Link: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-sacked-standing-up-teams-31649639
Credit: Conor Gogarty, Investigations Editor, Wales Online
Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/yuuXT
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) head office in St Botolph Street, London (Image: Google)
A middle-manager was sacked for accidentally revealing his private parts during a video call. The man, unnamed in court records, took his former employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal but his claim was thrown out.
In 2020 the employee joined the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) – a statutory body that aims to protect customers when financial services firms fail – as a change specialist and the following year his title changed to digital production manager. The promotion saw his pay increase by around £4,000 to £58,580 a year.
On May 8, 2023 – a bank holiday because of the King's coronation – the employee was on a Microsoft Teams work call with external contractors from the Capgemini tech consultancy.
During the call he stood to adjust a cable behind his computer. He was wearing nothing from the waist down and his genitals were visible.
The employment tribunal heard the incident sparked a complaint from colleagues. After his line manager started an investigation the employee gave his account. He claimed: "That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic]."
The employee went on: "It is just an accident and apologies." He admitted he did not always "wear full dress" at home.
He also argued he was not culpable for his actions because they occurred on a bank holiday, adding: "Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination."
The tribunal heard he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but states he is Indian and was born in India.
Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion that its dress code did not apply on public holidays.
Ms Carter found the employee's actions had damaged the FSCS' reputation. She noted he had "not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call".
She was also unimpressed by inconsistent evidence from the employee who initially admitted his genitals were visible before changing his story to claim he was wearing "nude-coloured underwear".
After being sacked the employee brought a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal as well as race discrimination. He claimed not only that he had been wrongly dismissed but also that he had been passed over for a promotion because of discrimination.
The employee said: "The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal."
But the tribunal panel noted he had not been required to work on the bank holiday and had in fact chosen to do so. They added: "Second, even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress."
Though the panel accepted he had initially apologised they found he later "sought to obscure or deflect blame" and failed to "consistently show remorse".
The panel found it was reasonable for the FSCS to dismiss the employee. They also threw out his complaint about being denied a promotion, concluding his application had been "poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience".
They continued: "The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant’s salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments."
Credit: Conor Gogarty, Investigations Editor, Wales Online
Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/yuuXT
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) head office in St Botolph Street, London (Image: Google)
A middle-manager was sacked for accidentally revealing his private parts during a video call. The man, unnamed in court records, took his former employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal but his claim was thrown out.
In 2020 the employee joined the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) – a statutory body that aims to protect customers when financial services firms fail – as a change specialist and the following year his title changed to digital production manager. The promotion saw his pay increase by around £4,000 to £58,580 a year.
On May 8, 2023 – a bank holiday because of the King's coronation – the employee was on a Microsoft Teams work call with external contractors from the Capgemini tech consultancy.
During the call he stood to adjust a cable behind his computer. He was wearing nothing from the waist down and his genitals were visible.
The employment tribunal heard the incident sparked a complaint from colleagues. After his line manager started an investigation the employee gave his account. He claimed: "That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic]."
The employee went on: "It is just an accident and apologies." He admitted he did not always "wear full dress" at home.
He also argued he was not culpable for his actions because they occurred on a bank holiday, adding: "Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination."
The tribunal heard he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but states he is Indian and was born in India.
Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion that its dress code did not apply on public holidays.
Ms Carter found the employee's actions had damaged the FSCS' reputation. She noted he had "not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call".
She was also unimpressed by inconsistent evidence from the employee who initially admitted his genitals were visible before changing his story to claim he was wearing "nude-coloured underwear".
After being sacked the employee brought a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal as well as race discrimination. He claimed not only that he had been wrongly dismissed but also that he had been passed over for a promotion because of discrimination.
The employee said: "The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal."
But the tribunal panel noted he had not been required to work on the bank holiday and had in fact chosen to do so. They added: "Second, even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress."
Though the panel accepted he had initially apologised they found he later "sought to obscure or deflect blame" and failed to "consistently show remorse".
The panel found it was reasonable for the FSCS to dismiss the employee. They also threw out his complaint about being denied a promotion, concluding his application had been "poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience".
They continued: "The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant’s salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments."
