‘You are black, that’s why you need to do this job’: Firm ordered to pay cleaner €3k over racial discrimination
Gordon Deegan
A State watchdog has ordered a firm to pay a cleaner €3,000 compensation after he alleged that his supervisor told him “you are black, that’s why you need to do this job”.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator Conor Stokes ordered Stillorgan Trading Post Ltd trading as DMC Foods to pay €3,000 compensation to Alcenio Augusto after finding that Augusto was discriminated against on race grounds under the Employment Equality Act 1998.
Augusto told the hearing that his manager said to him on one occasion that the machine that he was working on doesn't work with “black hands".
On another occasion, Augusto alleged that his manager stated that the screwdriver only broke with him because he was black.
On another date, Augusto stated that when he forgot to take a break, he stated that his manager noted that "he doesn't need to go for a break because he's black”.
Augusto said that it is upsetting when someone refers to the colour of your skin.
He added that the situation left him completely shaken, because he had never experienced such a clear situation of racism as the one he was witnessing.
Augusto submitted that when he told his manager that he didn't like those kinds of words with racial content, he said he was just joking, but then repeatedly would make that kind of pronouncement again and again and often in the presence of (named) co-workers.
Augusto started work in May 2024, and his employment was terminated on January 29th 2025.
DMC Foods terminated Augusto’s employment after his formal probation evaluation noted there was serious concern regarding Augusto's failure to work safely, which could compromise not only safety within the factory itself but also the safety of the products being produced by the factory.
Under cross-examination at the hearing, Augusto’s line manager denied using racist language in his interactions with Augusto.
Each of the assertions were put to him and each time he stated that the assertions were not true.
In his findings, Stokes said that although he was prepared to believe Augusto in relation to the suggestion that he was racially abused, “I do not find the assertion that he did not know where to go with his complaints is borne out by the facts”.
Stokes said that Augusto was provided with an appeal but chose not to do so.
Stokes said that following his termination, Augusto was offered reinstatement, working to another manager while the matter was investigated.
Stokes said that he considers that an award of compensation in the region of €5,000 is appropriate.
He added however, that he also noted that the employer provided certain options to Augusto to try to address the discrimination allegations raised.
He said that Augusto chose not to avail of either the appeal or the reinstatement options offered to him.
He said: “Accordingly, I consider that a reduction of any award by 40 per cent is appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances of this complaint” and reduced the award to €3,000.
In his findings, Stokes found that Augusto was not entirely credible as a witness, changing his story at times while at times avoiding answering questions and giving vague answers.
Stokes said that Augusto provided no concrete dates to support his contentions. He said: “However, he was consistent in the detail that he related regarding the comments made to him and to the racist remarks that were directed at him."
He added that for his part, Augusto’s supervisor/manager did not come across as entirely credible either.
Stokes said: “He noted that he kept records, but these were not produced. His answers to some questions regarding specific details provided by the complainant appeared both vague and contrived.”
Stokes stated that, as regards the evidence of the two main witnesses, on balance he preferred the evidence of Augusto, which, although having gaps in his dateline, was more likely than not to have been the case.
