A black ambulance driver sued for racism claiming the phrase 'ten a penny' was related to slavery. Boss Dan Price used the phrase to Matthew Johnson after the employee told him he was going on a month-long honeymoon.
An employment tribunal was told that Mr Price made the remark to suggest that ambulance drivers like Mr Johnson were easy to find. But Mr Johnson insisted the commonly used idiom is racist and took his employers to the tribunal claiming discrimination.
The 'highly skilled' driver has now had his case thrown out after a judge ruled that none of his bosses had any idea the phrase was potentially connected to slavery. The Watford tribunal heard that Mr Johnson started work at the company in March 2018.
The following month he had a conversation with Mr Price informing him of his upcoming honeymoon. Mr Price, who is white, then said words to the effect that he 'would not have employed' Mr Johnson if he had known this and used the expression 'ten a penny' to refer to him.
Mr Johnson complained that he this phrase was 'a reference to slavery'. However, Mr Price claimed that he used this phrase with everyone and was nothing to do with Mr Johnson being black.
"(Mr Johnson) says that the expression ‘10 a penny’ is a racist expression with its origins within the slave trade," the tribunal heard (DHL) submitted that the general understanding of the expression does not have any racial connection but refers to something that is common or easily available and the likely meaning of the above expression, if made, was that ambulance drivers with (Mr Johnson's) experience and skills were easy for (DHL) to find.
"(Mr Johnson) alleges that he did not like the remark and that he regarded it, at the time it was said, as racist. Specifically that he regarded it as a reference to slavery."
Following this incident, the tribunal heard Mr Price and another senior figure told Mr Johnson that he couldn't park his car, a Porsche, across two parking spaces in the company car park. The tribunal heard that Mr Price then approached the car and said words to the effect that Mr Johnson 'must be a drug dealer to be able to afford a car like that'.
The hearing was told that the driver was later involved in a number of incidents, involving an accident with a stretcher and a car colliding with an ambulance. On a visit to a patient's home, an incident with a wheelchair resulted in a colleague being concussed and Mr Johnson was disciplined, the tribunal was told.
In January 2020, Mr Johnson issued a grievance about his treatment complaining that he had been discriminated against in relation to the first two incidents by being drug tested by the company twice when neither of his crew-mates had been - when they had been the ones 'responsible'.
While still an employee the ambulance driver took his employers to the tribunal claiming racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. He has since left the company. In relation to the 'ten a penny' remark, Employment Judge Paddy Quill said that the evidence suggested Mr Price had used the expression many times to many different employees, at least some of whom were white.
"(Mr Johnson's) main argument for inviting us to find that the burden of proof has shifted is that he asks us to take account of his opinion that it is an expression connected with slavery and he invites us to decide (based on that) that Mr Price could have been aware of a connection with slavery and, whether consciously or unconsciously, was using the expression because of its (alleged) connection to slavery.
"However...(he)did not suggest that everybody would have heard the expression used in that particular context (ie connected to slavery). On his account, the issue of whether someone had heard the expression being used in a way which was connected to slavery depend on age, in particular.
"He also believed that it might potentially depend on the person’s race, as well as their age. However, (Mr Johnson's) own opinion about the history of the expression...are not sufficient to persuade us that Mr Price might have been aware of the (alleged) connection to slavery.
"The context of (the remark) was that Mr Johnson was going to be absent for around four weeks or so. On Mr Johnson's account (which we accept) that displeased Mr Price and Mr Price suggested he would have hired another employee instead.
"Mr Johnson has not proven that he meant another black employee, and he has not proved that Mr Price was any more likely to respond with these words to Mr Johnson as a black employee than had a white employee informed him of a four-week absence for honeymoon shortly after commencing work."
Regarding Mr Johnson's claims of racial harassment by drug tests, Judge Quill added: "Mr Johnson has not convinced us that [DHL]'s conduct was related to race."
In dismissing the case, Mr Johnson was ordered by the tribunal to pay £1,200 toward's DHL's costs.
