Alexander Campbell was issued with a warning by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) that he must write a reflective statement on his actions.
The support worker was found to have said to a colleague whilst at a McDonald’s: “I am not sure if I am eating here just in case there is a coloured person preparing the food.”
He also told the same colleague when referencing individuals of Pakistani descent: “You would never eat a kebab because Asians have s**t under their nails.”
The incidents took place on or around the 2nd of April 2018 and on or around the 31st of May 2019 respectively.
Campbell was at the time employed as a support practitioner by The Richmond Fellowship Scotland Limited, but has since had his position terminated.
The SSSC stated that Campbell’s colleague “had explained that the comments were unacceptable and unprofessional” but that Campbell “had simply laughed it off.”
Concluding from four hearings between August and September this year, SSSC decided that Campbells fitness to practice has been impaired.
The council issued Campbell with a warning for two years, and instructed the support worker to write a reflective statement of more than 1500 words.
Campbell did not attend or engage with the hearing at all.
In their findings of fact the SSSC wrote: “Your comments had the potential to cause harm to service users, colleagues, or the reputation of your employers and the profession as a whole.”
“Your behaviour appeared to be one of underlying attitudes and values.
“Such views might be capable of being remedied but would require insight, reflection, hard work and a willingness on your part to do so.
“You had given no indication that you recognised the problem or that you would be prepared to take steps to remedy it.
“There was nothing in the information available to the Panel that suggested that you really understood the issues the case raised, or the potential impact of your behaviour on other people.
“There was no suggestion of any similar previous history, but this appeared to be your first position of this type and you were relatively inexperienced.
“The behaviour arose very early in your employment with The Richmond Fellowship.”
When reasoning for the panels decision they wrote: “The Panel did not consider that it was appropriate to make no order. The behaviour was serious, and the issues raised required to be addressed.
“A warning alone would not be sufficient. It would not address the lack of insight and remediation.
“Although the Panel was not entirely satisfied that either a warning or conditions alone would sufficiently address the issues in your case, it considered that a warning together with conditions could adequately satisfy public protection and public interest concerns.
“It noted that although you had not engaged with the hearing, and you appeared not to be employed in the sector at present, you might wish to do so in the future.
“They should not impose a disproportionate sanction simply because you had not engaged with the hearing process.
“The Panel felt that two years was an appropriate length of time for a warning.
“It reflected the seriousness of the behaviour, while also acknowledging that it occurred around three years ago.”
The panel reconvened on September 27 to deliberate further sanctions last month.
A spokeswoman for the SSSC confirmed that no further sanctions were put in place, and that the conditions that were initially imposed were final, and satisfactory to the case.