Tribunal Rules Dismissal Over Mock Irish Accent Unfair, But Does Not Approve Use of Mock Accents

In Mr Karl Davies v Oscar Mayer Ltd., an engineering storeman has been awarded more than £16,000 after he was dismissed for a mock Irish accent. While the employment tribunal disapproved of his behaviour, it didn’t believe it constituted racial harassment in the workplace or warranted dismissal.

Read on to uncover precisely what happened and the explanation behind the tribunal’s judgment. We examine what counts as respectful language in the workplace and the steps you can take if you’ve faced racial harassment.

If you believe you’ve been unfairly stereotyped or dismissed because of perceived assumptions or conduct, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As employment law specialists, we can review your case, explain your options, and assess whether you may have grounds for a claim.

Learn more about the help we provide by:

• Phoning us on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback by completing our online form

The Facts in Mr Karl Davies v Oscar Mayer Ltd.

Background

Mr Karl Davies (“the Claimant”) began working for Oscar Mayer Ltd. (“the Respondent”) on 8 September 1997. At the time of his dismissal, he was an engineering storeman and had previously maintained a clean disciplinary record.

Investigation into the Mock Irish Accent Incident

The issue central to this case arose on 13 August 2024, when Mr Scott Millward, the Claimant’s line manager, had been showing a “red-headed” external auditor around the premises. The Claimant had been listening to Irish music, and when he saw Mr Millward, he apparently remarked, “Top of the morning to ya!” After his manager ignored him, it was said that he continued to repeat the phrase.

Mr Millward subsequently reported the incident, prompting an investigation. The Respondent investigated whether the Claimant was guilty of workplace racial harassment, on the basis that he’d used a mock Irish accent directed at the auditor, allegedly because of his red hair and perceived Irish characteristics.

Read More: Pregnant Consultant Fired Due to Pregnancy-Related Illness Awarded £93K in Unfair Dismissal Case

During questioning, however, the Claimant denied having seen the auditor. Despite this, he was suspended pending further investigation for “alleged misconduct … due to the potential severity of the incident.” 

Notably, discrepancies arose when additional interviews were conducted. While Mr Millward confirmed that the Claimant had remarked “Top of the morning to ya!”, another colleague present at the time stated that he didn’t hear it. Furthermore, when the auditor himself was interviewed, he didn’t recall the phrase outlined above and said that he “didn’t think much” of the Claimant’s conduct.

Nevertheless, following investigations, the Respondent decided it was appropriate to proceed with a disciplinary hearing. Its reasoning concerned the possible impact of the repeated phrase and the implications if the auditor had lodged a grievance. This decision was communicated to the Claimant on 26 August, when he was informed he could face summary dismissal if the allegations of gross misconduct were found.

Disciplinary Hearing, Dismissal, and Appeal

On 29 August, the disciplinary hearing proceeded. At this stage, the Claimant admitted to using the phrase described, but stressed that he’d only said it “maybe twice” and didn’t know the auditor was present. He pointed to his previous clean disciplinary record and apologised, not believing that the phrase was offensive. He further argued that it was unsuitable for a Mr M St John (referred to during proceedings as “MSJ”) to lead the process, since the Claimant had an outstanding grievance against him.

The Respondent was aware of this grievance, but continued with MSJ as the investigating officer nonetheless. MSJ’s subsequent report was taken at “face value,” with no investigation into the Claimant’s assertions, such as whether he was aware of the auditor’s presence. It was stated, “If C [the Claimant] did not see him [the auditor], he would not have made the comments…”

As a result, by a letter dated 4 September, the Respondent informed the Claimant of its decision to dismiss him. It reasoned that his mock Irish accent constituted racial harassment in the workplace.

Following the decision, the Claimant made an appeal. A hearing took place on 2 October, but the appeal ultimately proved unsuccessful when it was dismissed just nine days later. With no alternatives available, the Claimant turned to the employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered the Claimant’s unfair dismissal case. It began by assessing the suitability of MSJ as the investigating officer. Given the ongoing grievance between him and the Claimant, the tribunal agreed that it was inappropriate for him to occupy this role. MSJ’s impartiality was likely affected by the ongoing matters, and the tribunal noted the Respondent’s lack of awareness of this.

The tribunal then turned to the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal. As discussed above, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant had said, “Top of the morning to ya!” directly to the auditor, based on perceived Irish characteristics, thereby constituting workplace racial harassment.

