Excluding a colleague from the workplace food run might be against the law, ruling suggests as removals worker wins £5,500 payout

Daily Mail​

30-07-2025

A man has been rewarded with a £5,500 payout after he felt 'victimised' because colleagues excluded him from the workplace food run.
Sean McGhie, a Scottish removals firm worker, won the money as his manager decided to buy everyone an item from the burger van apart from him.
It comes as 'childish' boss Brian Donaldson had been upset with the victim because he had reported him for calling him a 'wee woofter'.
Mr McGhie, who is gay, previously won a separate claim of victimisation as well as harassment at Glasgow Employment Tribunal over a slur made by a colleague.
In UK employment law, victimisation occurs when someone is treated poorly due to being involved in a discrimination or harassment complaint.
Glasgow Employment Tribunal heard Mr McGhie started working for RHT Scotland in August 2023 in Inverkeithing in Fife as a fitter.
The hearing was told: 'He makes no secret of the fact that he is gay.
'He was comfortable discussing aspects of his sexuality with fellow employees.
'The fact that he was gay prompted male colleagues to ask him questions about his sex life and to discuss theirs.
'There was often such "banter" between employees which [he] participated in relating to explicit sexual matters.'
However, the tribunal heard Mr McGhie felt he was bullied by Mr Donaldson, who called him 'Mr Clean' because he 'took an interest in his appearance', regularly cleaning and washing his clothes.
In October 2023, Mr McGhie and Mr Donaldson worked together at a site in Glasgow.
The tribunal heard the colleagues had an argument about commuting to work.
It was told: 'In the course of the argument [Mr Donaldson] referred to Mr McGhie as "You wee woofter".
'[Mr McGhie] was taken aback and shocked at this comment.
'He asked [Mr Donaldson] to repeat it which he then did slowly and deliberately emphasising the words and looking [Mr McGhie] in the face.
'[He] responded by saying that's "uncalled for" and left [Mr Donaldson]'s presence.'
Mr McGhie felt 'mortified' by the incident, and reported it, the tribunal heard.
'The intent of this comment was to insult and it resulted in me walking off a job,' he said. 'I don't think my sexuality should be spoken about in a degrading manner as a result of a disagreement.'
Mr Donaldson argued the remark was 'banter' and that he had used it as he 'thought it may defuse the situation'.
He eventually apologised for making a 'homophobic slur'.
The following month, however, the tribunal heard he pulled a door closed as Mr McGhie - who he referred to as a 'grass' - approached it carrying heavy boxes of paper.
In the same month, he said 'It f***ing stinks in here' while looking at Mr McGhie as he walked into a room which smelt strongly of onions, the panel was told.
Then, Mr Donaldson left Mr McGhie out of the food run.
'[Mr McGhie explained that on November 29, 2023 [Mr Donaldson had gone to the burger van outside the warehouse and had bought everyone at work something from the van but not him.
'He took the food into the warehouse and said "help yourselves all bar one", looking at him.
'[Mr McGhie said] he was trying to "get the rise out of him" and said that he was trying to remain stable,' the tribunal was told.
It was heard the next day Mr Donaldson called Mr McGhie a 'grass'.
The tribunal heard another employee at the firm, referred to only as AR, shouted at him at work: 'Where are you you gay c***!'.
After Mr McGhie complained about the colleague's behaviour - which he also reported to the police - RHT disciplined AR, but found his allegations against Mr Donaldson had no basis.
Mr McGhie was dismissed in January 2024 for unrelated reasons and took the company to the tribunal claiming harassment and victimisation.
The panel found Mr McGhie was victimised.
Employment Judge James Hendry said: 'This was on one level childish (such as the exclusion from food bought at the burger van) but coming from [Mr McGhie]'s supervisor who held a position of authority over him and given the background circumstances in which these behaviours occurred they are not wholly trivial.
'It was clear that [Mr Donaldson] had not really accepted that he had been in the wrong nor had he truly apologised for his behaviour.
'He was still intent on intimidating or punishing [Mr McGhie]. He still bore a grudge about being disciplined.
'To his employer he minimised his fault but in acting this way to [Mr McGhie] he chose to undermine and intimidate him at a time when he was already upset from the earlier incident.'
Mr McGhie was awarded £2,500 for the victimisation carried out by the Mr Donaldson and £3,000 for AR's act of harassment.