Formal Complaint of Racism- Help!

[OhBollocksFuck]

I've NC as this is quite outing.

I work in the back office (10 people, all women, desk work) doing logistics for delivery drivers (27 people, mostly men, out and about all day).

We've had a bloke called Steve (not his real name) working as a delivery driver for years. Steve is black. Then another Steve came. So the original Steve became known as 'black Steve', which he's completely fine with, and new Steve became 'white Steve' which he's also fine with. We also have 'Short Trev' and 'Tall Trev' for two blokes called Trev. They're descriptions just to differentiate.

A new woman has started in the back office with us and asked me the other day what to do with an order which needed express sending. I told her to give it to 'black Steve' for various reasons. She's seemed quite nice, a little bit up-tight perhaps but that's usual when starting a new place.

Fast-forward to today and my manager has called me in the office to let me know that this new woman has put in a complaint about me using racist language. He's arranged a formal meeting with me and her for next Friday to talk through the complaint and see 'where we go' (his words). I'm in a union so I've got a union representative coming with me but I'm completely flawed by it.

I don't know what to do. I'm trying to remain calm and professional with this woman but I'm angry and upset. I don't want to mention anything to black Steve but, at the same time, it feels odd that there's all this going on with him being at the centre but him not really knowing. I also know that if I did mention it some of the drivers would take issue with her and I don't want them to get themselves into any trouble either.

I don't know what I'm asking really TBH. just some words of wisdom and advice from MNers would be breat!

Why was it unproffessional?

What is wrong with the word black?
Would you say the same if he had chosen tall Steve?
Black is not a bad word.
Using the word black to describe a person who is black is not an offence especially if that person chose that discriptor.

Why are you not saying white Steve is also unproffessional?
Why do you have a problem with only black Steve being unproffessional?
Are you racist Gis?
Does the word black offend you?

Are you on glue bubble or do you think you're actually being quite clever?

I'm with bubble actually - what's wrong with use of the word black??

Gis they are honest questions.

Are you going to answer or just throw aroynd old mn sayings?

I'm with bubble on this

Oh right. You seriously think it's ok and professional to encourage your coworkers to use that nickname for you. Then I guess you must think the OP is doing nothing wrong in using the nickname he suggested. Law disagrees, but hey.

likewise. And when they do, and get rightly pulled up on making a racist r

No idea where that bottom bit is from ... Sorry if I accidentally quoted someone.

Oh right. You seriously think it's ok and professional to encourage your coworkers to use that nickname for you.

In the wherehouse enviroment that OP works in that is not public facing then I think nicknames are fine when the individual is happy which Steve clealy is.

Law disagrees, but hey.

It is not against the law to call a person black.

likewise. And when they do, and get rightly pulled up on making a racist r

Calling somebody black is not racist. It is a discriptor. Just like calling somebody tall or blonde or fat. None are against the law.

What law has been broken Gis?

Law disagrees, but hey

As BubbleGumBubble says, it is not against the law to refer to someone as black. It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race but referring to their colour when talking to or about them is not discrimination within the meaning of the legislation. It is also against the law to engage in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic in a way which creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for others. So referring to someone's skin colour may fall foul of this provision depending on how others in the work environment feel about it. But there is no law that specifically prevents you referring to the colour of someone's skin.

I haven't read the full thread but I disagree with Bubblegum. Referring to someone as "Black Steve" in a professional environment is highly inappropriate and very unprofessional.

OP, I understand that you are not a racist, and meant no racist intent, but you have made an unintentional mistake, so do you want to Protect or Correct?

By this I mean: Do you want to protect your position by attempting to justify your mistake, thereby digging yourself ever deeper into a hole, or do you want to do the right thing and correct it? By explaining to the complainant that the "Black Steve" reference was made without malicious intent but that you now realise that it is inappropriate and you wish to apologise unreservedly for any offence caused.

That is what I would do were I in your shoes.
Bubblegum, you are wrong, both from a moral and legal standpoint.

Bubblegum, you are wrong, both from a moral and legal standpoint.

Erm how?

So what law has been broken? What legal standpoint is there?

Morals are subjective and given that black Steve is the one who chose the discriptor and is clealy upset and angered by the complaint I cant see how the OP is morally wrong.

Bubble, I think you're just goading. There are lots of websites explaining protected characteristics, employers' responsibilities toward all of their employees, etc. Just google and read up on it.

How am i goading?

I am fully aware if protected characteristics and the equality act I just fail to see what law has been broken.

You are avoiding answering the reasonable questions I have asked Gis. Why?

Bubblegum, you are wrong, both from a moral and legal standpoint

I agree that referring to someone as "black Steve" is inappropriate and unprofessional. However, it is NOT illegal. Whilst some of Bubblegum's posts relating to the law are a little suspect, on this point she is absolutely spot on.

