Co-op Employee Sacked For Making Annoying “Michael Jackson Noises” Wins Dismissal Claim

Published : September 12, 2025

In Mr Lucasz Zawadzki v The Co-operative Group, a warehouse operative succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim after being sacked for making “high-pitched” Michael Jackson-esque noises at work, behaviour which was alleged to constitute gross misconduct. The employment tribunal found multiple flaws with Mr Zawadzki’s dismissal, ruling in his favour.

In our latest article, we examine the case facts, the tribunal’s judgment and the laws surrounding unfair dismissal. If you believe you’ve been unfairly dismissed, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists who can analyse your circumstances, provide answers, and discuss your possible next steps.

Begin your journey with us now by:

The Facts in Mr Lucasz Zawadzki v The Co-operative Group

Background to Unfair Dismissal Claim

Mr Lucasz Zawadzki (“the Claimant”) worked as a warehouse operative for The Co-operative Group (“the Respondent”) from 7 December 2015. He remained in this role for nearly a decade until his eventual dismissal.

The issues central to this case began in December 2023, when the Respondent provided bullying and harassment training. At the session’s end, an employee, referred to only as “SM,” reported that the Claimant had bullied him. Allegedly, the Claimant had made “inappropriate monkey noises,” which SM believed were directed at him.

Judith McGrellis, Warehouse Shift Manager for the Respondent, opened an investigation after being informed of the incident. At an initial investigatory meeting on 21 December, SM asserted that the Claimant had made high-pitched sounds, synonymous with Michael Jackson, and had also made monkey noises.

Read More: Calling Boss a “Dickhead” Wasn’t Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal, says Tribunal

This led to the Claimant being suspended due to “allegations of breach of the bullying and harassment policy.” He was informed that these concerned discriminatory comments which had caused “hurt and offence” to a colleague, but wasn’t given their name. By 22 December, this decision was confirmed to the Claimant in writing.

Investigation Into Allegations

In a subsequent investigation meeting, SM revealed that the Claimant had been bullying him for around one to two years. He added that he’d only decided to bring the issues forward once a colleague, Alan Horton, had witnessed the behaviour.

Several other interviews were conducted with colleagues, with one describing how the Claimant would make a “stupid orgasm noise.” When the Claimant was interviewed on 3 January 2024, he acknowledged how the sounds “could be described as orgasmic” and admitted their inappropriateness. Despite this, he denied ever directing such behaviour at SM, nor that it was racist.

After reviewing CCTV footage of the alleged incident, Ms McGrellis couldn’t confirm that Mr Horton had witnessed it. She held a final meeting with SM on 14 January, asking whether he could provide any further evidence. When he couldn’t, she outlined that the investigation was ongoing and that he should revert to her if his position changed. She then passed her findings to her line manager and took no further part in the process.

Claimant Faces Job Dismissal

Interestingly, a subsequent decision to proceed with disciplinary action was made. The tribunal couldn’t confirm who made this decision or on what basis it was made. Nevertheless, the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing and told the allegations against him were considered to constitute gross misconduct, which could result in his immediate dismissal from work.

The disciplinary hearing proceeded as scheduled on 29 February. After deliberations, the Respondent decided to summarily dismiss the Claimant, confirmed in a letter dated 6 March. This stated that his behaviour constituted gross misconduct, in breach of company policy, and that dismissal was the appropriate sanction. His effective date of termination was 7 March.

Read more: Tribunal Awards £44K After Heathrow Security Officer’s Dismissal Over Racist Video Deemed Unfair

The Claimant then appealed his dismissal, with a hearing taking place on 26 April. However, shortly into the meeting, due to questions raised, the Claimant believed a dismissal decision had already been made. This made him angry, leading him to bang his fist on a table before leaving the meeting. Since the meeting didn’t progress, the appeal was dismissed. And with no internal remedies left, the Claimant turned to the employment tribunal, raising an unfair dismissal claim.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Reason for Dismissal From Work

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by establishing the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal. Notably, the exact noises made by the Claimant couldn’t be defined, and findings concerning the alleged “monkey noises” or racist conduct weren’t made.

