Obscene language is bad business — Industrial Court

THE USE of obscene language in the workplace, especially within earshot of customers, can cost you your job. In stressing this point, the Industrial Court said the use of obscene language was anathema, and should on no account be encouraged. The Court made the point in a judgment it delivered arising from a dispute between the establishment called the “Parrott” and one of its employees, Kureen Charles. The Parrott is owned by Winston Siriram, former Mayor of Chaguanas.  Kureen Charles was fired by the Parrott for using obscene language to a customer and the court’s task was to find out whether the dismissal was in keeping with good industrial relations practices. Both the union and the employer agreed that Charles was dismissed because she used obscene language towards a customer, during working hours. The union submitted though that Charles was physically assaulted and provoked into doing so by the customer.

But the Court found that the worker was in the habit of using obscene language at any time, regardless of the situation. As a result, it did not believe that provocation was the cause in this instance. The Court found that the Parrott failed to present any evidence to show that the worker used obscene language. In her testimony, Charles admitted that she did engage in the use of obscene language. But what the Court found that the union did not proffer provocation for the use of such language. In its judgment, the Court commented: “This company was part of the service provided to its customers for its existence, and the use of obscene language was not in the best interest of such a business. “Workers so employed, should not abuse customers in any manner, since the customers eventually pay their wage” said the Court. It also agreed that if it were to quash the dismissal of the worker, workers in this type of industry, would be of the opinion that it would be in order and alright to use obscene language towards customers. Accordingly, the court said, the dismissal of the worker was neither harsh nor oppressive, and was in keeping with good industrial relations principles and practices and should be upheld The Court comprised H Soverall and S Maharaj. Charles was represented by the Communication Workers’ Union.