Dyslexic manager wins discrimination and unfair dismissal claim against Luton-based employer

A former facilities manager is in line for compensation for unfair dismissal after his Luton-based employer concluded he was 'difficult'.

Former facilities manager Robert Debont took boss Mohammed Rafi to tribunal after being made redundant from Marsh Farm Futures – a move the tribunal ruled as “a sham to facilitate the swift removal of the claimant”.

The former manager, who suffers from heart failure, also successfully claimed for discrimination after receiving an 'unnecessary' level of criticism from Mr Rafi who knew his employee was dyslexic.

The latter claim was based on a board meeting where Mr Debont warned management that the company’s health and safety policies were out of date and in direct breach of the company’s code of conduct. The CEO Mr Rafi responded to his employee by commenting on his drafting abilities. In a further email, the CEO criticised Mr Debont on his policy writing which he said contained ‘mistakes’ and were ‘incoherent, ‘disjointed and confusing’.

The tribunal, held in Bury St Edmunds, acknowledged the acts had the effect of “violating the claimant’s dignity and creating an intimidating and hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for him”.

Mr Debont also made a discrimination claim based on an event where he was asked to remove “hundreds” or “thousands” of pieces of Blu Tack from a wall – but this was not upheld. The tribunal added: “There was insufficient evidence before us to suggest that it was a particularly onerous task. In any event the claimant did not perform that task and the room was redecorated by the other employee.”

But the tribunal did describe the disciplinary process, following alleged complaints from staff members, undertaken prior to his dismissal as a ‘foregone conclusion’, and said he had been unfairly dismissed by his bosses who found him ‘difficult’.

When questioned, Mr Rafi could not recall who else had been made redundant at the time, despite insisting Mr Debont’s dismissal was one of several. He could also not explain an advert for a ‘building manager’ job vacancy, described in the report as ‘remarkably similar’ to Mr Debont’s role.

The tribunal accepted the employee reacted badly to the news his job was at risk but did not accept this was the reason he was immediately sent home and locked out of the company systems.

But it did consider Mr Debont was ‘not entirely blameless in bringing about a situation where the respondents felt they had no alternative but to dismiss him’.

It stated: “The claimant’s reaction to that redundancy we find prompted Mr Rafi to decide to convert the redundancy process into a disciplinary process which ultimately led to the claimant’s dismissal.

“However, we do consider that the respondents genuinely felt that the relationship between the parties had broken down and this is the reason they ultimately decided to dismiss the claimant.

It added: “We consider it suspicious in the extreme that a variety of complaints against the claimant were all produced at, or about, the same time in June 2021. Moreover, many of the allegations ranged against the claimant were historic, being years before, one of which had already been dealt with.”

His compensation fee is yet to be determined.