KFC franchise fined £66k after supervisor referred to as an worker a ‘slave’ | UK | News | EUROtoday

A KFC franchise in south-east London has been ordered to pay almost £70,000 in compensation after a supervisor referred to as an Indian worker a “slave”. A tribunal heard that Madhesh Ravichandran, from Tamil Nadu in India, was pressured to work further hours and was topic to discrimination by his boss. The claimant started working on the West Wickham KFC department in January 2023.

Just two months after beginning his job, Mr Ravichandran heard his supervisor, Kajan Theiventhiram, telling a colleague that he would prioritise Sri Lankan Tamil employees workers. The claimant was additionally reportedly referred to by his boss as “this slave”, the tribunal was instructed. Judge Paul Abbott concluded that Mr Ravichandran was wrongfully dismissed from his function, and had been subjected to race discrimination and harassment associated to race and victimisation.

A number of months after Mr Ravichandran had heard his supervisor’s feedback, he resigned from the London KFC franchise. The tribunal discovered that no actual investigation came about into his allegations that he had raised in opposition to his boss.

The choose stated the claimant was “upset and humiliated” and the refusal of a depart request was “significantly influenced” by his race.

Judge Abbott additionally accepted the proof supplied by the claimant that he was pressured to work extreme hours in comparison with his colleagues as a consequence of Mr Theiventhiram’s “racially prejudiced attitude” in direction of him.

Mr Ravichandran was awarded £66,800 in compensation. The tribunal really helpful that Nexus Foods Limited, which operates the West Wickham KFC, implement a coaching programme for all workers geared toward stopping discrimination within the office.

Earlier this 12 months, a pair sacked by Waitrose after taking an unauthorised vacation in Bulgaria tried to sue the grocery store for race discrimination – claiming they had been handled unfairly as a result of they returned to work with “tanned skin.”

But an employment tribunal rejected the declare, ruling that Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova had been dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to return from a refused depart request and deceptive bosses about their whereabouts for almost two months.

Employment Judge Naeema Choudry stated: “The reason for dismissal was not due to the claimants being in Bulgaria, but because they were believed to be absent from work for no good reason…It is clear the claimants were dismissed because they were perceived to be on holiday when they were supposed to be at work – not because they had tanned skin.”