A Latvian worker has won a claim for racism after being disciplined for not speaking English at work.
Albina Sokolova was called out because she admitted speaking in her native tongue with other Eastern European workers, despite there being no complaints from colleagues and supervisors.
She was warned she shouldn't use her native tongue and needed to speak English to colleagues even though she didn't have a strong grasp of the language.
Mrs Sokolova, who is Latvian but also considers Russian a native language, 'relied upon her daughter' to translate at home - but was refused an interpreter during meetings with bosses.
She won her case after an employment tribunal ruled she was 'disadvantaged' by not being able to speak a native language in meetings, adding it was 'not necessary' for only English to be spoken, and will now be paid more than £10,000 in compensation.
The tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova had worked for fruit and nut snack supplier Humdinger Limited for over ten years.
She began working as a production operative at the company's factory in Hull in 2010, shortly after moving to the UK.
In 2015 the company introduced a new 'language policy' which stated 'English was to be spoken in the workplace' and workers could only speak another language 'during rest and lunch breaks'.
In a memo to employees, it was explained a 'common language' would 'promote effective workplace communication across the business'.
The Hull tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova discussed the policy during a meeting with bosses in February 2017 after a 'letter of concern' was issued by a supervisor, in which they 'asked for improvements' in her English.
Two and a half years later Mrs Sokolova requested leave for a 'dental appointment' in Latvia which was denied because she had 'used up her holiday leave' and 'could not take unpaid leave'.
Should employers be allowed to enforce a 'common language'? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below
She cancelled the appointment - the last in a series of implant treatments - and attended work on the day the appointment had been due to take place, but was absent through sickness the next day.
She was invited to an interview about the unauthorised absence and requested for her daughter, who is 'fluent in Latvian, Russian and English' to attend and interpret for her.
The tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova 'could get by on the factory floor' with the English she had 'picked up', but that it was 'not sufficiently sophisticated to manage discipline and grievance meetings'.
However, her request for an interpreter was flatly refused, putting her at a 'particular disadvantage'.
In subsequent disciplinary and grievance meetings she 'did not repeat' the request but was sometimes accompanied by a colleague whose English was 'not of the standard necessary'.
Mrs Sokolova later submitted several grievances with her employers, but was 'not offered' an interpreter until meetings held shortly before her dismissal in July 2020.
Have you got a workplace tribunal story to tell? Get in touch: emma.munbodh@mirror.co.uk
She was also disciplined for speaking with fellow foreign employees in her native tongue - despite there having been no recent complaints alluding to this.
The tribunal was told: "The impression portrayed... was that allegations had been made against the claimant about breaches of the effective communications policy. This was not the case.
"[Mrs Sokolova] had asked to see any complaints but [did] not [receive] them (not surprisingly, because they did not exist).
"Apart from the letter of concern of 10 February 2017, there was no information that [her] behaviour in this regard had been an issue for her colleagues or supervisors."
The tribunal was told: "[Mrs Sokolova] suggested when no English workers were in the vicinity, no real objection could be made to speaking other languages.
"Without continued use of the same common language, the switching of one language to the other would run the risk of unintended lapses becoming commonplace."
Whilst the tribunal found it was 'reasonably necessary' for the language policy to be implemented on the factory floor, it ruled grievance and disciplinary meetings required communication which was 'full and comprehensive'.
It ruled using 'only English' in disciplinary and grievance meetings was 'not justified'.
Employment Judge David Jones said: "This case demonstrated a procedurally flawed use of disciplinary procedures and unfairly targeted an employee who had raised a grievance.
"These actions fell outside any reasonable and acceptable range of responses. For these reasons we find the dismissal to have been unfair."
The tribunal ordered Humdinger Limited to pay £10,800 to Mrs Sokolova for indirect race discrimination and injury to feelings.
