School caretaker given bad reference for being ‘rude’ to female staffers gets £32k payout

A school caretaker has been awarded £32,000 after successfully challenging a negative reference he received for allegedly being "rude" to female staff. Mark Steward, who worked at Langford Village Community Primary School in Bicester, Oxfordshire, claims he faced unlawful discrimination due to protected disclosures related to health and safety concerns. Steward began working at the school in July 2023. Before his official start date, he visited the premises and made several recommendations. During his first week, he circulated a revised Fire & Evacuation Procedure based on a template from his previous school. He sent the document electronically to all staff and placed printed copies in common areas. This action caused confusion among staff and disrupted normal operations. Headteacher Sarah Tomlin testified at the Reading Employment Tribunal that she found Steward’s actions disruptive. She stated that the unapproved procedure had not been reviewed by the senior leadership team, who would be responsible for managing evacuations. According to her, this created potential dangers during emergencies and undermined the school's health and safety protocols. Tomlin described Steward as a "loose cannon" who took matters into his own hands and was unwilling to accept instructions from women. She informed a prospective employer of Steward’s unsatisfactory performance, leading to the withdrawal of a job offer. Steward then filed a claim against the school and Tomlin. The tribunal ruled that Steward’s actions constituted protected disclosures under UK law. These disclosures were related to potential breaches of health and safety regulations. The negative reference was deemed an unlawful detriment. As a result, the school and Tomlin were ordered to pay £32,000 to Steward. Prior to joining Langford Village Community Primary School, Steward had worked in a similar role for six years at another institution. His experience led him to believe that the current school might be non-compliant with legal obligations. In September 2023, he raised several health and safety concerns with Tomlin, including fire hazards and bacterial risks that could lead to loss of life. Steward detailed specific issues such as exposed wiring across doorways and structural rot that could exacerbate illnesses. He argued these conditions posed serious threats to the well-being of students, staff, and visitors. He believed that by bringing these matters to light, he was fulfilling his duty to ensure compliance with legal standards. During the trial, Judge Laurie Anstis noted that while Tomlin viewed Steward as a problematic employee, there was "very little, if any, documentary evidence" supporting her claims. In fact, Tomlin had initially praised the fire safety plan and encouraged its implementation. There was no recorded objection to the plan, nor was there evidence of harassment or resistance to taking instructions from women. The case highlights the complexities surrounding workplace conduct and the interpretation of protected disclosures. It underscores the importance of clear communication and documentation in professional settings. The outcome serves as a precedent for similar cases involving whistleblowers and workplace dynamics.