A middle-manager was fired after inadvertently exposing his private parts during a video conference call. The individual, whose name has not been disclosed in court documents, took his former employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, but his claim was rejected.
In 2020, the employee joined the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) – a statutory body that aims to safeguard consumers when financial services firms fail – as a change specialist. His role was subsequently changed to digital production manager the following year, resulting in a salary increase of approximately £4,000, bringing his annual income to £58,580.
On May 8, 2023, which was a bank holiday due to the King’s coronation, the employee was participating in a Microsoft Teams work call with external contractors from the Capgemini tech consultancy. During the call, he stood up to adjust a cable behind his computer. He was not wearing any clothing below the waist, and his genitals were visible.
The employment tribunal heard that this incident led to a complaint from colleagues. After his line manager initiated an investigation, the employee gave his account, reports Wales Online.
He stated: “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 continued: “It is just an accident and apologies.”
He confessed that he does not always “wear full dress” at home. He also contended that he was not responsible for his actions as they took place on a bank holiday. He stated: “Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination.”
The tribunal was informed that he holds both Australian and British citizenship. However he identifies as Indian and was born in India.
Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, dismissed the idea that its dress code did not apply on public holidays. Ms Carter concluded that the employee’s behaviour had tarnished the FSCS’ reputation.
She observed that 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 dismissed, the employee filed a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal as well as race discrimination. He alleged not only that he had been unjustly dismissed, but also that he had been overlooked for a promotion due to discrimination. The employee stated: “The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal.”
However, the tribunal panel noted that 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.”
The panel acknowledged his initial apology, but concluded that he subsequently “sought to obscure or deflect blame”. They also said he did not “consistently show remorse”.
The tribunal determined that it was justified for the FSCS to terminate the employee’s contract. Furthermore, they dismissed his grievance regarding a missed promotion opportunity.
They said they found his application to be “poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience”. They said: “The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant’s salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments.”
