A senior manager at Associated British Ports has won an unfair dismissal case after he was overheard berating his boss behind his back to another colleague.

Sahir Rahim, who was in charge of £150 million projects at the British ports owner, was overheard by ABP's Head of Programme Ben Hodgkin 'loudly' criticising him.

Without knowing Mr Hodgkin was in earshot, angry Mr Rahim laid into him with a tirade of 'unflattering' remarks including 'what the f**k does he know'.

Mr Rahim, speaking to another colleague, said that he could take Mr Hodgkin's job and that he should not be reporting to him.

The Head of Contract and Cost Management was stood on the street outside ABP's London HQ and Mr Hodgkin was emerging from the bike store.

He was found guilty of gross misconduct and later lost his job.

He had responsibility over projects where capital expenditure was between £20m and £150m at Associated British Ports (ABP), which owns and operates 21 ports in the UK.

He went on sick leave with stress after he was given a final written warning for his behaviour, and wasn’t given sick pay - a tribunal has found that this should have been paid to him.

The tribunal found that Mr Rahim was unfairly sacked - he wasn’t paid the wages he was owed and ABP therefore breached his contract.

The employment tribunal, held in Watford, heard Mr Rahim had worked for ABP as Head of Contract and Cost Management from January 2020.

He was based at their Ipswich site, but regularly worked at different sites.

Mr Rahim raised an 'internal governance issue' in March 2023, and after this he felt that his line manager Ben Hodgkin began to reduce or diminish his role in the company.

He also felt that Mr Hodgkin set him unrealistic deadlines and complained he was required to work 'in excess of 37 hours a week'.

On July 5 2023, Mr Rahim and Mr Hodgkin had a meeting in which Mr Rahim felt that his manager was suggesting changes to his role.

He was also warned against 'undermining his colleagues in front of others' during the meeting.

Later that day, he loudly spoke about Mr Hodgkin with a junior colleague outside the ABP headquarters in central London.

Mr Hodgkin 'overheard' this conversation between Mr Rahim and Daniel Landi, which took place on the street just outside the main entrance to the building.

The tribunal heard: "On his way out of the bike store, on the ground floor of the building, Mr Hodgkin overheard a conversation between [Mr Rahim] and another of [ABP's] employees, Mr Daniel Landi.

"Plainly [Mr Rahim] was unhappy with what had happened at the earlier meeting and was not aware that Mr Hodgkin was listening.

"[Mr Rahim] was speaking loudly to Mr Landi.

"[Mr Rahim] said 'He wants me to sit down with James [i.e. Mr Pang], it’s too fucking late for that'.

"He made disparaging remarks about Mr Pang and [ABP's] Asset team.

"He said that Mr Hodgkin 'said we should present a united front to the team, it's too fucking late for that' and that Mr Hodgkin was not listening to him.

"Mr Hodgkin had told him procurement can manage contracts, but 'what the fuck does he know about contracts'.

"Mr Landi then asked [Mr Rahim] why he didn’t take Mr Hodgkin’s job – in our judgement clearly a flippant or jokey response to what [Mr Rahim] was saying, rather than something intended to be taken seriously – and [Mr Rahim] replied that he could and that he should not be reporting to Mr Hodgkin."

Mr Hodgkin was 'genuinely upset' by what he heard, and told his own boss about it, after which point the tribunal found 'the matter seems to have taken on something of a momentum of its own'.

Mr Hodgkin did not think his relationship with Mr Rahim was beyond repair.

Mr Rahim was then subject to a disciplinary process, during which he was suspended.

He told investigators that he could not remember the conversation, but it was 'the sort of thing that he would say and he accepted it was inappropriate'.

Mr Rahim's employers concluded he had committed gross misconduct, but he was given a final written warning rather than dismissed as they recognised he had been working in a stressful situation, working 'long hours'.

However, on the day that he received the written warning, he was given a letter under its 'other dismissals' policy which said that ABP was considering dismissing him because his relationship with his manager and the company had 'broken down beyond repair'.

Mr Rahim then went on a 'long period of sick leave' in late July 2023 because of 'work-related stress', and indicated that he was going to appeal against the final written warning he had been given.

ABP then chose not to pay him contractual sick pay because of a clause in his employment contract which said that sick pay could be withheld during a disciplinary process - it believed that Mr Rahim's appeal was part of the process.

He was therefore only paid statutory sick pay until October 2023.

The tribunal found there was email evidence that withholding the pay was being used as a 'negotiating tool', and a 'disciplinary measure' even though this is not how it is meant to be treated.

After a series of largely unsuccessful grievances and appeals, Mr Rahim resigned in January 2024, arguing that he had been constructively dismissed.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Hodgkin reporting Mr Rahim for berating him was 'reasonable', but he 'might well reasonably have considered that many employees, letting off steam, will say things about their managers, sometimes in unflattering terms, that they would not wish to be overheard'.

Employment Judge James Dick said: “We accept [ABP]'s point that since he was at or near the entrance of the building, there was the potential for [Mr Rahim]’s conversation to be overheard by [ABP]'s employees and perhaps even shareholders who may have been coming in and out of the building."

The judge said that this 'blameworthy conduct' contributed to the decision to give him a final written warning, but not the decision to dismiss him.

EJ Dick said: "We do not think it can be fairly said that [Mr Rahim]’s conduct on 5 July contributed to [ABP]’s decisions to withhold [Mr Rahim]’s sick pay in bad faith and to invoke the other dismissals policy; alternatively, if it did, we do not consider that it would be just and equitable to reduce the basic or compensatory awards because of it – it was conduct which [ABP] itself considered not to warrant dismissal and which had already been formally dealt with before the decisions we have just referred to."

The amount of compensation that Mr Rahim will receive is due to be decided at a later date.

Other claims he made at the tribunal were not successful.