An overzealous HMRC boss who was sacked after monitoring an employee sneaking off to Greggs during her breaks has won an unfair dismissal claim.
Ka Wong was accused of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment after his 'no-nonsense' management style sparked a revolt among staff who were used to a more relaxed approach.
The tax office manager had been keeping a close eye on his employees, including one woman he suspected of abusing her breaks to move her car and visit the popular bakery chain.
But his strict approach did not go down well with his new team, with six disgruntled employees joining forces to lodge a formal grievance against him just three months after he took charge.
Mr Wong was eventually dismissed for gross misconduct following an investigation which a tribunal has now condemned as being of 'poor quality' and 'devoid of cogent reasoning'.
An employment judge found that HMRC had effectively predetermined his dismissal despite an initial decision that his behaviour warranted only a final written warning.
Mr Wong, who joined HMRC as a customer service manager in July 2021, had taken charge of a new team of customer service advisers in April 2023.
He had previously managed other teams for almost two years without attracting any complaints.
However, his new employees had grown accustomed to a manager who was more relaxed about working hours, taking leave and adhering to the department's flexi-time policy.
Ka Wong was accused of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment after his 'no-nonsense' management style sparked a revolt among staff who were used to a more relaxed approach. Pictured: HM Revenue and Customs building in Whitehall
The tribunal heard Mr Wong 'was a robust, no-nonsense manager who closely monitored his team and held them to account'.
His arrival marked a dramatic change for the workforce, with the tribunal finding that 'his management style to a large degree prompted complaints against him'.
By July 14, 2023, six employees had submitted a joint grievance, with four accusing him of bullying, one alleging discrimination and two making complaints of sexual harassment.
Among the allegations was a complaint that Mr Wong had been monitoring an employee's breaks.
Mr Wong defended his actions by claiming he had evidence that 'Ms Mohammed was using breaks to move her car and to go to Greggs, which were activities outside the intended purpose of such break'.
Other accusations included claims that he had shown a colleague a video of a seagull eating a rat as part of an alleged bullying campaign.
Meanwhile, sexual harassment complaints centred on allegations that he had been 'touchy feely' with staff and had been 'looking them up and down'.
But the case against him began to unravel when one of the employees withdrew his complaint and raised serious doubts about the allegations made by his colleagues.
The employee said he 'believed there was doubt over the veracity of his own testimony and that of others, and the tribunal case should be thrown on the scrap heap'.
He also said he 'believed that the joint complaint against Mr Wong was the result of manipulation' by two of the employees involved.
Despite this, investigators failed to interview him about his concerns, overlooking what the tribunal described as a 'clear line of questioning'.
The investigation was subsequently criticised for favouring the accounts of the complaining employees without adequately explaining why their evidence was considered more credible.
When the case reached the disciplinary stage in November 2023, half of the allegations against Mr Wong were dropped.
These included complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and his monitoring of the employee's trips to Greggs.
William Pettigrew, the manager responsible for deciding Mr Wong's fate, initially concluded that the remaining misconduct was not serious enough to justify dismissal.
Two draft decision letters prepared at the beginning of December stated that Mr Wong would instead receive a final written warning.
But in an extraordinary U-turn, the final decision issued on December 4 informed him that he was being sacked for gross misconduct.
The tribunal heard that between preparing the second draft and issuing the final letter, Mr Pettigrew had contacted Employer Alignment Submission (EAS), a body responsible for managing staff records at HMRC.
Following that intervention, a sexual harassment allegation was suddenly treated as proven despite having been dismissed just days earlier.
Bullying allegations were also 'globally' accepted without any adequate explanation for the change.
Mr Wong appealed against his dismissal but the decision was upheld, prompting him to take HMRC to an employment tribunal in Manchester.
Employment Judge Callum Cowx has now ruled in his favour, finding that the tax authority's handling of the complaints was fundamentally flawed.
He concluded: 'Based on the evidence in this case it is clear that Mr Wong was a zealous, sometimes blunt, no-nonsense manager, who would have benefitted from some sort of constructive management intervention and guidance.
'The way he performed his management role set in motion a chain of events which led to his dismissal.
'Had [HMRC] handled the complaints made against Mr Wong in a fair and competent manner, the outcome would have been quite different…
'On the evidence provided to me I conclude that any provable wrongdoing on Mr Wong's part was at the lower end of the spectrum which could have been dealt with informally or by a formal warning of some kind.'
The judge delivered a particularly damning assessment of the final disciplinary decision, finding that those involved had attempted to conceal the fact that Mr Wong's fate had already been decided.
He added: 'Anything in the final decision notice which has the appearance of reasons for finding Mr Wong guilty of the alleged misconduct was the product of a concerted effort to disguise the fact that the case against Mr Wong, so far as guilt was concerned, was predetermined and that EAS had stripped Mr Pettigrew of his legitimate powers as the decision manager.'
Mr Wong successfully brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, while his further claims of direct sexual orientation discrimination and sexual orientation harassment were rejected.
He will be awarded compensation at a later date.