(Picture: Jaafar Jackson / Instagram)
A worker has insisted he wasn’t a Smooth Criminal after he was accused of squealing Michael Jackson ‘hee hees’ at a colleague.
An employment tribunal found Lucasz Zawadzki had been unfairly sacked when a black colleague complained about his allegedly annoying impersonation of the disgraced King of Pop.
Mr Zawadzki was also accused by the colleague of making monkey noises and being racist at the Co-Operative warehouse in Manchester where they both worked.
Mr Zawadzki admitted making ’embarrassing and juvenile’ noises in the workplace but said they were not racist.
The Co-operative Group was ordered to pay Mr Zawadzki more than £10,000 in compensation after Employment Judge Carol Porter found that he was unfairly dismissed.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Start your day informed with Metro’s News Updates newsletter or get Breaking News alerts the moment it happens.
In December 2023, a colleague referred to as SM, reported to his manager that he had been a victim of bullying, according to the tribunal’s judgment.
Mr Zawadzki was told of a complaint made against him in which the colleague alleged that he made a ‘screaming noise in the style of Michael Jackson’, which was described as a high-pitched ‘hee hee’ sound.
Mr Zawadzki later admitted making ‘grunting and moaning’ noises with another colleague and agreed that these could be described as ‘orgasmic’ and that this was ‘not appropriate’ in the workplace.
The claimant 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 did not 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’.
Judge Porter said in her judgment: ‘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 work place’ or had ‘received any warnings that such behaviour was unacceptable’.