It is not discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010. It is only discrimination if someone is being treated less favourably than others due to a protected characteristic. Referring to someone as "black Steve" doesn't get close.

The relevant law is Section 26. This states that a person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. It goes on to say that, in deciding whether the conduct has this effect, you must consider B's perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

Applying that to this situation, if we start with "black Steve" it appears he coined this nickname himself and is not in any way upset by it. He is therefore not being harassed. It is, however, possible that the new starter could argue that she is being harassed by use of this nickname.

But to repeat, there is no law that prevents person A referring to person B with a nickname that refers to a protected characteristic such as race. It is only a problem if person B or someone else in the work environment finds it offensive.

The relevant law is Section 26. This states that a person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

prh, based on this, would you say that Steve could make a complaint against the original complainant and his manager, since he has been dragged into this against his will (being harassed), purely because he is black (a protected characteristic)? If so, how could or would the conflicting complaints be resolved?

He could certainly try. In the first instance it would be up to the employer to decide how to resolve the competing rights and claims. If the employer took legal advice on the situation the advice would look at the likelihood of the respective claims succeeding should either employee take legal action.

This is not a proper legal opinion - apart from anything else we don't necessarily have all the relevant facts here - but my view is that, should they take legal action against the employer, the new starter's complaint about use of the "black Steve" nickname would probably be upheld although the compensation she would receive would be less than would be the case if the nickname referred to her. If her claim is valid it naturally follows that she has a right to complain about use of the nickname, even when Steve himself uses it, and therefore Steve's complaint fails. Indeed, even if her claim is not valid I would expect Steve's complaint to fail on the basis that the new starter has the right to complain and the employer must investigate her complaint properly. However, if she were to make repeated complaints designed to ensure that Steve was regularly dragged into things against his will that would be another matter.

Couldn't Steve claim discrimination based on the fact that the race descriptive nicknames applied to both Steves and yet other Steve was not dragged into it?

He might be able to but probably not at this stage. If the new starter only complained about use of "black Steve" it is reasonable for the employer to investigate that. At this stage they could argue that they aren't aware of the use of "white Steve", even though we know they are. If both nicknames are brought to their attention and they then ban use of "black Steve" but allow continued use of "white Steve" it is possible that the Steve's would both be able to claim.

Correct me if I am nieve - but surely it is discrimination to say to Steve that he may not use and have others use his nickname of choice because of his race? Surely it is discriminatory of people to assume he will be offended because of his race? If he chose the nickname he should be allowed to keep it. Just because it makes some white person feel a little uncomfortable. Jeez! (And I mentioned up thread about a family friend calling 'racism' on people who wouldn't call him "Big black Daddy" as he felt that deprived him of his right to chose what he wanted to be called.)

I totally 100% disagree with racism and think that intentional racism should be wiped out and offensive unintentional racism should be monitored and wiped out too. However I think its attitudes like this where white people get offended on behalf of someone mon-White where that person is not offended in the least but then everyone is made to feel like racist degenerates that has helped cause such monstrosities as UKIP and Trump as president. Over sensitivity breeds contempt in my view. (And by that I'm not saying people should just suck up racism, but using 'black' as a descriptor of someone or letting someone have the nickname of their choice is NOT RACIST! How many of us have described friends as 'pale skinned'? Probably quite a few and quite often when distinguishing between our white friends - I don't get how this is different!)

You should never, ever define someone by their race - How rude and offensive. Why on earth would you not call him Steve Surname?

DramaQueen - that's rubbish. Anyone has a right to be offended by racism.

but surely it is discrimination to say to Steve that he may not use and have others use his nickname of choice because of his race

If he is not allowed to use his nickname of choice but "white Steve" is allowed to continue that would potentially be discrimination. The employer should stop use of both nicknames or allow both to continue.

The fact that Steve chose this nickname for himself is irrelevant. If others find it offensive he must stop using it.

lottieandmia maybe you misunderstand - I'm not saying people can't be offebdes by racism, but why is this racist? Yes you shouldn't devine people by their race, but clearly this is not what's happening here. Defining someone by their race is very different from using skin colour as a descriptor or calling someone by their chosen nickname. No one here is saying "Steve is black so this is what he's like" which is what definition would be - they are simply calling him by a nickname that he wants to be called!

Surely though others find the nickname offensive because they think he might be offended where clearly he isn't! Would this woman have complained of she heard him saying it first? I don't know she may well have, but then I bet she would've talked to him first before going straight to the boss!

It doesn't matter. This situation should never have arisen. When 'black Steve' started and 'white Steve' already worked there and 'black Steve' suggested he be referred to as that - his employers and colleagues should have said no we won't refer to people like that mate, you're Steve A and Steve W or whatever their surnames are.