A university cleaner has won more than £250,000 in an unfair dismissal case after she was sacked following a row with her boss over a ‘banned’ rice cooker.
Peak Ong, 72, was accused by her boss of buying a rice cooker for a student after theirs was taken away due to a university-wide ban on the appliance, an employment tribunal heard.
The disagreement was just one of many clashes between Ms Ong and her boss, Catherine Green, while they worked together at Aberystwyth University.
The tribunal in Birmingham heard Ms Ong was sacked after she failed to improve her behaviour.
However, after flaws were uncovered in the disciplinary process Ms Ong, who represented herself, has now won a whopping £264,442 in compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation.
In response to the claim, Aberystwyth University said they were ‘sorry’ about the impact on Ms Ong adding that they ‘respect the Tribunal’s decision and are reviewing our processes to ensure this cannot happen again’.
Ms Ong came to the UK from Malaysia in 1989 to study. While she was studying a postgraduate degree she took up a role as a part time cleaner at Aberystwyth in 2014 – working 15 hours a week.
Mrs Green became Ms Ong’s line manager in June 2017 and the pair immediately found themselves at loggerheads.
Pictured: The entrance to Aberystwyth University where Peak Ong was employed as a part time cleaner. After flaws were uncovered in the disciplinary process Ms Ong has won a whopping £264,442 in compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation
It was heard that Ms Ong made multiple complaints about Mrs Green, claiming ‘she was being bullied and harassed by [Mrs Green] and that she wanted her out because of her age’.
Although she was given a new boss in August 2019, following a formal complaint about Mrs Green, the two continued to clash.
The following year, she sent an email to the then-Vice Chancellor complaining about Mrs Green’s ‘ruthless and bullying behaviour’.
And Mrs 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 that Mrs Green claimed that Ms Ong ‘refused to interact with her, would shout at her and behave in a discourteous and disrespectful manner’ adding she could no longer put up with Ms Ong’s ‘unreasonable conduct’.
Mrs 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 [Mrs Green] does not appear to be reciprocated in the other direction’.
In March 2021 the row reached boiling point when Mrs Green asked to speak to Ms Ong about the rice cooker incident.
The tribunal heard: ‘On 12 March 2021, [Mrs Green] held a meeting with [Ms Ong] to discuss a number of issues with [Ms Ong].
‘According to [Mrs 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 Mrs Green had accused her of ‘supplying students with rice cookers’, which Ms Ong had denied.
Mrs 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 Mrs Green did not accuse Ms Ong of misconduct over the incident.
In October 2021, the pair appeared to have buried the hatchet after they made some agreements about their working relationship going forward following a mediation meeting. No warning was given that a breach of the confidential agreement might lead to disciplinary action.
Mrs 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 couldn’t find a role despite making several applications, so she was fired.
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’ as well as her ‘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.
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 told the tribunal she felt ‘humiliated’ by the incident, and it was found that she had ‘reasonably endeavoured to mitigate her loss’ following her dismissal.
Judge 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 [Mrs 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.’
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’.
A spokesperson for Aberystwyth University said: ‘While the Tribunal found in the University’s favour for the majority of the claims brought in this complex case, we recognise that some procedures were not applied correctly in this instance.
‘We are sorry for the impact this had on those involved. We respect the Tribunal’s decision and are reviewing our processes to ensure this cannot happen again.
‘The University remains committed to supporting our staff and fostering a professional and inclusive working environment.’
All of Ms Ong’s other claims were dismissed.
