From Michael Jackson Impressions to Tribunal Compensation 

The recent Employment Tribunal decision in Mr L Zawadzki v The Co-operative Group offers a timely and important reminder for employers about the critical role of fair procedures, proportionality, and context in disciplinary matters. 

Mr Zawadzki, a warehouse operative with eight years of unblemished service, was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct following a colleague’s complaint that he had made “Michael Jackson voices” and “monkey noises,” which the colleague interpreted as racially offensive. While the tribunal acknowledged that the behaviour was inappropriate and immature, it concluded that it was not racially motivated. More significantly, the dismissal was deemed to fall outside the band of reasonable responses available to a fair employer. 

Although Mr Zawadzki’s conduct was described as “culpable and blameworthy,” the tribunal found that summary dismissal was disproportionate. As a result, the dismissal was ruled unfair, and compensation of £10,611.05 was awarded, which included a reduction of 50% to reflect the claimant’s contributory fault. 

Key Failings Identified 

Several procedural shortcomings contributed to the tribunal’s decision: 

• Lack of Policy Awareness: The claimant had never been shown the company’s bullying and harassment policy and had received no training on acceptable workplace behaviour. 

• No Prior Warnings: Despite making similar noises for years, Mr Zawadzki had a clean disciplinary record and had never been informed that his behaviour could be considered misconduct. 

• Flawed Investigation: The investigating manager assumed the complainant was distressed without fully exploring the context or verifying the impact of the behaviour. This undermined the objectivity and thoroughness of the process. 

Employer Considerations 

This case underscores several essential principles for employers: 

1. Policy Communication and Training 
   Employees must be made aware of behavioural expectations through clear policies and regular training. This includes guidance on bullying, harassment, and discrimination, as well as examples of unacceptable conduct. 
2. Thorough and Impartial Investigations 
   Investigations should be evidence-based and avoid assumptions about intent or impact. Employers must gather all relevant facts, consider context, and ensure that both the complainant and the accused are given a fair opportunity to present their perspectives. 
3. Proportionality in Disciplinary Action 
   Not all inappropriate behaviour constitutes gross misconduct. Employers must assess whether the response is proportionate to the severity of the conduct, taking into account the employee’s history, intent, and any mitigating factors. 
4. Consistency and Documentation 
   Consistent application of disciplinary procedures and comprehensive documentation of each step are vital. This helps demonstrate fairness and transparency, particularly if decisions are later scrutinised by a tribunal. 

Final Thoughts 

Unfair dismissal claims often hinge not on the nature of the misconduct itself, but on how the employer handles the process. The Zawadzki case illustrates the importance of balancing enforcement of standards with procedural fairness and proportionality. Employers who invest in clear communication, robust training, and fair processes not only reduce legal risk but also foster a workplace culture built on trust, respect, and accountability.