Latest Teesside headlines straight to your inbox Subscribe Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A “Jack the lad” factory worker was sacked after bringing an “offensive” mug to work, poking fun at a mate’s ex-girlfriend.

Craig Reed, 41, thought he was just having a laugh when he gave the cartoon mug to a colleague at a fertiliser plant which had a 95% male workforce.

The mug had cartoon owls graffitied on it and speech bubbles describing the workmate’s ex as, among other things, a “lanky b****”.

But when a woman consultant spotted it in a cupboard as she went to make a cup of tea, she read it as an “offensive misogynist message directed at me.”

Mr Reed’s bosses accepted that she was not the target, but the company had a “zero tolerance” policy on offensive language and dismissed him.

Viewed as a joker and “man about town” by colleagues, he had an unblemished 20-year record of working at the CF Fertilisers plant in Billingham .

Banter at the factory could be “close to the knuckle”, but Mr Reed was described as a “grafter” with a “heart of gold” who “never upset anyone.”

But now an Employment Tribunal has wrecked his hopes of compensation after ruling that his sacking was fair.

The consultant, who had been brought in from outside to advise on restructuring, was a tall woman and thought the mug referred to her.

She took a photo of it and, after she complained to management, a disciplinary investigation began.

Mr Reed said he was “sincerely sorry” and told investigators, “I wouldn’t want to upset anyone. It will never happen again.”

His boss said he was “a bit of a Jack the lad” and a “good guy”, but that the company had “a zero tolerance approach” to bringing offensive material to work.

He said that sacking “well liked” Mr Reed was one of the “hardest decisions” he had ever taken in his career.

Ruling on his unfair dismissal claim, Judge Jennifer Wade said: “This is a case about humour at work that has gone wrong.”

Mr Reed had worked for American-owned CF Fertilisers UK Limited since he was an apprentice and was “very hard working and willing to help”.

“It is clear to me that some employers would have taken a different approach” and given him a final written warning, she added.

“Some employers would have listened to those very remorseful statements...and concluded that he would never do such a thing again.

“He was the subject of a zero tolerance approach in circumstances where he would never have wished to be.

“Certainly, he was very upset by it, when measured against his previous good character and record.”

But his boss had “carefully considered” what to do and sacking Mr Reed was within the range of reasonable responses.

The company “acted reasonably in treating his conduct in bringing to work the offensive mug as sufficient reason for his dismissal.”

Judge Wade concluded: “I would say this, and this is largely directed to Mr Reed and his family’s ears, because I know that they have sat and supported him throughout the hearing of this case.

“The tribunals hear very many wrongful and unfair dismissal cases when people do things that are inadvisable and which they regret deeply.

“Many of those actions are...devastating for those that lose their jobs, and I do not underestimate that being the case here.”