Skip to main content

Chevron told to reinstate employee who made racist slur

A Chevron Australia employee who was terminated for using a racist slur has been found to have been unfairly dismissed, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.

The FWC found dismissal was too severe for the offence and the workers' actions were "careless rather than involving reckless indifference".

However, the FWC did not award compensation for lost remuneration, finding the employee had caused offence to employees and had a responsibility to Chevron to comply with its policies.

HRD contacted Chevron for comment and a spokesperson said the company respects the FWC’s decision as an independent arbiter.

“Chevron Australia is fully committed to providing a diverse and inclusive work environment which is free from unlawful discrimination and where individual differences are respected,” said the statement.

“This commitment is reflected in policies, training and associated programs.”

The employee was on a bus to Chevron’s Gorgon project on Western Australia’s Barrow Island when he told colleagues a story about a friend and his girlfriend, “who was a young gin”.

The worker spoke about how his friend "rooted a gin down the beach" and had to leave her behind because he was "getting his arse chewed by sand-flies".

Another worker responded he "used to see gins hitchhiking from place to place and men would pick them up and f--- the bums off them and dump them in the middle of nowhere to make their own way back into town".

The comments were overheard by two indigenous workers and one complained that his "blood was boiling" and his "adrenalin was pumping". He also said he was “hurt, angry and so disgusted, as these disgusting comments are directed towards all the women” in his family.

Chevron dismissed the worker for "inappropriate workplace behaviour" after finding his use of the term "gin" was "absolutely intolerable" and contrary to its anti-discrimination policy.

However, the employee argued he had not realised "gin" was a derogatory term for indigenous women until he had googled it after the incident.

The employee also argued that he only thought it was derogatory if it was told directly to an indigenous woman.

He said he had apologised immediately to his indigenous colleagues and said he had a past history of advocating for and mentoring indigenous people.

The worker had been previously employed by BHP Billiton as an indigenous employment adviser and later by Fortescue Metals Group as an indigenous development adviser between 2010 and 2013.

He also gave evidence that he had been told by Chevron employees that a couple of weeks after he had been dismissed, another employee had used the word “nigger” in a meeting at the workplace with managers and he had only been given a written warning for this.

The commissioner Bruce Williams said the second indigenous man who overheard the bus comments had told Chevron that “growing up in WA in his culture ‘gin’ is not necessarily derogatory … Regard should have been had for the fact there was a range of opinion as to how rude or offensive using the word ‘gin’ was’’.


Originally published at - http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/chevron-told-to-reinstate-employee-who-made-racist-slur-236889.aspx

AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...