Food factory worker loses race discrimination case over being given a smaller dollop of mayo

A food factory worker sued for racial discrimination after being served a smaller dollop of mayonnaise than his co-workers — but his case was dismissed.

Chibogu Eze filed the suit after being given a small bag of Hellman’s mayonnaise after the larger container ran out while employed by food manufacturer Pilgrim’s Pride at their Linton location near Cambridge.

After Eze argued with canteen manager Dorina Rosu over portion sizes and said he was going to complain about her behaviour, his employer contacted his recruitment agency and was asked to quit the job.

He claimed he was reduced because he was black and sued for racial discrimination, harassment and victimization.

However, after a three-day evaluation, the panel ruled that he had not been discriminated against.

Eze was given a smaller bag of Hellman’s mayonnaise after the larger tub ran out, meaning he got less than his colleagues, an employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds heard.

Despite Hellman’s pouch being “higher quality” than the usual tub brand, Mr. Eze claimed he was discriminated against because he is black.

He also complained that he received less salad than colleagues, and argued with canteen manager Dorina Rosu over the price of a bacon and sausage sandwich, the tribunal heard.

But all of his claims – including “The Mayonnaise Incident” – were rejected after the three-day legal process after the panel ruled that he had not been discriminated against.

The tribunal learned that Mr Eze started working as a temporary worker for Staffline Recruitment in 2018 and was appointed to work at food manufacturer Pilgrim’s Pride at their Linton site near Cambridge.

Mr Eze, who lives in Ipswich, was assigned to the sauce and seasoning room in September of that year, the tribunal heard.

On one occasion, during a lunch break at the factory, hamburgers were on the menu for the 200 employees and the workers were eager to be served, the panel was told.

The tribunal said: ‘Where mayonnaise is part of the dish being served – for example as a sauce in a burger or sandwich – there is a large container of mayonnaise that is added to the dish by the servers.

‘If it is not part of the dish – for example as a seasoning for fries – the canteen sells branded bags for 10 pence per bag.

‘(Mr Eze) could not remember the brand, but accepted that the sachets were branded. We accept evidence (from the company) that these were of a higher quality than the mayonnaise in the tub.

“On one occasion burgers were served for lunch and mayonnaise from the tub was added to the burger accordingly by canteen staff when they were served.

“Someone in front of (Mr. Eze) was given mayonnaise from the bath, but (he) was offered a sachet instead.

‘He stated in his testimony that the container ‘still appeared to him to contain mayonnaise’ by which the Tribunal means that he thought so, but he could not be sure.

Eze got a mayonnaise bag after the big tub was empty, meaning he got a smaller portion than his colleagues (file image)

“We at least accept Ms. Rosu’s evidence that that tub was empty and a new one wasn’t ready. We also accept her evidence that when the new tub came out, (he) asked for mayonnaise from the tub.”

The worker also claimed that he had been served half as much salad as his colleagues, but the tribunal heard that even if he had been served ‘less than a full spoonful’, this was not done on purpose.

On another occasion, Mr Eze argued with canteen manager Mrs Rosu over the price of his £2.05 bacon and sausage sandwich.

But the court heard that Ms. Rosu was clear and consistent about the details of this, while Mr. Eze could not say anything about the correct price.

Mr Eze also claimed some colleagues had made derogatory racist remarks about him, but he could not say who or when that had happened to, the tribunal heard.

On another occasion, Mr. Eze argued with Ms. Rosu as she gave him and another colleague a ride.

Dissatisfied with being forced to sit in the back of her three-door Mini, Mr Eze said he would complain about her behavior in the cafeteria, the tribunal heard.

After the incident was reported, a manager from Pilgrim’s Pride contacted his recruiting office and was asked to leave.

Mr. Eze sued for racial discrimination, harassment and victimization. However, his claims were rejected.

The panel rejected the claim about mayonnaise, saying, “Mr. Eze was offered higher quality mayonnaise in a sachet instead of mayonnaise from the bath because the latter had run out.”

“As explained above, the plaintiff was offered higher quality mayonnaise in a sachet instead of mayonnaise from the container because the latter had run out.”

With regard to the salad complaint, the tribunal said: ‘The salad was served by the spoonful and therefore the portion sizes were variable. Variable portion sizes have been a problem for many people given this inconsistency.

“If (Mr. Eze) was served less than what he perceived as a full spoon, it was for this reason and not intentional.

‘On one occasion (Mr. Eze) asked for more salad and was told (him) that he would have to pay for a second spoonful.

“In the circumstances, we find that he was not treated less favorably than others who did not share his race, would be treated, or that the less favorable treatment was because of his race.”

The tribunal also ruled that Ms Rosu had not made any offensive remarks to Mr Eze.