – reinstatement
Agnes Becsei upheld the appeal and reinstated the claimant, conditional on mediation with Susan Standing.
-
Refusal to mediate
The claimant refused to attend mediation with Susan Standing.
-
Final dismissal
The respondent wrote to the claimant confirming the original dismissal remained effective due to refusal to mediate.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed when his reinstatement was made conditional on mediation with a co-worker he had accused of racial harassment, and whether the respondent's handling of his race discrimination complaints amounted to unlawful harassment and direct discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal, finding that the respondent's decision to make the claimant's reinstatement conditional on mediation with the colleague who had used racial slurs was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also upheld claims of race harassment and direct discrimination, concluding that the respondent's grievance and appeal managers failed to properly investigate the claimant's complaints, dismissing the 'cheeky monkey' comment as a term of endearment and failing to address the 'golliwog' comment adequately. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
Compensation awarded:
- Basic award: £945.00
- Compensatory award: £7,020.00
- Total: £29,251.36 (including other elements not specified in the breakdown)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed after refusing a condition of reinstatement, such as mediation with an alleged harasser, the tribunal will scrutinise whether that condition was reasonable.
- Employers must properly investigate race discrimination complaints; dismissing them without thorough inquiry can lead to findings of harassment and direct discrimination.
- When a grievance appeal overturns a dismissal and reinstates the employee, any conditions attached must be fair and proportionate, especially if they involve the alleged wrongdoer.
- Length of service and the nature of the role (e.g., part-time cleaning operative) can affect the reasonableness of the employer's actions, but basic fairness still applies.
What this case shows in practice
A black Somalian cleaning operative working 15 hours a week for TC Facilities Management Ltd was subjected to racial slurs by a co-worker, who called him a 'golliwog' and a 'cheeky monkey'. When he raised a grievance, the employer dismissed his complaints without proper investigation, concluding the 'cheeky monkey' comment was a term of endearment. He was later suspended and dismissed for alleged fraudulent hours, but an appeal overturned that dismissal and reinstated him — on condition that he attend mediation with the same co-worker. He refused, and the employer confirmed the original dismissal.
The tribunal found this condition unreasonable. Making reinstatement conditional on mediation with the person who had racially harassed him was outside the range of reasonable responses for a fair employer. The tribunal also found that the respondent's handling of his race discrimination complaints — failing to investigate, dismissing the slurs as harmless — amounted to harassment and direct discrimination.
What the employer could have done differently
TC Facilities Management could have avoided liability by taking the claimant's race discrimination complaints seriously from the start. A proper investigation into the 'golliwog' and 'cheeky monkey' comments, with appropriate action against the co-worker, would have addressed the underlying issue. When the claimant was reinstated on appeal, the condition of mediation should have been reconsidered — or the employer could have offered mediation without making it a condition of return. The tribunal noted that the claimant's refusal to mediate was understandable given the history.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that employers cannot impose unreasonable conditions on reinstatement, especially those that force a victim of harassment to engage with their alleged harasser. It also reinforces that race discrimination complaints must be investigated thoroughly, not dismissed with casual explanations. For employees, it shows that refusing an unreasonable condition of reinstatement does not necessarily forfeit your right to claim unfair dismissal. The total compensation of £29,251 reflects both the financial loss and the injury to feelings from the discrimination.
Similar cases
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.