A jewellery shop worker has sued his boss for age discrimination, claiming he called him an ‘old git’ at work.
Ashok Ahir, 60, who began working for F Hinds as an internal audit assistant in September 2022, told an employment tribunal the comment was made by retail director Jeremy Hinds.
He was receiving ‘on the job training’ for his new role and would travel to branches of the large chain and carry out stock takes with others.
Mr Ahir alleged he and Mr Hinds were having dinner with two others in March 2023 whilst carrying out a series of stock takes in Shropshire when they began discussing cars.
After he discussed his ex-girlfriend owning a convertible Mazda MX5, Mr Hinds, in his thirties at the time, replied: ‘Ash, you old git’.
The audit assistant told the tribunal, held in Watford, he was ‘shocked, offended, and humiliated’ by the ‘belittling’ comment.
He added that he did not feel he could speak up about the alleged incident at the time because Mr Hinds was a director and he feared putting his job’ in ‘jeopardy’.
Mr Ahir also claimed another colleague at the high street jewellery chain F Hinds once told him ‘you’re old, you’re old, you’re old’ after doing a stock take together.
Ashok Ahir, 60, who began working for F Hinds as an internal audit assistant in September 2022, told an employment tribunal retail director Jeremy Hinds (pictured) called him an ‘old git’
However, the tribunal found Mr Ahir couldn’t prove the remarks had been made and dismissed his claims entirely.
Mr Hinds denied making a comment like that at any time and said Mr Ahir had not raised it during an internal grievance process.
Mr Ahir’s line manager also told the hearing that the incident had not been reported to him, despite the assistant auditor claiming he had raised it.
Having heard both sides of the allegation, Judge Monica Daley found she ‘could not be satisfied’ that the remark had been made and dismissed Mr Ahir’s claim.
She said: ‘The tribunal carefully considered the evidence as set out in Jeremy Hinds’ notes; it noted that there was no record of this having been reported at the time.
‘The remark was not included in the original grievance, and [Mr Ahir’s line manager] denies that the remark had been reported to him.
‘Having considered all the evidence, the tribunal could not be satisfied that the remark had been made on a balance of probabilities.
‘The tribunal found that claimant failed to establish facts from which, in the absence of any other explanation, point to a contravention of the Equality Act having occurred.
‘Accordingly, the claim for direct discrimination fails.’
Mr Ahir also claimed another colleague at the high street jewellery chain F Hinds once told him ‘you’re old, you’re old, you’re old’ after doing a stock take together (Pictured: An F Hinds store)
Mr Ahir also told the tribunal that concerns about his performance were part of a ‘pattern of harassment’ because of his age.
In July 2023, managing director Paul Hinds, Mr Hinds’ brother, said he was ‘quite worried’ about Mr Ahir’s performance having observed him on a stock take.
Paul Hinds added he should have been operating at a ‘much higher level’ given he had been in the role for nearly a year.
Mr Ahir tried to tell the tribunal these concerns were influenced by him raising the allegation about Mr Hinds calling him an ‘old git’.
However, there was ‘no evidence’ anyone other than him knew about the supposed remark and therefore it could not have impacted Mr Hinds’ view.
The main concerns about Mr Ahir’s performance were that others could not rely on him for ‘relatively simple tasks’ and he ‘lacked understanding’ of what the role entailed.
The tribunal found that the performance worries came from ‘genuine concern’ and had no link to Mr Ahir’s age.
In September 2023, Mr Ahir claimed a similar incident to the ‘old git’ one took place when a colleague kept saying ‘you’re old, you’re old’ on the way back from a stock take.
However, Judge Daley once again found there was not enough evidence for Mr Ahir to prove that this comment was made.
Finally, Mr Ahir claimed as a result of his grievance, F Hinds gave him an ultimatum of either ending his employment or demoting him.
However, the tribunal concluded the offer was made because of the ‘genuine concerns’ over his performance which meant he could not stay in his current role.
Instead of taking either option, Mr Ahir went on sick leave before resigning in May 2024.