Nonetheless, the tribunal outlined how the Respondent clearly stated that dismissal came after it was determined that the Claimant made noises that were “embarrassing,” “inappropriate,” “juvenile,” and offensive to SM. Since conduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, it was then up to the tribunal to consider whether this was the case here.

Adequacy of the Investigation Questioned

The tribunal agreed that a reasonable investigation had occurred to determine that the Claimant had made the “inappropriate” noises alleged. However, it didn’t believe the Respondent had properly investigated how this behaviour had made SM feel. In the tribunal’s opinion, “There was no satisfactory evidence before the dismissing officer that that particular admitted conduct was offensive to SM, or caused him distress.”

Knowledge of Policy and Lack of Warnings

What’s more, although the Respondent claimed to have a “zero tolerance policy” concerning workplace discrimination, harassment and bullying, the Claimant was neither aware that his behaviour could amount to gross misconduct nor that it could lead to dismissal. The tribunal stated that it was reasonable to expect the Respondent to ensure its staff were aware of such policies, with knowledge of the potential repercussions. Despite this, all evidence pointed to the fact that the Claimant hadn’t been provided training on the policy or been given a copy to read over.

Then there was the matter of warnings. According to SM, the Claimant’s behaviour had been taking place over a number of years. Yet, the Claimant was never provided any warnings that his conduct was unacceptable, and when this issue came to light, the potential to provide a warning wasn’t considered.

Unfair Dismissal Claim Compensation Awarded

Given the Claimant’s lack of knowledge of the Respondent’s policy and any warning to inform him that his behaviour was unacceptable, the tribunal believed it wasn’t reasonable to expect him to know that his conduct could constitute gross misconduct and warrant dismissal. With this in mind, it upheld his unfair dismissal claim.

Read More: Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period: House of Lords Rejects Day‑One Protection

The tribunal wasn’t done there, though. Because the Claimant was “guilty of culpable and blameworthy conduct,” relating to the nosies made, it ruled that any future compensation awarded would be reduced by 50%. At a subsequent remedy hearing, this meant his total unfair dismissal claim compensation amounted to £10,611.05.

Been Unfairly Dismissed? Understand Your Rights in the UK

In the UK, unfair dismissal is primarily governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Understanding this legislation and when legal action can be taken is essential to prevent an unfair job dismissal.

When Can You Claim Unfair Dismissal?

To bring an unfair dismissal claim, individuals typically need to be legally classed as an employee and have amassed two years of continuous service with their employer. There are some exceptions, however, such as when a dismissal is considered “automatically unfair,” removing the service length requirement, or professions that do not allow for such claims. It’s therefore essential to assess each individual’s circumstances against the criteria to ensure the requirements are met.

What do You Need to Prove for Unfair Dismissal?

If an employee wants to bring a claim, they must be able to show that they satisfy the criteria outlined above and that they were dismissed. Should they be able to do so, the burden would then shift to the employer to prove that they:

  • Undertook a fair dismissal process, and
  • Had a fair reason for dismissal—either regarding conduct, capability, redundancy, a statutory ban or “some other substantial reason.”

If the employer cannot prove either of these elements, the employment tribunal will likely rule in the employee’s favour and provide compensation.

Time Limit for Unfair Dismissal Claim

In addition to satisfying the eligibility criteria to bring a claim, employees must also adhere to strict time limits. In the case of someone being unfairly dismissed, this requires a claim to be brought within three months, less one day from the date of dismissal. While the tribunals can provide extensions to these limits, they aren’t guaranteed and so shouldn’t be relied upon—tribunals don’t hand out extensions easily.

Get Help From Redmans With Your Unfair Dismissal Claim

If you’ve recently faced a job dismissal and believe it was unfair, contact Redmans Solicitors now. Our team of employment experts are here to help, and following a brief chat, we can provide specialist advice.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.