Health and safety manager sues employer for discrimination after he was told to remove thousands of Blu Tack pieces from office wall

• Employee Robert Debont accused boss Mohammed Rafi of harassing him at a hearing in Bury St Edmonds, Suff

A health and safety manager suffering from heart failure sued his boss for discrimination when he asked him to remove ‘thousands’ of old pieces of Blu Tack from an office wall.

Marsh Farm Futures employee Robert Debont accused boss Mohammed Rafi of harassing him when he asked him to help a handyman who was redecorating as he had difficulty in performing ‘strenuous’ acts.

Debont’s disability claim was dismissed, after an employment tribunal found the task was not particularly ‘onerous’ and that he hadn’t helped do it anyway.

But Mr Debont – who was later fired by his employers – is now in line for compensation after winning separate discrimination and unfair dismissal claims over the way he was treated by Mr Rafi at a hearing in Bury St Edmonds, Suff.

 Mohammed Rafi (pictured) CEO of Marsh Farm Futures who was sued for discrimination by Robert Debont 

Marsh Farm Futures (pictured) in Luton, where Debont claimed he was unfairly dismissed from

The tribunal heard he started work at Marsh Farm Futures, which operates a ‘community hub’ consisting of office space and other facilities in Luton, Beds, in 2015.

In March 2021, while some covid restrictions were still in place, Mr Debont, who was in charge of health and safety, had a disagreement with bosses about their plans to hold an in person training event.

The event ended up being cancelled but, at a subsequent board meeting, CEO Mr Rafi raised concerns about the facilities manager’s ability to draft documents.

In April the Blu Tack incident took place.

‘A situation arose where [Marsh Farm] had a new tenant moving into their building and was necessary to prepare the office they were moving into for them.

‘[Mr Debont’s] evidence is that he made it clear the office needed to be completely redecorated due to the fact the previous tenant had left hundreds of pieces of Blu Tack on the wall.

‘[Mr Debont] argues that the request to assist the handyman in preparing a new office for incoming tenants, there was unfavourable treatment… in that he was asked to assist in the removal of Blu Tack from the walls.’

In his evidence to the tribunal, Mr Debont upgraded the amount of Blu Tack pieces to ‘thousands’.

The hearing was told that in an email in May, the chief executive accused the dyslexia sufferer of writing policies that were ‘disjointed, jumbled and confusing’.

‘[Mr Rafi] clearly felt a degree of frustration at his interactions with [Mr Debont] and the criticisms being levelled at him.

‘[Mr Rafi] explained that he found it very frustrating and difficult to have any discussion with [him because of his] habit of interrupting him whilst he was in the middle of speaking.’

In May 2021 Mr Debont was summoned to a meeting and told his job was at risk of being made redundant. The following month he was told he was being disciplined following complaints against him by other staff.

In October that year, following the conclusion of the disciplinary process, he was fired.

Mr Debont took his employers and Mr Rafi to the tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment.

His claim relating to the Blu Tack was dismissed.

The panel, chaired by Employment Judge Kevin Palmer, said: ‘Certainly there was a room that needed Blu tack removing and redecorating.

‘Mr Rafi asked [Mr Debont] to engage in that process as there was little time in conjunction with the other employee who was due to decorate the room.

‘We cannot conclude, on the evidence before us, that this constituted unfavourable treatment. It was a simple request. There was insufficient evidence before us to suggest it was a particularly onerous task.

‘In any event [Mr Debont] did not perform that task and the room was redecorated by the other employee.’

The tribunal did find that he had been unfairly dismissed by his bosses who wanted to get rid of him after concluding he was ‘difficult’.

The redundancy was a ‘sham’ and the disciplinary process a ‘foregone conclusion’, the tribunal ruled.

Mr Debont was also discriminated against by the ‘unnecessary’ level of criticism he had received from Mr Rafi at the board meeting and in his subsequent email, the panel said.

His compensation will be decided at a later date.

Source: Read Full Article