Cleaner wins £264k after sacking over rice cooker row with boss
Cleaner wins £264k after rice cooker row sacking

A university cleaner has been awarded over £250,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation following a dispute with her manager over a banned rice cooker. Peak Ong, a 72-year-old part-time cleaner at Aberystwyth University, was dismissed after a series of clashes with her boss, Catherine Green, which culminated in a disagreement about a rice cooker that had been confiscated from a student due to a university-wide ban.

The Rice Cooker Incident

In March 2021, Mrs Green called a meeting with Ms Ong to discuss several issues, including the rice cooker. According to Mrs Green's witness statement, the rice cooker was a banned item in halls of residence, and the usual procedure was for team leaders to remove such items to safe storage. Ms Ong alleged that Mrs Green accused her of supplying students with rice cookers, a claim Ms Ong denied. However, the employment tribunal found that Mrs Green did not accuse Ms Ong of misconduct over the incident.

Background of the Conflict

Ms Ong, who came to the UK from Malaysia in 1989 to study, began working as a part-time cleaner at Aberystwyth University in 2014, working 15 hours a week. Mrs Green became her line manager in June 2017, and the two immediately clashed. Ms Ong made multiple complaints about Mrs Green, alleging bullying and harassment due to her age. Although Ms Ong was given a new boss in August 2019 following a formal complaint, the conflicts continued.

Wide Pickt banner — collaborative shopping lists app for Telegram, phone mockup with grocery list

In February 2021, Mrs Green made a formal complaint about Ms Ong's behaviour, describing it as 'unmanageable' and having an adverse effect on her ability to do her job and her team. The complaint was upheld after an investigation, which found that the negativity in Ms Ong's relationship with Mrs Green was not reciprocated.

Mediation and Dismissal

In October 2021, following a mediation meeting, the pair appeared to have resolved their differences and made agreements about their working relationship. However, no warning was given that breaching the confidential agreement could lead to disciplinary action. The following month, Mrs Green complained again about Ms Ong's behaviour, leading to Ms Ong's suspension. A flawed investigation resulted in a final written warning, and Ms Ong was given seven weeks to find an alternative role at the university. She failed to secure another position and was subsequently dismissed.

Victimisation Over Reference

After her dismissal, Ms Ong successfully applied for a night care assistant role with Ceredigion Council in September 2022. The conditional job offer required a reference from Aberystwyth University. A HR worker completed the reference form, which asked about Ms Ong's honesty, working relationships, 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.' As a result, Ms Ong lost the job offer. The tribunal found this was an act of victimisation, describing the university's conduct as 'irresponsible and retaliatory'.

Compensation and Tribunal Findings

Employment Judge Dilbaag Bansal ruled that Ms Ong's dismissal was 'substantively and procedurally unfair' and that she had reasonably tried to mitigate her loss. The judge noted that the mediation agreement was a private agreement between Ms Ong and Mrs Green, and the university was not a party to it. Therefore, it was questionable whether the university could rely on the agreement to take disciplinary action. Ms Ong was awarded £264,442 in compensation for unfair dismissal and victimisation.

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.'

Pickt after-article banner — collaborative shopping lists app with family illustration