Sometimes HR cases make headlines for being unusual rather than complex. The recent Manchester employment tribunal involving a Co-op warehouse worker and his supposed “Michael Jackson noises” is one such example.  

Beneath the tabloid-style headlines lies an important reminder for business leaders: discipline without due process can land you in hot water, no matter how silly the behaviour seems. 

What Happened 

A warehouse operative, was dismissed after a colleague accused him of making noises that sounded like Michael Jackson’s trademark “hee-hee,” alongside other high-pitched or “orgasmic” squeals. The colleague said this behaviour was upsetting, even describing it as “monkey noises.” 

Management took the complaint seriously, suspended the employee, and launched a disciplinary process under their bullying and harassment policy. At his hearing, he admitted that he sometimes made strange sounds, he called them “juvenile and inappropriate” but denied any racist intent or deliberate harassment. He pointed out that he and the colleague had worked side by side for 18 months without previous issues. 

Despite this, the Co-op dismissed him for gross misconduct. 

The Tribunal’s Decision 

The Employment Judge, ruled that the dismissal was unfair. Why? 

• No clear policy access. He had never been trained on, nor shown, the Co-op’s bullying and harassment policy. 

• No proportional response. While his behaviour was embarrassing and unprofessional, the tribunal found it did not reasonably justify dismissal without warning. 

• No malicious intent proven. The noises were crude, but the tribunal concluded they weren’t racially motivated or intentionally targeted. 

The judge agreed that his behaviour had contributed to the situation, and therefore reduced his compensation by half. Even so, he walked away with a total award of around £10,600, including a compensatory award of over £8,500. 

Why This Matters for SME Leaders 

It’s tempting to roll your eyes at a case like this. But for smaller employers, without fulltime HR, this is exactly the sort of trap that leads to unexpected tribunal claims and expensive settlements. 

The Co-op is a major employer with full HR resources, yet they still stumbled on the basics of process. For small businesses without dedicated HR departments, these procedural penalties are even more common.  

Managing HR for small businesses often means leaders are handling discipline, grievances, and policy compliance alongside their core operational responsibilities, making it easier to miss critical steps. 

This case also highlights the growing importance of UK employment law changes (House of Lords Votes Against Day-One Unfair Dismissal Rights), especially where unfair dismissal thresholds may soon shift.

The HR Doctor’s Key Takeaways 

1. Policies only work if staff actually see them. 
   Having a bullying and harassment policy filed away isn’t enough. Every employee needs access to it and ideally a short induction or refresher session. If you can’t prove they’ve seen it, it won’t protect you at tribunal. 
2. Not every poor behaviour equals gross misconduct. 
   Gross misconduct should be reserved for serious cases, violence, theft, harassment with malicious intent. “Silly” or immature behaviour might need addressing, but usually through a warning, training, or performance management. 
3. Intent and impact must both be weighed. 
   An action can still be misconduct even without bad intent, if it causes distress. Equally, if there’s no clear evidence of malice, you’ll need to tread carefully before escalating straight to dismissal. 
4. Follow a fair process, even when you think it’s obvious. 
   The tribunal’s biggest concern here wasn’t the noises, it was the lack of procedural fairness. Skipping steps may feel efficient, but it’s exactly what tribunals punish. This aligns with the risks explored in staying compliant as an employer (Right to Work Checks: Getting UK Compliance Right).
5. Prevention is cheaper than payout. 
   Clear policies, proper onboarding, and early interventions cost far less than a five-figure tribunal award. Think of it as an insurance policy against reputational and financial damage, underpinned by robust employment terms and conditions. 

 You can also see how contract clarity protects employers in the Comprehensive Guide to Employment Contracts for UK SMEs.

Final Word 

This case may read like a comedy, but the consequences for the employer were anything but funny. The real lesson is that tribunals rarely focus on whether the behaviour was odd or annoying; they focus on whether the employer acted fairly, proportionately, and consistently with policy. 

For SME leaders, the message is simple: don’t wing HR decisions. Whether you're managing HR for small businesses internally or seeking external support, having proper processes and guidance in place is essential. 

For wider context on navigating evolving compliance expectations, see the Fair Work Agency changes and updates on discrimination compensation rates.

Frequently asked questions

What happened in the Co-op "Michael Jackson noises" tribunal case?

A Co-op warehouse operative was accused by a colleague of making noises like Michael Jackson's "hee-hee" and other high-pitched squeals, which the colleague found upsetting. The Co-op suspended him, ran a disciplinary process under its bullying and harassment policy and dismissed him for gross misconduct. A Manchester employment tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unfair.

Why did the tribunal find the dismissal unfair?

The employer had not shown him the bullying and harassment policy or trained him on it, so he did not know that juvenile behaviour could lead to dismissal without warning. Similar behaviour had gone on for years without warnings, his record was clean, and no lesser sanction was considered. Dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

Why was the employee's compensation cut by half?

The tribunal found his juvenile noises were blameworthy conduct that contributed to his dismissal, so it reduced both his basic and compensatory awards by half. Even so, his compensatory award alone came to over £8,500. The reduction did not change the finding that the dismissal was unfair, because dismissal without warning was too severe a response.

Is making silly noises or crude jokes at work gross misconduct?

Not usually. Gross misconduct is conduct serious enough to justify dismissal without warning, such as violence, theft or harassment. Silly or immature behaviour unrelated to a protected characteristic usually calls for a warning, training or performance management first. In this case the tribunal found the noises crude and unprofessional, and still found dismissal without warning too severe.

Can behaviour be misconduct if the employee meant no harm?

Yes. An action can still be misconduct without bad intent if it causes distress, so you weigh both intent and impact. Where there is no clear evidence of malice, take care before escalating straight to dismissal. Here the employee called his sounds "juvenile and inappropriate" but denied racist intent, and the tribunal found no malicious intent proven.

Does gross misconduct always mean dismissal?

No. Calling conduct gross misconduct does not settle the outcome. Tribunals look at whether the employer acted fairly, proportionately and consistently with its policy. The Co-op dismissed a warehouse operative for gross misconduct, but the tribunal found his behaviour, though embarrassing and unprofessional, did not reasonably justify dismissal without warning. Follow a fair process, even when the answer seems obvious.