Decision of the Complaints Committee 13205-17 Hoyte v Birmingham Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Paul Hoyte complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Birmingham Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article headlined “JLR Worker given £20,000 award for ‘injured feelings’, published online on 30 May 2017.
2. The article
reported that the complainant had been an employee at Jaguar Land Rover Ltd,
and had brought legal claims against his former employer for unfair dismissal,
on the grounds of race and disability discrimination and
harassment because of his race. The
article stated that the claimant alleged that racist comments had been made in
relation to a workplace poster, which the article reported aimed to “discourage
workers from taking part in disruptive behaviour.” The article stated that the
poster “featured a tree full of healthy apples with a rotten one in the middle”
and carried the caption “Don’t let one bad apple spoil it for everyone.” The
article also reported that the complainant had complained that racist nicknames
had been used in the workplace, and also stated that he had brought a
discrimination claim, and had accused workers of harassing him because of his
disability. The article reported that the complainant had won his claims for
disability discrimination and harassment and had been awarded nearly £20,000,
but claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination were rejected. The
article also stated that the complainant’s claim for costs had been rejected.
3. The complainant
said that the article was inaccurate. He said that the tribunal had accepted
his claim of racial discrimination, and this represented the majority of the
compensation he was awarded. He also said he had made allegations of disability
discrimination and harassment against his manager, not fellow workers, that the
poster in question was not to do with difficult workers, but a whistleblowing
hotline, and that his employer had made an application for costs, which had
been refused, not him. The complainant was also concerned that the article did not
make clear that the company’s internal procedures had been criticised by the
4. The publication
said that the article was based on information heard during proceedings and the
judgment published by the tribunal. The newspaper offered to update the article
to reflect inaccuracies relating to the purpose of the workplace poster, and that
the complainant believed his manager had discriminated and harassed him because
of his disability. The publication did not believe these inaccuracies were significant
as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
5. The publication
said that the summary on the first page of the tribunal’s judgment stated that
only claims for harassment on the grounds of race and disability and disability
discrimination had been upheld. However the full judgment, which the newspaper
had relied on at several points in the article, made clear that the
complainant’s race discrimination claim had also been upheld. The newspaper
also accepted that it had erroneously reported that the complainant had applied
for costs, when in fact the application had been made by his employer. The
publication offered to publish the following correction to reflect this:
In an earlier version of this article we reported that “Mr Hoyte had won his claims for disability discrimination and harassment, but claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination were rejected.” We would like to make clear that while Mr Hoyte’s claim for unfair dismissal was rejected, he won his claims for race discrimination and disability harassment. We also reported that Mr Hoyte’s claim for costs was rejected and would like to clarify that Mr Hoyte made no claim for costs - it was the respondent’s claim for costs that was refused.
The complainant did not accept the correction offered.
Relevant Code provisions
6. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
Findings of the Committee
7. The summary on the first page of the employment tribunal’s judgment had omitted that the complainant’s claim for race discrimination was also upheld. However, the article had gone further than omit the complainant’s race discrimination claim, but had reported that it had been rejected by the tribunal. The article had also reported that the complainant had applied for costs that had been rejected, when in fact his employer’s application for costs had been rejected. The full judgment, which the publication was in possession of, made clear that the complainant’s claim of race discrimination was upheld, and that his employer had applied for costs and this had been rejected. In this respect, the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information, in breach of Clause 1 (i).
8. It was significantly inaccurate for the article to report
that his claim for race discrimination was not upheld, as this was the grounds
on which the majority of the compensation was awarded. Similarly, it was also
significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant’s application for costs
was refused, as this was an inaccurate report of the tribunal’s findings. These
inaccuracies required correction under Clause 1 (ii).
9. The Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that
the article had not made clear that his disability harassment claim was brought
against his manager, and not any other colleagues. The Committee did not find
this to be significant, as the identity of the employees accused of harassment
did not appear to have a bearing on the decision of the tribunal, and was not
directly referenced in its findings. However, it welcomed the publication's
offer to amend the article to reflect the complainant’s position.
10. The poster advertised a whistleblowing hotline. The
article had accurately described what was depicted in the workplace poster and
reported the complainant’s concern that his colleagues had made racist comments
in relation to the “bad apple” campaign shown in the poster. In the context of
an article reporting on the complainant’s employment tribunal, it was not
misleading to characterise the poster as seeking to “discourage workers from
taking part in disruptive behaviour.” Also, the newspaper’s decision not to include
the tribunal’s criticism of the employer’s internal procedures was a matter of
selection, over which the newspaper has editorial discretion. The omission of
this information did not render the article inaccurate or otherwise misleading.
11. The complaint was upheld in relation to Clause 1 (i).
Remedial action required
12. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required.
13. The publication had promptly offered to amend the article, and to publish a footnote, which corrected the inaccuracies. This should now be published.
Date complaint received: 06/06/2017
Date decision issued: 01/09/2017
Back to ruling listing