Chef who said the word 'golliwog' as he discussed Robertson's jam in front of black colleague is guilty of racial harassment

Mark McAleese used word when his back was turned to Denise Lindsay

Happened in discussion about food labelling in the kitchens of LSE halls

Employment tribunal ruled use of word was 'isolated act of harassment'

Three Appeal Court judges today upheld tribunal's harassment finding

Her lawyers said use of term was 'inherently racist, whatever context'



Unhappy: Denise Lindsay, 45, of Clapham, south London, complained about the use of the word

A chef who apologised after he mentioned the old ‘golliwog’ label on Robertson’s jam in front of a black colleague was still guilty of harassment, top appeal judges ruled today.

Mark McAleese used the word when his back was turned to Denise Lindsay in a discussion about food labelling in the kitchens of the London School of Economics halls of residence, in Bloomsbury, where they both worked.

After 45-year-old Miss Lindsay complained, an employment tribunal described Mr McAleese’s use of the words ‘golliwog’ and ‘golliwog jam’ as ‘unwanted’ and ruled that what he said amounted to ‘an isolated act of harassment’.

That was despite the fact that Mr McAleese had swiftly apologised to his co-worker after the incident in January 2009 and said he had not intended to violate Miss Lindsay’s dignity or to ‘create an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment for her’.

Three Appeal Court judges today upheld the tribunal’s harassment finding, even though Mr McAleese had spoken with his back turned, in a quiet voice and his comments were not aimed at Miss Lindsay, of Clapham, south London.

Her legal team had argued that the use of the term was ‘inherently racist, whatever the context’.

And Lord Justice Floyd agreed that the word ‘gollywog’ was ‘obviously racist and offensive’ if used in the presence of a black person.

The most important issue in the case, he said, was ‘why did Mr McAleese say what he did? Was it because he knew he had used the word on the grounds of her race, but dressed it up as innocent chat? Or was it for some other reason?’

Brand: Mark McAleese said a conversation turned to Robertson's jam and the fact that its label had changed

Mr McAleese had himself recognised that the term would be ‘down right offensive’ if aimed at a black person, and the judge said he had ‘not been truthful’ in repeatedly denying, including before the tribunal, that he had in fact uttered the word.

Lord Justice Floyd, sitting with Lords Justice Moore-Bick and Christopher Clarke, upheld the tribunal’s finding that the ‘the most likely explanation was that Mr McAleese had used the word because of Miss Lindsay’s race’.

He added: ‘His failure to be truthful about the fact that he had used the term at all, coupled with his own subjective view that any use of the term in the presence of a black person would be offensive, formed an adequate evidential basis for the tribunal’s finding that the words had been used by him on the grounds of race.’

However, Miss Lindsay was told that she had lodged her complaint too late and that it would not be ‘just and equitable’ to allow her to continue with her compensation claim against the LSE.

The effect Mr McAleese’s comments had on her, whilst upsetting, was ‘evidently short-lived’. He had quickly apologised and matters seemed to have settled down in the kitchen before Miss Lindsay lodged a formal grievance five months later.

Scene: Mr McAleese used the word when his back was turned to Miss Lindsay during a discussion about food labelling in the kitchens of the LSE halls of residence (pictured), in Bloomsbury, where they both worked

Mr McAleese’s account was that he and Miss Lindsay had their backs turned to each other as they innocently discussed food and packaging.

After chatting about Walkers crisps, he said the conversation turned to Robertson’s jam and the fact that its label had changed.

'White people don’t get called golliwogs. The word is an overtly racial comment. ‘Golliwog cannot be interpreted in any other way' Daniel Matovu, for Miss Lindsay

Daniel Matovu, for Miss Lindsay, had earlier told the court: ‘White people don’t get called golliwogs. The word is an overtly racial comment.

‘Golliwog cannot be interpreted in any other way. What the authorities make clear is that, when something is inherently discriminatory and clearly has racial overtones, there is no further debate.’

However, the LSE’s barrister, Shaen Catherwood, insisted that Mr McAleese’s use of the word - spoken quietly and quickly - did not come anywhere close to racial harassment.

‘I say it is unsatisfactory that somebody should be labelled with a finding of harassment on racial grounds when the actual context in which the word was used was innocent and inoffensive,’ he told the court.