A man has alleged that he was mocked almost every day throughout his two-year employment at a Richmond golf and country club.
Manuel Conceicao claimed that he was called an “old China man” by his superiors at the Quilchena Golf and Country Club.
Conceicao filed a discrimination complaint, and a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal related what the man alleged were disparaging comments against him.
One was “old China man when you quit and retire”.
“Old China man, what are you doing here why have the sun glass on,” was another.
“Fuck you old mand [sic] that is not your fucking business go home,” went another alleged comment.
According to tribunal member Norman Trerise, the golf and country club has denied that Conceicao received ageist and racist comments at the workplace.
Richmond is sometimes referred to as the most Chinese city in North America. According to the City of Richmond, people of Chinese ethnicity represent more than half of its population.
Citing results of the 2016 Census, city hall noted that there were 107,080 people of Chinese origin counted in that year, or 54 percent of its population.
According to the city, this proportion has grown from 34 percent in 1996, 40 percent in 2001, and 45 percent in 2006 to 49 percent in 2011.
Conceicao’s complaint named the golf and country club; Holden Yap, the general manager, and Darren Szeto, head chef.
Conceicao was hired as a cook in 2015 and was fired in 2017.
The man alleged that he was discriminated against in his employment because of his age in violation of the B.C. Human Rights Code.
Conceicao was 63 when he was fired; he did not complain about being called a "China man".
The club said that Conceicao’s employment was terminated because of his workplace conduct. These allegedly included shouting, ignoring instructions by head chef Szeto, and talking badly against the club.
“They say the allegation of using such ageist or racist comments is fabricated and entirely untrue,” Trerise wrote.
The Quilchena Golf and Country Club applied to have the complaint dismissed without a hearing.
In his reasons for decision, tribunal member Trerise denied the application.
However, Trerise expressed “concerns about whether it is appropriate for this matter to proceed to a hearing”.
Trerise ordered the parties to make further submissions.