A Manchester, England employment tribunal has ruled that a warehouse worker dismissed after being accused of mocking a colleague with “Michael Jackson-style” noises was unfairly fired, awarding him more than £10,000 ($13,500) in compensation.
The decision, delivered on July 28, 2025, highlights the legal standards employers must meet when disciplining staff for misconduct, including ensuring that alleged harassment is supported by evidence that it caused genuine distress and that employees are properly informed of workplace rules.
Why It Matters
The Manchester tribunal’s decision underscores a central issue in workplace discipline: employers must show that misconduct not only breached policy but also caused real harm.
And, they must ensure employees are aware of rules and warnings before imposing dismissal.
While the case involved unusual allegations, the ruling carries broader significance, highlighting the legal and financial risks of acting without sufficient evidence or due process, and drawing interest from employers and workers internationally, including in the U.S., who are watching how such standards are applied.
Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
What To Know
The claimant, Lucasz Zawadzki, was employed as a warehouse operative at the Co-op’s Manchester distribution site from 2015 until his dismissal in March 2024.
In December 2023, a colleague identified as “SM” reported that Zawadzki had made a “screaming noise in the style of Michael Jackson“—a high-pitched “hee-hee” sound—and accused him of making “monkey noises.”
SM, who is Black, alleged that the conduct was racist and had continued for up to two years.
Zawadzki denied making monkey noises or impersonating Jackson.
He admitted, however, to what he described as “embarrassing and juvenile” behavior, acknowledging that he made “grunting and moaning” noises with another colleague that he accepted could be described as “orgasmic” and “not appropriate” in the workplace. Zawadzki told the tribunal that he “had no wish to bully or hurt someone.”
The Employer’s Position
The Co-op suspended Zawadzki on December 21, 2023, citing an alleged breach of its bullying, harassment, and discrimination policy. Investigators interviewed colleagues, with mixed accounts: one described hearing “squealing” noises but not racism; another said the noises were “orgasmic” and likely aimed at a female colleague rather than SM.
At a disciplinary hearing in February 2024, Zawadzki demonstrated the noise he admitted to making. The dismissing officer described it as “embarrassing” and concluded it was inappropriate conduct that caused distress to SM.
No findings were made that the noises were racist or specifically directed at SM.
Nevertheless, Zawadzki was summarily dismissed by letter on March 7, 2024, a letter that inaccurately implied he admitted to making “Michael Jackson” or “monkey” noises. The Co-op identified their reasons for dismissal as: “Gross misconduct, specifically for admitted breach of the bullying, harassment, and discrimination policy, making inappropriate comments/noises towards a colleague causing hurt and distress.”
At the termination of his employment Zawadzki was earning £517.50 ($697.47) gross per week, he had completed 8 years of service and was aged 33.
Tribunal’s Findings
The Co-op argued before the tribunal that dismissal fell within the “band of reasonable responses,” citing its zero-tolerance approach to harassment and discrimination. It said Zawadzki’s explanations were inconsistent and that SM had been entitled to complain.
However, Employment Judge Carol Porter concluded that the dismissal was unfair, saying: “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”.
The tribunal found:
- The dismissing officer did not determine that Zawadzki’s conduct was racist or targeted.
- The dismissal letter inaccurately stated that he admitted to making “Michael Jackson” or “monkey” noises.
- Zawadzki had not been provided with investigation documents before his hearing.
- He had never been given the Co-op’s bullying and harassment policy, nor trained on its contents.
- He had no prior disciplinary record.
The tribunal ruled that although the Co-op was entitled to enforce a zero-tolerance policy, it was unreasonable to dismiss an employee who had not been warned or informed that such conduct could amount to gross misconduct.
Compensation and Contributory Fault
The tribunal awarded Zawadzki £10,611.05 ($14,301.28) comprising a basic award of £2,070 and a compensatory award of £8,541.05. The amount reflected a 50 percent reduction for contributory conduct, with the tribunal noting that Zawadzki’s behavior was “culpable and blameworthy” and could have been offensive or humiliating to colleagues, even if not racist.
Coverage of the case by BBC News, The Telegraph, and The Independent has sparked wider discussion about the boundaries of workplace behavior, and the responsibilities of both employees and employers.
The decision may resonate beyond the U.K. as organizations in other jurisdictions examine how employment law interacts with allegations of harassment and workplace discipline.
In the United States, for example, companies are required to demonstrate not only that behavior violated policy but also that it had a tangible impact on the work environment.
What People Are Saying
Judge Carol Porter told the tribunal July 28, 2025: “There was no satisfactory evidence before the dismissing officer that the claimant had, by making those noises, engaged in bullying or harassment.”
Lucasz Zawadzki, reflecting on his conduct August 28, 2025, described it as: “embarrassing and juvenile” and reiterated that he had “no wish to bully or hurt someone.”
What Happens Next
The Co-operative Group has not commented on whether it will appeal.
The ruling will likely be cited in future disputes involving workplace discipline as the case highlights two recurring questions: did the alleged misconduct cause demonstrable distress, and was the employee aware of the standards and consequences? Absent of those factors, the tribunal found dismissal to be disproportionate.
For Zawadzki, the decision concludes a nearly two-year process.
For employers, the ruling serves as a reminder that disciplinary action must be backed by evidence, communicated standards, and fair procedure.
