‘Michael Jackson noises’ got man unfairly sacked from job

A warehouse worker sacked after being accused of impersonating Michael Jackson towards a colleague was unfairly dismissed, a tribunal has found.

Lucasz Zawadzski was accused making high-pitched “hee-hee” noises towards the co-worker at the Co-operative warehouse in Manchester.

The black staff member also alleged Mr Zawadzski “made monkey noises” towards him.

Zawadzski admitted “embarrassing and juvenile” behaviour but denied racism and a tribunal in Manchester ordered he should be paid more than £10,000 in compensation for losing his job.

The co-worker, referred to in the tribunal as SM, reported Mr Zawadzski to his manager for bullying.

Mr Zawadzski was told he had been accused of making a “screaming noise in the style of Michael Jackson”.

He later admitted making “grunting and moaning” noises with another colleague.

He agreed that these could be described as “orgasmic” and that it was “not appropriate” in the workplace.

Mr Zawadzski also said that a work colleague had commented on his “high-pitched laugh”, but he denied impersonating Michael Jackson and making monkey noises, saying he had no wish to “bully or hurt someone”.

The tribunal heard he was suspended after “an alleged breach of the bullying, harassment and discrimination policy, specifically making inappropriate comments to a colleague causing hurt and distress”.

Employment Judge Carol Porter said in her judgement: “In essence the misconduct of the claimant was inappropriate and juvenile conduct in the workplace.

“There was no satisfactory evidence before the dismissing officer that that particular admitted conduct was offensive to SM, or caused him distress.

“There was no satisfactory evidence before the dismissing officer that the claimant had, by making those noises, engaged in bullying or harassment.

“The claimant gave clear evidence, which was not contradicted, that he had worked with SM for a long time and SM had never told him that he found this inappropriate and juvenile behaviour offensive.”

She also found that “the claimant was not aware of the company’s zero-tolerance policy in relation to inappropriate and juvenile behaviour in the workplace” or had “received any warnings that such behaviour was unacceptable”.