Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #sexual-harassment
- #anti-semitic-allegations
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #covert-recordings
- #vulnerable-witness
Key facts
- The claimant instigated a hug between two colleagues on 18 May 2021.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 29 September 2021 for misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to inadequate investigation and lack of specific findings on allegations 2 and 3.
- The claimant made covert recordings of colleagues and sent a threatening email after dismissal.
- The claimant found alternative employment within 6 weeks but at lower pay.
Timeline
-
Protected act
Claimant gave evidence in a sexual harassment grievance against Marco Newell.
-
Incident
Claimant instigated a hug between D and Madalina Gherman; Rohan Lewis discussed Israel/Palestine with D.
-
Complaint
D's mother emailed about anti-Semitic bullying; D emailed detailing incidents.
-
Suspension
Claimant and Rohan Lewis suspended by Marco Newell.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed after disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Dave Martin; not reconvened.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal heard evidence over 3 days.
-
Liability judgment
Unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal upheld; discrimination claims dismissed.
-
Remedy hearing
Compensation calculated; costs order made against claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair, and whether the employer discriminated against the employee on grounds of race, religion, or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed all discrimination claims.
Key reasons:
- The investigation was flawed: not all allegations were properly investigated, and the decision-maker did not make specific findings on two of the three allegations.
- However, the employee's own conduct contributed significantly: he instigated a hug between colleagues, made covert recordings, and sent a threatening email after dismissal.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £2,992 (reduced by 50% for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £12,239.98 (reduced by 75% for contributory conduct, then increased by 10% for ACAS Code breach, then reduced by 50% again for contributory fault)
- Total: £23,360.98
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure investigations are thorough and cover all allegations before dismissing for misconduct.
- Employees should avoid making covert recordings or sending threatening communications, as this can drastically reduce compensation.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, the employee's own conduct can lead to significant reductions in the award.
- Discrimination claims are hard to prove without direct evidence of bias; here, the tribunal found no race or religion discrimination.
When a hug and a political discussion lead to dismissal
A control room team leader with 11 years' service at MTR Elizabeth Line was dismissed after he instigated a hug between two colleagues and was accused of making anti-Semitic comments during a discussion about Israel and Palestine. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the employee's own behaviour before and after the incident meant he received only a fraction of the compensation he might otherwise have been awarded.
What went wrong for the employer
The tribunal identified several procedural failings. The investigation did not properly examine all three allegations against the employee, and the decision-maker failed to make specific findings on two of them. This put the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses for a fair employer. The employer also breached the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 10% uplift on the compensatory award.
What the employee did that cost him
However, the employee's own conduct was heavily criticised. He made covert recordings of colleagues and sent a threatening email after his dismissal. The tribunal applied a 75% reduction for contributory conduct, meaning the compensatory award was slashed from over £48,000 to just over £12,000. A further 50% reduction was applied for contributory fault, and the basic award was also halved.
Why this matters
This case shows that even when an employer gets the process wrong, the employee's behaviour can significantly reduce their compensation. It also highlights the difficulty of proving discrimination claims without clear evidence. The employee's race and religion discrimination claims were dismissed, as the tribunal found no less favourable treatment on those grounds.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Dismissed by WhatsApp message: breakdown in trust and confidence ruled unfair
A practice manager who was dismissed via a WhatsApp message after a Christmas party incident has been awarded £12,431 after an employment tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and outside the range of reasonable responses.
Maintenance manager unfairly dismissed: ACAS uplift and Polkey reduction applied
A maintenance manager with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £8,455, applying a 20% ACAS uplift, a 25% Polkey reduction, and a 20% contributory fault reduction.
Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.