A part-time university cleaner has been awarded £264,442 in compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation, following a tribunal ruling that she was sacked after a dispute over a student's rice cooker.
The Case Background
Peak Ong, then 69, successfully brought her case against Aberystwyth University, where she had worked 15 hours a week as a cleaner since 2014. The employment tribunal heard that her dismissal stemmed from long-standing animosity with her manager, Catherine Green, which intensified after Ms Ong was accused of buying a rice cooker for a student whose appliance had been confiscated due to a university ban.
University's Argument
The Welsh university had argued Ms Ong was dismissed for failing to improve her behaviour after mediation. However, the Birmingham tribunal identified significant flaws in her disciplinary process. It also found that Aberystwyth University provided a detrimental reference when Ms Ong sought new employment.
Workplace Conflicts
Ms Ong, who came to the UK in 1989 to study and represented herself, saw Ms Green become her line manager in June 2017. It was heard that the pair had disagreements at work and that Ms Ong made multiple complaints about Ms Green, claiming 'she was being bullied and harassed by [Ms Green] and that she wanted her out because of her age'. She got a new line manager in August 2019 after making a formal complaint about Ms Green.
The following year, she sent an email to the then-vice chancellor complaining about Ms Green's 'ruthless and bullying behaviour'.
Formal Complaints
Ms Green made a formal complaint about Ms Ong's behaviour in February 2021, saying it was 'unmanageable and was having an adverse effect on her ability to do her job and on her team'. The tribunal heard: 'She was being told by her team about [Ms Ong]'s behaviour; [Ms Ong] refused to interact with her; would shout at her; and behave in a discourteous and disrespectful manner. She could no longer put up with [Ms Ong]'s unreasonable conduct.'
Ms Green's complaints were upheld after an investigation, and a recommendation was made for their working relationship to be reviewed. The investigator found that 'the negativity which is evident in [Ms Ong]'s relationship with [Ms Green] does not appear to be reciprocated in the other direction'.
The Rice Cooker Incident
It was heard Ms Green had to speak to Ms Ong about a rice cooker incident. The tribunal heard: 'On 12 March 2021, [Ms Green] held a meeting with [Ms Ong] to discuss a number of issues with [Ms Ong]. According to [Ms Green] in her witness statement, 'there seems to be a discussion around a rice cooker, which is banned item in halls of residence. If a rice cooker is found, the usual process is for Team Leaders, to be contacted and for them to remove the item to safe storage'.' Ms Ong alleged that Ms Green had accused her of 'supplying students with rice cookers', which Ms Ong had denied. Ms Green said that she did not accuse Ms Ong as she had alleged, but she 'may have reminded [Ms Ong] a rice cooker was a banned item'. The tribunal found that Ms Green did not accuse Ms Ong of misconduct over the incident.
Mediation and Dismissal
In October 2021, the pair attended mediation in which they made some agreements about their working relationship going forward, but no warning was given that a breach of the confidential agreement might lead to disciplinary action. Ms Green complained the following month that Ms Ong's behaviour was 'putting everyone under stress, and having an impact on their well-being'. Ms Ong was then suspended, and following a flawed investigation process, she was given a final written warning and told she could try to find an alternative role at the university within seven weeks. She could not find a role despite making several applications, so she was fired.
Victimisation Through Reference
Ms Ong successfully applied for the role of night care assistant with Ceredigion Council in September 2022. She needed to provide a reference for the conditional job offer, so she asked Aberystwyth University for one. A HR worker completed the form, which asked about Ms Ong's 'honesty/integrity; working relationship between colleagues and public; disciplinary record; and reason for leaving'. In response to each question, the worker wrote 'Unable to comment - the University remains in dispute with the applicant and this is a factor of the dispute; and the University remains in dispute with the applicant'. Ms Ong lost the job offer as a result of this reference, and the tribunal found that she was victimised.
Tribunal Findings
Employment Judge Dilbaag Bansal said: 'We find this was a clear reference to the Tribunal claim issued by [Ms Ong]. We find the [university]'s conduct was irresponsible and retaliatory.' Ms Ong, now in her 70s, said she felt 'humiliated' by the incident, and it was found that she had 'reasonably endeavoured to mitigate her loss' following her dismissal.
Compensation Award
Awarding her compensation, the judge said: 'We are satisfied that there is a direct link between the [university]'s established act of victimisation and [Ms Ong]'s continuing loss. But for the [university]'s unlawful act, [Ms Ong] would have commenced employment with the Council. We further find the withdrawal of this employment opportunity has resulted in [Ms Ong] losing the opportunity to remain economically active for the remaining period of her working life.' The judge added that her sacking was 'substantively and procedurally unfair'. EJ Bansal said: 'Firstly, we say this about the mediation agreement. The breach of the mediation agreement was the reason for taking disciplinary action against [Ms Ong]. This agreement was a private agreement between [Ms Green] and [Ms Ong], which was facilitated by the [university] to improve their working relationship. The [university] was not a party to this agreement. We therefore question whether the [university] was able to rely upon this agreement which did not expressly provide that a breach of this agreement may lead to disciplinary action.' All of Ms Ong's other claims were dismissed.
