Sacked – warehouse worker who revealed social distance fears
He shared pictures of staff less than 2m apart
AJD Sports worker has been sacked after he shared pictures from inside a Rochdale warehouse to highlight his concerns over a lack of social distancing.
Adam
Lord, 38, released a series of images of workers less than two metres apart inside the warehouse, which were published by the Observer and other media outlets.
During a disciplinary hearing, the employee admitted he had breached company policy, but claimed he had done so in the ‘public interest’ to demonstrate his concerns health and safety.
In a formal dismissal letter addressed to Mr Lord and seen by the Observer, JD Sports said there had been ‘clear breaches’ of both GDPR and the firm’s Disclosure of Information policy.
The company said in doing so, he had ‘brought the company into disrepute and damaged the about business reputation.’
Adjudicators did not accept that Mr Lord had acted as a whistle blower in the public interest, as they ‘do not believe’ he was in fear of his health and safety, the letter said.
They also argued he had failed to raise his concerns internally with a manager, and that he had published the photos with ‘the mindset to purposefully damage the company’s reputation’.
In March, our sister title the Manchester Evening News received dozens of emails from workers who said it was ‘impossible’ to maintain two metre social distancing rules inside the warehouse.
A petition demanding the distribution centre be shut during lockdown attracted at least over 2,000 signatures, after claims people’s lives were being put at risk.
JD Sports has always maintained the company took the necessary steps to ensure the correct coronavirus safeguarding was in place, and repeatedly said the health and safety of their colleagues is their priority.
In the dismissal letter seen by the Observer, and signed by the firm’s Profit Protection Manager, JD Sports said they had chosen to dismiss Mr Lord due to a number of contract breaches which damaged the business’s reputation.
But speaking to the Observer, Adam, who has worked for the company for three years, said: “Sharing those pictures was a last resort.
“The media had been pressurising JD to follow government advice to close non-essential businesses for three weeks.
“I went into work on the first day of lockdown and I just saw crowds of people gathering in the reception and inside the warehouse.
“I just felt straight away that JD had not done anything to ease people’s fears. My own anxiety levels were through the roof.”
Adam says the most painful part of the dismissal process has been claims from JD that he acted maliciously.
“That’s the worst part for me. Every meeting I have had they have brushed away the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic and are focusing on one individual. There is no reason for me to cause trouble for JD. There was no gain for me to speak to the media with malicious intentions.”
Adam has appealed JD’s decision to dismiss him, and took part in an appeal hearing on Friday June 26. The decision will be published at a later date.
He says he would like to get his job back as he relies on the income, but feels it would be difficult after claims his character has been brought into question.
Tony Clare, from shopworkers union Usdaw, has been representing Mr Lord through the dismissal and appeal process.
He said: “The main reason Adam was dismissed was because JD felt he had not acted out of concern for his health and safety but that he acted in malice.
“That to me is an absolutely perverse conclusion to draw. I think every member of the public was concerned for their safety at that time.
“Anyone put in a position where social distancing was so clearly not being carried out has a right to feel concerned.
“The damage to reputation was not caused by these pictures, but by the company not following the guidelines properly. It is a classic case of shoot the messenger.”
JD Sports said they would not comment on a worker’s case until the appeal process had concluded.
A spokesperson for the firm said: “It is not appropriate to comment as this relates to an ongoing disciplinary process, which has not yet been concluded.”