Shelbourne loses race jibe case

The Shelbourne Hotel, Dublin, has been ordered to apologise to a former employee and pay her €9,000 after the Equality Tribunal ruled the woman had been harassed by her manager on race grounds and then victimised when she complained.

Ms Tanya Persaud, an Australian national whose father is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claimed her manager at the hotel made racist remarks about Africans while in her company and that he then suggested people from the West Indies, where her father comes from, were lazy.

The manager, referred to only as Mr M in the tribunal's decision published yesterday, remarked on November 15th, 2000, that a particular coat attendant was "as useless as an African".

He then made derogatory remarks about people from the West Indies, suggesting they were lazy.

The comment was: "Well then, I have been to the West Indies and if you don't tell them to open a restaurant at 10 a.m. they don't".

Ms Persaud complained to the man about his comments and pursued the matter with human resources at the hotel. Her manager said the comments in relation to people from the West Indies were not directed at her. "I made a comment in relation to having worked with a particular culture, which I am entitled to comment upon from experience".

At a hearing of the Equality Tribunal on November 2nd last, the hotel claimed the comments about the West Indies were not offensive on the grounds of race under the Employment Equality Act. It said the only two references to origin on race grounds in the Act relate to ethnic origin and national origin.

The term "West Indian" was not covered by the terms of "ethnic or national origins", it claimed.

However, the tribunal said it was satisfied the remarks had been made and was satisfied Ms Persaud had been offended and harassed on race grounds following the comments made to her.

The tribunal also ruled the complainant had been victimised after making her complaints in the period before her resignation in November 2003. It found her manager had changed the password to his computer which meant Ms Persaud could not use the computer, as she had always done, and that no explanation was offered to her.

The hotel also failed to explain to her why her private files were accessed on a computer and why it was decided that the conditions of her employment should be changed.