A Latvian worker has won a racism claim after her factory bosses told her she must speak English at work.

Albina Sokolova was disciplined by fruit and nut supplier Humdinger Limited after she admitted speaking in her native tongue with other Eastern European workers on the factory floor.

She was warned she had to speak English to her colleagues even though she didn’t have a strong grasp of the language.

Mrs Sokolova ‘relied upon her daughter’ to translate at home, but was refused a translator during meetings with bosses.

She won her case after an employment tribunal ruled she was ‘disadvantaged’ by not being able to speak a native language in meetings, adding it was ‘not necessary’ for only English to be spoken, and will now be paid more than £10,000 in compensation.

The tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova had worked for Humdinger Limited for more than ten years.

She began working as a production operative at the company’s factory in Hull in 2010, shortly after moving to the UK.

In 2015, the company introduced a new ‘language policy’ which stated ‘English was to be spoken in the workplace’ and workers could only speak another language ‘during rest and lunch breaks’.

In a memo to employees, it explained a ‘common language’ would ‘promote effective workplace communication across the business’.

The tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova discussed the policy during a meeting with bosses in February 2017 after a ‘letter of concern’ was issued by a supervisor, in which they ‘asked for improvements’ in her English.

Two and a half years later, Mrs Sokolova requested leave for a ‘dental appointment’ in Latvia which was denied because she had ‘used up her holiday leave’ and ‘could not take unpaid leave’.

She cancelled the appointment and attended work on the day, but was off sick the following day.

Mrs Sokolova was invited to an interview about the unauthorised absence and requested for her daughter, who is ‘fluent in Latvian, Russian and English’ to interpret for her.

The tribunal heard Mrs Sokolova ‘could get by on the factory floor’ with her limited English but it was ‘not sufficiently sophisticated to manage discipline and grievance meetings’.

However, her request for an interpreter was refused, putting her at a ‘particular disadvantage’.

In subsequent disciplinary and grievance meetings she did not repeat the request, but was sometimes accompanied by a colleague whose English was ‘not of the standard necessary’.