1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
DCUK claims routine 'unfair' dismissal was not a racist act
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DA I \ 1 LERCHRYSLER UK (DCUK) has been ordered to pay a former IT worker more than £78,000 for unfair dismissal on racial grounds.
A Bedford employment tribunal heard how Ithalid Jayyosi was Left angry and suicidal after being made redundant from his job at the vehicle manufacturer, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz.
During his 10-month employment he was subjected to racial abuse with jokes made about his Palestinian origin and the fact that he has the same name as one of the September 11 hijackers. On one occasion, senior IT manager Ronald Coles said he hoped Jayyosi would not make a bomb. Another time, a colleague told Jayyosi his computer password had been changed to 'suicide bomber'.
For Jayyosi. his lawyer said that when human resources specialist Michelle Thubron met with his client she gave him the impression that she was suspicious of him and he felt she was treating him as a criminal. in an e-mail to DCUK's human resources manager David Werner. she said that he needed to talk with Jayyosi's line manager lain Moulson about 'exiting' him.
She warned that the firm could not go down the disciplinary route because Jayyosi had done too well in his appraisal to justify such action, and that this might leave the firm open to him using the -race card": more appropriate action would be redundancy.
Two months later. Jayyosi was called to attend a meeting with Moulson and Thubron at which he was immediately dismissed on redundancy grounds. The tribunal heard that the post was later advertised as a 'new' job, which differed little from Jayyosi's original position, and which he could have performed.
Defence lawyers said that while DCUK's dismissal of Jayyosi was unfair, it was not discriminatory and that they routinely 'unfairly' dismiss employees they no longer wish to employ who have been there for less than one year.
A spokeswoman for DCUK declined to comment further.