However, after reviewing the CCTV footage, witness accounts, and the Claimant’s own evidence, the tribunal disagreed. It concluded that the Claimant had used the mock Irish accent to goad Mr Millward after being ignored. The tribunal stated that “he [the Claimant] was trying to get under Mr Millward’s skin,” and concluded that “he was being insubordinate to a manager.” As such, while the tribunal considered the Claimant’s conduct inappropriate, it didn’t find that it amounted to harassment.

Read More: Labour Rules Out Plans to Reintroduce Tribunal Fees Following Union Backlash

Before delivering its final verdict, the tribunal also examined the Respondent’s procedure. At no point was the Claimant’s assertion that he was unaware of the auditor’s presence investigated. Furthermore, when the auditor was interviewed, despite stating that he thought nothing of the Claimant’s behaviour, he was asked leading questions seemingly intended to influence him into suggesting that the comments had been directed at him.

In light of these findings, the tribunal determined that the Claimant’s conduct didn’t warrant dismissal and identified several flaws in the Respondent’s handling of the matter, rendering the dismissal unfair. Accordingly, the tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded £16,490.82, which included a 15% reduction for contributory fault.

The Tribunal’s View on Workplace Language and Conduct

Notably, while the tribunal found in the Claimant’s favour, it made clear that this outcome shouldn’t be interpreted as condoning a mock Irish accent or similar language in the workplace.

The Judge, who declared a joint Welsh–Irish background, acknowledged personally finding such mockery irritating when directed at him. He agreed with the Respondent’s position that using phrases like “Top of the morning to ya!” in a “put-on” accent is inappropriate and capable of causing offence.

Ultimately, the finding of unfair dismissal arose from the manner in which the Respondent handled the investigation and disciplinary process. This didn’t mean that the behaviour itself was acceptable, and the tribunal expressly stated its disapproval of such conduct.

What is Inclusive Language?

The case involving the mock Irish accent highlights the importance of inclusive language in the workplace. This is particularly relevant because the Claimant asserted that he was unaware that his words could be perceived as offensive. Others may similarly have questions about what inclusive language is, so we examine and define it below.

Respectful language in the workplace acknowledges diversity and avoids words or expressions that could exclude or offend others. It helps to foster a working environment where everyone feels valued, regardless of their race, gender, or other protected characteristics. In practice, this means choosing words thoughtfully, being aware of how phrases may be perceived, and avoiding stereotypes or assumptions.

Examples of Inclusive Language

Some examples of inclusive versus exclusionary language include:

Instead of saying…	Use…	Why?
“Hi, guys”	“Hi, everyone”	Avoids gendered terms that exclude or alienate others.
“Chairman”	“Chair”	Uses gender-neutral professional titles.
“Wheelchair-bound”	“Wheelchair user”	Focuses on the person, not the disability.
“Blacklist” or “whitelist”	“Blocklist” or “allowlist”	Avoids associating black with negative and white with positive.
“Husband” or “wife”	“Partner”	Gender-neutral; includes same-sex, non-binary, and other relationships.

Obviously, this list isn’t exhaustive, and examples can vary depending on context. The central principle is to think before speaking and ask yourself: “Could what I’m about to say make someone feel stereotyped, excluded, or uncomfortable?” If the answer is yes, even as a possibility, it’s usually best to rephrase or avoid saying it altogether.

What to Do if You Experience Workplace Racial Harassment

If an individual believes they’ve faced racial harassment in the workplace, whether through comments, jokes, or differential treatment, it’s important to act promptly. While making a claim should generally be a last resort, strict time limits apply for doing so.

Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals are protected against less favourable treatment due to their protected characteristics, including race. This includes harassment, which is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. Examples can include remarks about someone’s nationality, racial jokes, or exclusionary behaviour based on race.

If someone experiences such treatment, they should first keep a detailed record, noting witness information and collecting any written correspondence or other evidence that could support their case.

Next, depending on the circumstances, the individual may choose to raise the matter informally with their manager or HR, or submit a formal grievance. While both approaches aim to resolve the issue internally, a formal grievance triggers additional legal obligations on the employer to investigate and address the matter.

Read More: Delivery Company Whistleblower ‘Pushed to Quit’ Due to Lack of Health Risk Investigation Awarded £46,000

Should the issue remain unresolved, the next step is typically to engage in Acas early conciliation. This free and independent process is usually required before an employment tribunal claim can be filed, and offers another opportunity to settle the matter before more formal action is required.

If all else fails, though, the final step is to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. Eligibility criteria and strict time limits apply, but a successful claim can result in compensation or other remedies.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve faced racial harassment in the workplace or have been unfairly sacked for an alleged incident, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts, and following a brief chat, we can provide specialist advice.

Begin your journey with us today by:

• Phoning us on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form