The employment tribunal, which took place between June 27 and July 4, examined an incident from July 18 2020 when a pharmacist of Nigerian descent was working as the responsible pharmacist (RP) at Boot’s Silva Island Way branch in Wickford, Essex.

According to a judgment sent to the relevant parties earlier this month (October 9) and seen by C+D, the tribunal found that other pharmacy staff members’ treatment of him was “significantly influenced by and therefore related to his race".

It said it was “satisfied that… the conduct had the effect of creating a hostile, humiliating and offensive environment for the [pharmacist] and violated his dignity”.

Read more: ‘Saluting our sisters’: Celebrating Black women in pharmacy

And it found that Boots’ initial investigation into the matter was “grossly inadequate”, while an appeal investigation “was little more than a rubberstamping of the original flawed process”.

As a result, it upheld a number of the pharmacist’s claims of “harassment related to race” both against Boots and one of his colleagues – a pre-registration pharmacy technician – as well as his claim of “unfair (constructive) dismissal”.

Boots said that it is “reviewing” the findings and that it stands “firmly against workplace harassment of any kind”.

 

Threats to call police

 

The tribunal found that over the shift, a pre-registration pharmacy technician and a pharmacy adviser working at the branch at the time were “disrespectful and unprofessional” and that this treatment “escalated as the day went on from dismissive discourtesy” to “personalised abuse”, up to “the most extreme” act of threating to call the police.

It heard evidence that the pharmacy staff members, who are both white and were “junior” to the pharmacist, “refused” to help him file bagged items and prescriptions and also “refused” to help an Asian customer and their mother pick up a prescription.

The pharmacist then asked the pharmacy adviser to leave the pharmacy for the rest of the day “because of the way she was behaving and her refusal to assist the customer”, according to the hearing document.

Read more: GPhC: Non-white pharmacists ‘over-represented’ in FtP concerns

But both colleagues told him that he should leave instead as they were no longer “prepared to work with him”, it said.

The tribunal found that despite not being present at the time of the incident, the store manager – who is also white – shouted at the pharmacist on the telephone that he was “an utter disgrace” and asked him to leave “without hearing his side of the story”, while one of the staff members threatened to call the police if he did not.

The pharmacist told his own line manager over the telephone that he felt “shaken and feared for his safety” and that he “thought it best if he left”, the document said.

 

“Empowered to be as rude as they liked”

 

The tribunal found that the pharmacy workers “plainly felt empowered to be as rude as they liked to the [pharmacist’s] face”.

It heard evidence that when the pharmacist said that the pre-registration pharmacy technician “had a reputation for being rude”, she retorted that he “had a bad reputation”.

Read more: RPS England chair urges action ‘now’ after ‘watershed’ racism report

One of the staff members said it was “surprising [to see] a grown man with three kids behaving like this” and the other replied “God knows how he got them”, according to the document.

When the pharmacist responded that “not everyone felt that way about him” and that “a colleague [in another store] offered him some cakes”, the pre-registration pharmacy technician said she hoped “they [were] poisoned”, it added.

Despite claiming she hadn’t said this in evidence, the tribunal said it was “satisfied these things were said”.

 

“Inconsistent and untruthful evidence”

 

The tribunal was also “particularly concerned by the inconsistent and untruthful evidence given” by the staff, which “appeared…to be distorted and exaggerated”, it said.

It found that the pre-registration pharmacy technician’s behaviour was “hardly the action of someone who felt threatened and bullied” as she claimed and that the pharmacy adviser’s claim that the pharmacist “snatched [her] phone aggressively” was “not true”.

It said the staff were “volatile, defensive and…quick to make fresh allegations when flaws in their original evidence were pointed out”.

Read more: Removal ‘likely’ – GPhC cracks down on racism with new FtP proposals

The tribunal added that the two pharmacy workers’ “repeated allegations of aggression” reasonably led it to conclude that both “were stereotyping or racially profiling [the pharmacist] as an aggressive black man, when all he was doing was seeking to assert his authority, in circumstances where they were undermining it”.

It also noted that “for a black man to be reported to the police for aggression against two white women, in the absence of any third-party witnesses, is potentially a very serious matter indeed”.

Read more: How community pharmacy can help Black sickle cell patients

It stressed that the “experienced” pharmacist “is not physically intimidating”, was “a quietly-spoken, courteous person” and a “dignified [and] sensitive” man.

And it said that it “was clear…that the events of that day had a very grave effect on him” and that he found his colleagues’ treatment of him “distressing and humiliating”.

 

Boots investigation “simply not fit for purpose”

 

The tribunal also found that Boots’ “most serious failure” in its investigation of the pharmacist’s allegations “was the almost complete failure properly to investigate whether race was a factor in [his] treatment”.

It said that the Boots pharmacist store manager who conducted the initial grievance hearing “failed to consider the possibility that race was a factor in any meaningful way” and “made no attempt to contact the two Asian customers”, describing this as a “serious flaw”.

Additionally, the tribunal found it “plainly excessive” that it took six months to complete the investigation after the incident took place, concluding that the investigation was “simply not fit for purpose”.

Read more: What steps have community pharmacy bodies taken to tackle racism?

It said that “to be fair” to the manager who conducted the grievance hearing, “he had had no specific training in how to conduct grievances into serious allegations of discrimination” and “was not equipped to carry out this process effectively”.

But it added that the multiple’s size should have meant that it was “able to assign someone [better] equipped”.

The pharmacist resigned from his position on April 3 2021, referring to the “prolonged nature of the investigation”, the “failure to properly investigate his allegations of discrimination” and “being ignored throughout the process” in his resignation letter.

Read more: Opinion: We need to include more Black women in pharmacy leadership roles

As a result, the tribunal upheld the claim that he was unfairly dismissed by Boots, on the basis that a resignation can be treated as a “constructive dismissal” if the employee ends “a deteriorating relationship” due to conduct over “a period of time” that undermines “trust and confidence”.

“We have no doubt that the [pharmacist] resigned, in part at least, in response to the serious failures in the process that profoundly undermined his confidence in [his employer],” the tribunal said.

The tribunal found that the apology letter written to the pharmacist by the store manager over a month after his resignation was “a non-apology” and “must have rubbed salt in [his] wounds”.

Read more: On demand: C+D racism in pharmacy 'actions not words' webinar

It said that “a one-day remedy hearing” will determine the compensation to which the pharmacist is entitled.

A Boots spokesperson said last week (October 26) that the multiple stands “firmly against workplace harassment of any kind”.

“We are reviewing the court’s findings and will reflect and take action on any learnings,” they added.