This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/17/irish-guardsman-sues-harrods-over-witch-hunt-after-coffee-row

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Irish Guardsman sues Harrods over 'witch-hunt' after coffee row Irish Guardsman sues Harrods over 'witch-hunt' after coffee row
(34 minutes later)
A former Irish Guardsman has claimed that a Harrods director and her PA launched a “witch-hunt” to have him sacked as a security guard after he stopped them carrying coffee through the luxury department store.A former Irish Guardsman has claimed that a Harrods director and her PA launched a “witch-hunt” to have him sacked as a security guard after he stopped them carrying coffee through the luxury department store.
John Perrett told an employment tribunal that he was following health and safety rules when he stopped merchandise manager Caroline Lyons and PA Chloe Marsh from carrying the beverages into the store, an act that is against company policy.John Perrett told an employment tribunal that he was following health and safety rules when he stopped merchandise manager Caroline Lyons and PA Chloe Marsh from carrying the beverages into the store, an act that is against company policy.
He said the women were rude and aggressive and tried to intimidate him by saying they were getting the coffee for the HR and retail director, Sarah Andrews. He was later dismissed from his £928-a-week job for gross misconduct.He said the women were rude and aggressive and tried to intimidate him by saying they were getting the coffee for the HR and retail director, Sarah Andrews. He was later dismissed from his £928-a-week job for gross misconduct.
Perrett is claiming sexual discrimination, claiming the women’s allegation that he was aggressive was held in higher regard than his own because he is a man. Perrett is claiming sexual discrimination, saying the women’s allegation that he was aggressive was held in higher regard than his own because he is a man.
The 6ft 5 in former soldier, who is demanding £91,000, told the central London employment tribunal that when he stopped the women and explained that unsealed drinks were banned, Marsh proceeded to put the bag containing the drinks on the counter, pushed them towards him and walked away. The 6ft 5in former soldier, who is demanding £91,000, told the central London employment tribunal that when he stopped the women and explained that unsealed drinks were banned, Marsh proceeded to put the bag containing the drinks on the counter, pushed them towards him and walked away.
He claims that when he told her that she couldn’t leave the drinks Lyons snatched them off the desk and walked out angrily. It is also alleged that she returned and asked to see his ID badge so she “could tell Sarah Andrews who is responsible for her not getting her coffee”.He claims that when he told her that she couldn’t leave the drinks Lyons snatched them off the desk and walked out angrily. It is also alleged that she returned and asked to see his ID badge so she “could tell Sarah Andrews who is responsible for her not getting her coffee”.
Fellow security officer and former policeman Nick Daykin witnessed the incident and later told an investigation meeting : “He was assertive, but in no way aggressive. In fact, he apologised for having to stop them and that he didn’t make the rules but has to enforce them.”Fellow security officer and former policeman Nick Daykin witnessed the incident and later told an investigation meeting : “He was assertive, but in no way aggressive. In fact, he apologised for having to stop them and that he didn’t make the rules but has to enforce them.”
But as a result of initial complaints about the policy, the rules were changed so that staff could now bring drinks if they had a lid and were in a bag, despite the spill and slippage risk they posed. Three weeks later, Marsh made a complaint about Perrett’s behaviour, accusing him of being “aggressive, dismissive, patronising, and rude” and an investigation was launched. But as a result of initial complaints about the policy, the rules were changed so that staff could bring drinks if they had a lid and were in a bag, despite the spill and slippage risk they posed. Three weeks later, Marsh made a complaint about Perrett’s behaviour, accusing him of being “aggressive, dismissive, patronising and rude” and an investigation was launched.
Lyons also accused him of being “dismissive and aggressive” when he “threateningly repeated loudly and towering over” them refused to let the drinks through.Lyons also accused him of being “dismissive and aggressive” when he “threateningly repeated loudly and towering over” them refused to let the drinks through.
Lisa Taylor, PA to the fashion director, Helen David, alleged that he addressed members of staff “rather aggressively” when dealing with a security tag that had activated the alarm.Lisa Taylor, PA to the fashion director, Helen David, alleged that he addressed members of staff “rather aggressively” when dealing with a security tag that had activated the alarm.
Andrews herself also complained that six months earlier he had been rude when telling her what time a staff door opened, and had shouted: “Are you deaf?” at two contractors who had misunderstood his instructions.Andrews herself also complained that six months earlier he had been rude when telling her what time a staff door opened, and had shouted: “Are you deaf?” at two contractors who had misunderstood his instructions.
Perrett, who joined Harrods two years earlier in November 2012, had claimed at a disciplinary hearing last year that he had been bullied and treated less favourably because Marsh and Lyons’ accusations were automatically believed. This appeal was rejected.Perrett, who joined Harrods two years earlier in November 2012, had claimed at a disciplinary hearing last year that he had been bullied and treated less favourably because Marsh and Lyons’ accusations were automatically believed. This appeal was rejected.
He told the tribunal: “This again demonstrates that the respondent chooses who can claim bullying dependent on their sex and seniority. The chair went on to state that purely by stopping the ladies I was perceived as aggressive, which puts the job of every officer in the company at risk simply for doing their jobs.He told the tribunal: “This again demonstrates that the respondent chooses who can claim bullying dependent on their sex and seniority. The chair went on to state that purely by stopping the ladies I was perceived as aggressive, which puts the job of every officer in the company at risk simply for doing their jobs.
“I believe I stopped Ms Marsh on a reasonable and valid health and safety issue and when she realised intimidation did not work, Ms Marsh and her colleagues including a senior director, launched what can only be described as a witch-hunt against me, which was supported and exacerbated by operations managers.” “I believe I stopped Ms Marsh on a reasonable and valid health and safety issue and when she realised intimidation did not work, Ms Marsh and her colleagues, including a senior director, launched what can only be described as a witch-hunt against me, which was supported and exacerbated by operations managers.”
In his witness statement, Perrett added: “We are there to protect staff and customers, our job description states that this may be at our own personal safety, yet we are undermined and prevented from doing this by a culture of elitism.In his witness statement, Perrett added: “We are there to protect staff and customers, our job description states that this may be at our own personal safety, yet we are undermined and prevented from doing this by a culture of elitism.
“I would like nothing better than to walk back in those doors with my head held high and, hopefully, it would act as a warning to those in the hierarchy that they cannot ride roughshod over their subordinates without consequences.”“I would like nothing better than to walk back in those doors with my head held high and, hopefully, it would act as a warning to those in the hierarchy that they cannot ride roughshod over their subordinates without consequences.”
Perrett claims sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal, and breach of health and safety. Harrods denies the allegations. Perrett claims sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal, and breach of health and safety. Harrods denies the allegations. The case continues.