Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

  A recent employment tribunal in the UK has ruled that repeatedly misnaming an employee can be considered racial harassment. This case involves Viveak Taneja, a British Indian bathroom salesman, who was awarded £9,329.23 for injury to feelings due to race harassment by his sales director, Dana Davies. Case Overview Viveak Taneja was employed as an area sales manager for Phoenix Whirlpools in London starting in June 2021. In March 2022, Dana Davies was hired as the sales director. The two scheduled time together on March 21 and 22, 2022, for Davies to assess Taneja's capabilities and identify any necessary support. Taneja was to pick up Davies from King’s Cross at 8:45 am on March 21. However, Taneja arrived late due to having to do the school run, arriving around 9:05 am. This initial meeting set a negative tone for their interaction, with Davies becoming irritated by Taneja's lateness. During the car journey, Davies misnamed Taneja twice, calling him "Vikesh." Tanej...

  My research informs me that in Hong Kong, the termination of employment has long been governed by principles that emphasize the employer's right to end the employment relationship by providing notice or payment in lieu thereof, without the obligation to provide a reason. This legal framework, deeply rooted in statutes like Hong Kong's Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), sharply contrasts with jurisdictions such as Barbados and the United Kingdom, where robust statutory protections against unfair dismissal are codified in laws like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Rights Act 2012-09, respectively. Historically, Hong Kong's approach to employment termination has emphasized flexibility for employers, enabling efficient workforce management. In contrast to the UK and Barbados, where stringent criteria govern fair dismissal, Hong Kong law imposes minimal constraints on an employer's termination decisions, requiring adherence only to contractual and statutory o...

  Overview The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently ruled on an appeal brought forward by the Barbados Defence Force (BDF) regarding the termination of Lieutenant David Anthony Harewood. The CCJ dismissed the appeal, affirming that the BDF was indeed in error when it terminated Lieutenant Harewood. Background on Charges: Lieutenant Harewood, a former commissioned officer in the Barbados Defence Force (BDF), was convicted by the Court Martial on June 4, 2019, for charges stemming from events in January 2018. These charges included failure to report a threat to Ordinary Seaman Marlon Scott's life and conducting unauthorized information-gathering operations, both considered violations of military conduct as per section 75 of the Defence Act Chapter 159. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this conviction on June 27, 2023, citing insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the existence of these offenses.  Interpretation of Section 75 of the Defence Act Th...