A school caretaker has been awarded £32,000 following allegations that he refused to accept direction from women after he raised concerns over health and safety matters with female superiors.

A tribunal was told that Mark Steward "took things into his own hands" merely a week into his role, as he believed that fire drill procedures had not been adequately updated or tested.

He subsequently "badgered" school staff regarding what he considered to be a series of health and safety shortcomings across the site.

However, Mr Steward was perceived as a "loose cannon" and became involved in a sexism conflict when headteacher Sarah Tomlin claimed he was "unwilling to take instruction from women".

When he sought to secure new employment elsewhere, the headteacher provided his prospective employer with a "comprehensively negative reference" concerning his workplace capability.

After "presenting the difficult picture that [Mr Steward] was entirely failing at his job", the prospective school withdrew its offer, prompting Mr Steward to take legal action at the Reading Employment Tribunal in Berkshire.

The school and Ms Tomlin have now been ordered to pay £32,000 to Mr Steward.

The tribunal ruled that he faced unlawful detriments because of protected disclosures (whistle blowing). The detriments were the negative references.

Mr Steward had previously worked in a similar role for six years at a different school before joining Langford Village Community Primary School in Bicester, Oxfordshire, in July 2023.

Before his employment officially started, he visited the school and made some recommendations, and in his very first week he began circulating a new Fire & Evacuation Procedure.

The headteacher of the school, Ms Tomlin, told the tribunal: "[Mr Steward] took it upon himself to rewrite the procedure using a template from a previous school.

"On July 18 2023, he circulated this unapproved version to all staff electronically and placed printed copies in communal areas, causing confusion and disruption.

"This had not been shared with or discussed by the wider Senior Leadership Team (SLT), who would be responsible for managing any actual evacuation, which was extremely dangerous.

"Staff may have attempted to follow the unratified procedures in a real emergency, creating unprecedented risks and undermining the health and safety of the school."

The employment judge in the case, Judge Laurie Anstis, said that it was the impression of Ms Tomlin that Mr Steward "was a liability, a loose cannon who took things into his own hands that were none of his business, and insisted on his own way".

He continued: "This developed into criticism of [Mr Steward] later badgering or even harassing [Ms Tomlin], and a suggestion by [her] that [Mr Steward] was uncomfortable or unwilling to take instruction from women."

However there was "very little, if any, documentary evidence" to support this view of the caretaker, which was "at best a misleading partial truth".

In fact Ms Tomlin "in general enthusiastically received" the new fire safety plan and replied to Mr Steward: “I think this is great and... long overdue.”

She suggested a single amendment which Mr Steward gladly made before he checked: "Are you happy for me to send to all staff and post copies on notice boards etc?"

There is no documented reply to this email, but also no evidence that the plan was objected to.

In September 2023 Mr Steward said he disclosed to Ms Tomlin that there were a number of health and safety issues with the school site.

These included that there were fire and bacteria risks that could "lead to loss of life", including for parents and contractors.

There were a number of specific complaints, such as wires going across doorways and rot potentially aggravating illness.

He had believed he had shown that the school would be "likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation to which it was subject to", making them protected disclosures.

Female teachers at a similar time complained about his emailing, saying that he was "disruptive and badgering" with them.

However when asked at the tribunal "about what was wrong with these communications it was not clear what, if anything" was.

Mr Steward was generally described as being "rude" to female members of staff and a female auditor said he was "abrasive" and that she believed it was "gender-related".

Eventually, in December 2023, Mr Steward was offered a similar job at another school which would pay more.

However ,when the new school asked Ms Tomlin for a reference for the caretaker, she filled out a form that assessed his abilities in 10 different categories by making it out that he was "failing at his job".

In seven of those categories, including if "the candidate has established excellent working relationships with colleagues", she put "strongly disagree".

The employment tribunal said that they "have not in their professional experience previously seen such a comprehensively negative reference".

Because of the reference, but "not without some hesitation", the job offer was revoked.

Mr Steward found out about the reference the next day when the other school forwarded him a copy.

He said afterwards that he would unlock the school gates and then go off sick, and Ms Tomlin placed him on garden leave to "protect the school from further malicious behaviour".

The caretaker kept looking for another job and was offered one in January 2024.

Ms Tomlin gave the same reference again but the new school was not put off and still hired Mr Steward.

But because Mr Steward believed the bad references were given because he had made the protected disclosures about the school"s safety procedures, he took Ms Tomlin and Oxfordshire County Council to an employment tribunal in Reading.

There, EJ Anstis agreed with the caretaker, concluding: "[Ms Tomlin] presented the difficult picture that [Mr Steward] was entirely failing at his job.

"It cannot be disputed that there were difficulties in the relationship between [her and Mr Steward but] they were not seen by her at the time as being of sufficient concern to require her to take action.

"We cannot reconcile that with such a bad reference being given. The reference response is not, as [Ms Tomlin] describes it, an accurate account of [Mr Steward’s] deficiencies in the role.

"[Ms Tomlin] is describing things as worse than they were. If things had been that bad [she] would have taken substantial action against [Mr Steward] at the time.

"In those circumstances we consider we can properly infer that the first and second round of protected disclosures were a material cause of the negative reference, and that therefore the references were a whistleblowing detriment."