Man sacked after ‘impersonating Michael Jackson’ was unfairly dismissed

He received £10,000 in compensation.

The Co-Operative Group was then ordered to pay Lucasz Zawadzki over £10,000 in compensation.

It follows accusations made by one of Zawadzki's colleagues, who claimed he made high-pitched "hee hee" noises mimicking Michael Jackson, per the tribunal in Manchester.

The colleague further accused Lucasz Zawadzki of making monkey noises and racist behaviour at the Co-Operative warehouse where they both worked.

Zawadzki admitted to making "embarrassing and juvenile" noises in the workplace, however, he said they were not racist, as reported by Sky News.

The Co-Operative Group eventually paid Zawadzki more than £10,000 in compensation after employment judge Carol Porter found he was unfairly dismissed.

One of the complaints made against Zawadzki alleged he made a "screaming noise in the style of Michael Jackson", which was described as a high-pitched "hee hee" sound.

Zawadzki later also admitted to making "grunting and moaning" noises with another colleague and admitted these could be described as "orgasmic" and "not appropriate" in the workplace.

Zawadzki denied impersonating the US pop star and making monkey noises, claiming he didn't want to "bully or hurt someone", per Sky News.

It appeared Mr Zawadzki was let go 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 further found that "the claimant was not aware of the company's zero-tolerance policy in relation to inappropriate and juvenile behaviour in the workplace" or had "received any warnings that such behaviour was unacceptable".