Employee wins £16k after unfair dismissal over mock Irish accent

October 17, 2025

A recent Tribunal decision in Davies v Oscar Mayer Ltd offers a useful reminder to employers about the importance of conducting fair, proportionate, and impartial disciplinary procedures. In this case, an employee was dismissed for gross misconduct on the grounds of racial harassment after greeting his colleague with a mock Irish accent. The Tribunal ultimately found the dismissal to be unfair, awarding the Claimant over £16,000 in compensation.

Background

The Claimant, Karl Davies, had worked for the Respondent, a large food manufacturer, for almost 27 years with a spotless disciplinary record prior to the events leading up to his dismissal. At the date of his dismissal, Mr Davies worked as an Engineering Storeman at the Respondent’s Wrexham site.

On 13 August 2024, Mr Davies was working in the Respondent’s workshop whilst listening to an Irish ballad called “Grace” by the Dubliners, when his colleague, Mr Millward, walked past with an external auditor who was visiting the site. As they passed, Mr Davies greeted Mr Millward with the phrase “top of the morning to ya” in a mock Irish accent. He was said to have repeated the phrase several times.

Later, Mr Millward reported the matter to the Head of People & Development, suggesting the remark was inappropriate and might be viewed as racially or culturally offensive, particularly because the auditor had red hair. The auditor himself, however, did not raise any complaint and expressed that he had not been offended and had not thought the comment was directed at him. The auditor is not known to be Irish and was never asked by the Respondent about his nationality or ethnic origin.

Following Mr Millward’s complaint, the Respondent launched a formal disciplinary investigation. As the auditor was not known to be Irish by the Respondent, the disciplinary case was based on what Mr Davies might have perceived, namely that the auditor was Irish or looked typically Irish. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Davies was dismissed for gross misconduct for breaching the Respondent’s ‘Dignity at Work Policy’, specifically relating to racial harassment. Mr Davies subsequently lodged a claim for unfair dismissal.

Tribunal Decision

The Tribunal was critical of the Respondent’s evidential basis for the dismissal. There was no clear proof that Mr Davies had been aware of the auditor’s presence in the workshop, or that he intended his remark to be about him. The CCTV footage provided no clarity, and the witness evidence was inconsistent. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had made assumptions about Mr Davies’s intent rather than establishing the facts objectively.

The Tribunal also noted deficiencies in the Respondent’s disciplinary process. The investigation was led by Mr St John, a manager whom Mr Davies had already filed an unresolved grievance against, creating a conflict of interest which undermined the fairness of the proceedings.

In addition, the Tribunal was critical of the fact that the Respondent failed to take account of Mr Davies’s clean disciplinary record and his long service of 27 years when making the decision to dismiss him.

Taking all of this together, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary process was neither fair nor reasonable and that the dismissal did not fall within the range of reasonable responses open to the Respondent in the circumstances. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair.

However, the Tribunal did recognise that the Claimant held some responsibility for his conduct. His compensation was therefore reduced by 15% to reflect his contribution to the situation, resulting in an award of £16,490.

Lessons for Employers

This case highlights several key lessons for employers:

  • Employers should have anti-harassment and bullying policies in place which set out clear examples of harassment, including racist or stereotypical remarks about a particular ethnic or religious group, religion, belief or gender.
  • The length of an employee’s service and a clean disciplinary record are important when deciding the appropriate sanction for misconduct.
  • Employers must ensure that investigations are objective and evidence based.

How We Can Help

For further information or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights

Best Law Firms 2024

Herrington Carmichael has once again been named in the Times Best Law Firms. We were first listed in 2023 and have once again made the Best Law Firms list for 2024.  

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/herrington-carmichael

Best Law Firm 2024