The HMRC worker who refused to return to the office after lockdown has blamed his union after being ordered to pay £20,000 in legal costs.
Martin Bentley, 67, was ‘prepared to use whatever means he could’ to avoid going back to the office when Covid lockdown rules were relaxed, a tribunal in Liverpool heard.
He got his way and worked from home until his retirement in 2024, despite an Occupational Health report suggesting he could work in person with no issue.
After attempting to sue HMRC for disability discrimination, Mr Bentley was branded as ‘vexatious’ and ordered to pay £20,000 as his claims would never have succeeded.
He said he is now being ordered to fork out £240 every month until all the money is paid back.
Mr Bentley has not blamed himself for what happened, but instead holds his union accountable, claiming it encouraged him to take legal action.
At his home on the 12th floor of a block of flats in Bootle, Mr Bentley told the Daily Mail: ‘I have to pay back £240 every month until the money is all paid back.
‘I am more angry with my union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, than anyone else. They encouraged me to go down this path, saying they had never seen a worse case of victimisation.
Martin Bentley, 67, (pictured) was ordered to pay £20,000 in legal costs after refusing to return to the office after lockdown
‘But then they abandoned me. They didn’t even turn up for the hearing, leaving me on my own.’
He added: ‘To be honest I just wanted it over and done with.’
Mr Bentley first began working as an assistant officer at HMRC in Liverpool in January 2012.
The tax department worker suffered with anxiety, depression and stage three kidney disease for over two decades, the tribunal heard.
In December 2021, a health report also concluded there was ‘no clinical barrier’ preventing him from working on the telephone.
However, it found his ‘personality and emotional response’ weren’t best suited for this type of work.
And a month later, during a Stress Management Plan meeting, he confirmed ‘the phones make me feel very stressed’.
He said there was a hostile atmosphere between those who did and did not work on the phones.
During his time at HMRC, he gave evidence for a female colleague’s employment tribunal.
Her allegations had been against Michael Connell, who, upon finding out that Mr Bentley had given evidence against him, sent him a Teams message describing him as a ‘spineless little f***ing worm’ and a ‘sneaky slimy prick’.
Mr Bentley has not blamed himself for what happened, but instead holds his union accountable, claiming it encouraged him to take legal action
He later claimed he had been abused and that his department had done little to support him.
However, after COVID-19 restrictions eased and staff could return to work, Mr Bentley refused to come in.
In January 2022, the office announced there was an expected return to the office for everyone, but Mr Bentley refused and continued to work from home.
Despite stating he could not use public transport, when offered taxis to and from work, travel no longer became an issue, as he said he walked to work.
But by March 2022, there was an ‘impasse’.
His line manager saw problems in his work and found it difficult to manage him remotely.
The tribunal said HMRC ‘reluctantly’ made adjustments for him, even though there was ‘no medical reason’ for his contract to be changed from office to home working.
After being put on a personal improvement plan, Mr Bentley submitted a formal concern form alleging disability and victimisation.
He claimed that he had not been supported by HMRC when abused.
And he continued to refuse a phased return to office work – even though his manager ‘would put him sitting next to the toilet if in the office’.
He later said he wanted to move department – which his line manager offered to help him with.
A tribunal judgment said the only thing that had changed since the lockdown – apart from the Michael Connell screenshot – was Mr Bentley’s preference for working from home.
‘He was prepared to use whatever means he could to achieve this end in order that he never worked in the office and never saw his managers physically face to face,’ it read.
‘In the years leading to his retirement in September 2024, [Mr Bentley] achieved this end as he has never worked in the office again and the first time he met his line manager face-to-face was at this final [tribunal] hearing.
‘The information before [HMRC] at the time was that [Mr Bentley] did not want to work in the office as opposed to could not work in the office,’ it added.
The judgment said: ‘In short, the medical advice was that there was no medical reason for [Mr Bentley] refusing to return to work in the office.’
Employment Judge Dawn Shotter dismissed his claims and scolded him for acting ‘vexatiously and abusively’ as the claims had ‘no reasonable prospect of success’.
He was ordered to pay £20,000 to HMRC as a contribution to their legal costs.
Judge Shotter concluded: ‘It is notable that [Mr Bentley] exaggerated his evidence including that given in relation to his health conditions.
‘The Tribunal did not accept [Mr Bentley’s] uncorroborated evidence that there was a conspiracy between managers who were hiding the fact he had provided a statement despite not being told by him of its existence.
‘He was provided with online one-to-one training which supported him, and congratulated when performance improved.
‘[Mr Bentley] has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.’
An HMRC spokesperson said: ‘We are an office-based organisation, albeit one that offers flexible working arrangements for employees where appropriate. We acknowledge the court’s decision in this case.’
