The chief executive of a charity has been ordered to pay £2,160 to an employee who was dismissed after raising concerns that he had screamed at her.
Matthew Gibbs allegedly shouted, “I am the CEO,” at support worker Julie Mayes when she intervened after he became hostile towards volunteers, Liverpool Employment Tribunal heard.
The tribunal was told Ms Mayes was left “in a state” after Mr Gibbs “screamed in her face”.
It also heard that he regularly shouted and swore, behaved aggressively and threw boxes—conduct that reportedly prompted one volunteer to resign.
Ms Mayes further alleged that Mr Gibbs used “inappropriate sexualised language” and, on one occasion, climbed onto a table before gyrating and thrusting his hips.
After trustees believed Ms Mayes had complained about Mr Gibbs at community meetings, they dismissed her without carrying out a proper investigation.
She has now won an unfair dismissal claim and been awarded £2,160 by the employment tribunal.
Ms Mayes joined The Carrbridge Centre, a Wirral charity supporting people in Merseyside, in January 2022.
Matthew Gibbs allegedly shouted “I am the CEO” at Julie Mayes when she tried to stop him behaving aggressively towards volunteers, Liverpool Employment Tribunal heard (pictured at a protest in 2022)
The charity chief executive has been ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation after the employee won an unfair dismissal claim
Her role involved helping “vulnerable families, children and the elderly” through community support, emergency food provision and referrals to other services.
The tribunal heard: “She was managed by Mr Gibbs, with whom she had experienced tensions at work.
“Over a six-to-eight-month period, his behaviour became increasingly worse, which the claimant believed was linked to mental health issues. He would shout, swear and throw boxes.
“She recalled that one volunteer subsequently walked out. She also described him handling his dog roughly.
“She said he used inappropriate sexualised language and recalled him jumping onto a table, gyrating and thrusting his hips.
“In summary, she said this behaviour ‘became the norm’.”
Ms Mayes raised her concerns at a meeting with two charity trustees in July 2024. She said some workers came from abusive backgrounds and that Mr Gibbs’ conduct was inappropriate and could trigger feelings of trauma.
However, after the meeting, Mr Gibbs wrongly accused her of claiming he had been sexually abusive when she attempted to support volunteers he had allegedly shouted at.
The tribunal heard: “On August 21, 2024, [Ms Mayes] described a further incident after a service user complained that crates were blocking the Hub’s doorway.
“Once informed, Mr Gibbs reacted badly, swearing and becoming angry with the volunteers.
“[Ms Mayes] said she tried to position herself between Mr Gibbs and the volunteers.
RELATED: Man in Robes Caught Smashing Sign Outside Minneapolis Catholic Church
“He became angry with her and incorrectly accused [Ms Mayes] of alleging at the July 18, 2024, meeting with trustees that he had committed sexual abuse.
“She said he screamed in her face and told her, ‘I am the CEO’. She described being ‘in a state’ after the incident.
“She was instructed to work from home, although she was not formally suspended at that stage.”
On September 4, 2024, trustees received an anonymous message from an employee at a local housing association claiming that Ms Mayes had been complaining about Mr Gibbs at a community meeting.
Mr Gibbs accused her of “riling others due to her concern over her job”, while the trustees began to suspect there was a “witch hunt” against the chief executive.
A fact-finding meeting involving Ms Mayes and the trustees took place on September 12, 2024.
At that meeting, Ms Mayes “explained that Mr Gibbs had been responsible for a couple of aggressive incidents directed at her, which appeared to centre on him swearing at her”.
The tribunal heard: “They discussed the August 21 incident, which involved Mr Gibbs speaking inappropriately to service users and volunteers at the Hub before swearing at [Ms Mayes] and behaving aggressively.
“She accepted that she may have used swear words in response and stood up to him for speaking to her in that manner at work, but said she had also felt frightened and intimidated.
“She said she eventually left the Hub, got into her car and then ‘cried my eyes out’.
“She also referred to Mr Gibbs dancing in a sexualised manner at the Hub while members of the public were present, describing the conduct as inappropriate.”
Ms Mayes had “reasonably” understood the meeting to concern her working relationship with Mr Gibbs.
Instead, the trustees questioned her about the community meeting and anonymous message—matters she should have been told about beforehand.
Trustees then decided to invite Ms Mayes to a disciplinary hearing. A letter told her: “You have participated in a group which has been set up with the malicious aim of removing the current management and the CEO of the Carrbridge Centre.”
A disciplinary meeting was held on September 30, 2024, after which Ms Mayes was dismissed for gross misconduct.
She appealed, but the decision was upheld. She subsequently brought her former employer before the Liverpool employment tribunal.
Employment Judge Alan Johnson ruled that she had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal concluded: “[The Carrbridge Centre] had conducted an investigation before the disciplinary hearing but failed to properly assess the evidence it had gathered.
“It placed considerable weight on an anonymous witness who said [Ms Mayes] had riled others, without seeking further details about what had actually been said.
“As a result, [The Carrbridge Centre] reached what it considered a reasonable conclusion: that [Ms Mayes] had attended a public meeting in a local pub where people were plotting against the charity, or might have spoken there, despite having no clear understanding of what had been said and no meaningful evidence setting out the substance of the alleged comments.”
Ms Mayes also claimed she had been dismissed after making a protected disclosure, but the tribunal did not uphold that part of her case.
