A local construction company wanted black Bermudians on the job site in order to justify work permits, but had no real intentions of promoting or training black Bermudians for the job. That was the crux of a board of inquiry ruling handed down yesterday on the human rights case of Pernell Grant against Apex Construction Management Limited.Mr Grant, a Bermudian carpenter by trade with 30 years of experience, claimed he was discriminated against in a complaint first filed with the Human Rights Commission in June 2008. Nearly four years later the board, headed up by Paul Harshaw, made their ruling known at a brief hearing held at the Department of Human Affairs.The complaint lists three respondents, Apex Limited, Andrea Battiston, the company’s operations manager who essentially was Mr Grant’s boss and Kevin Mason, the site superintendent, or second-in-command. He never appeared before the board for the inquiry at any stage. The evidence was taken over three days in October last year.The crux of Mr Grant’s case was that he was offered employment on terms less favourable than the terms offered to others employed by Apex. The others consisted of groups of Polish and Canadian contract workers.Mr Grant claimed he was denied the opportunity to work overtime and that he suffered reprisals based on either “staged” or false complaints used to justify termination of his employment. He worked for Apex from September 2006 and was terminated in April 2009.In the 15-page ruling the board stated outright: “The Respondents had absolutely no intention of training or promoting Bermudians generally, or black Bermudians in particular. We are under no doubt at all that the Respondents wanted ‘black faces in the hole’, that is black workers on the site in order to support their claims for work permits for contract workers.”But the board stated from the outset that the way both the initial complaint and the amended version were drafted “leave matters in a rather confused state.On that note the board said: “Both the Complainant and the Second Respondent, (Andreas Battiston) struck us as being less than forthright. Both sought to avoid potentially embarrassing questions, both struggled against being totally forthcoming to avoid saying anything which may adversely affect their position. Neither was entirely convincing.”And while the issue of keeping “black faces in the hole” was not deemed a central plank of Mr Grant’s case, or the case of Apex, in the board’s view, “there was ample evidence that black Bermudians were employed with no realistic prospect of advancement and no realistic hope of being trained merely to appease the Department of Immigration.”Ultimately the board found that Apex and the two respondents engaged in discrimination against Mr Grant, who was represented by lawyer Allan Doughty of Trott and Duncan. When asked for his reaction to his apparent victory, Mr Grant said: “I need time to take it in, right now I have no comment.”When contacted by The Royal Gazette, Mr Doughty said on behalf of his client: “Mr Grant is satisfied with the ruling and is pleased with the outcome.” But at press time it remained unclear as to whether or not it was a precedent setting ruling, or whether the ruling is binding.Mr Doughty, in response, said: “The ruling is not binding on other boards of inquiry or the courts. This ruling may, however, be cited as being ‘persuasive authority’ in future. This will be of particular relevance to the scope of a board of inquiry’s powers to make findings of unlawful discrimination should that issue arise again.”The board also found that Mr Grant’s amended complaint put “meat on the bones” of his original complaint. And it was one paragraph in particular the board pointed out in their ruling. In that paragraph, Mr Grant said: “As a Bermudian we had no chance of promotion, there is no opportunity for training and coaching by the form carpenters. I believe that they are afraid of Bermudians learning the job then there will be no need to renew their contracts. I could do the job if trained.”But while the board “appreciated the whole of the case” they did not accept Mr Grant’s complaints in respect of overtime pay, housing and transportation provision or allowance.On the issue of overtime, Mr Grant said he did not get as much overtime work as others, including Bermudians. But the board found that may have been the case because “he insisted on being paid 1.5 times base wage for work beyond 40 hours. The other Bermudians, together with the Polish and Canadian workers mentioned in evidence received overtime pay at ‘straight time’.And they found that there was ample evidence of Bermudians, including the complainant, working overtime. The company’s lawyer argued there were valid commercial reasons for restricting overtime work by Mr Grant.With regards to housing, transportation and other benefits enjoyed by the contract workers, the board sided with Apex. The company’s lawyer argued it was “an incident of the short-term contracts they were on rather than discrimination based on a prohibited ground.The case was adjourned for the two sides to sort out damages, which the board ruled Mr Grant was entitled to. When asked after the hearing if he was confident an agreement would be reached, the complainant’s lawyer, Mr Doughty said: “I otherwise cannot comment on the issue of compensation at this time.”Mr Harshaw, who headed up the board was assisted by Angela Berry and Thaddeus Hollis.Apex was represented throughout by lawyer Jai Pachai, who was not present yesterday for the ruling. Holding instead was lawyer Peter Sanderson of Wakefield Quin Limited.