Until last month, Teddy Bariqui Leiva worked for as a cleaner at Ofcom’s HQ at 2A Southwark Bridge Road. Last year he helped his colleagues win the London Living Wage. Ofcom and his employer, Mitie, tried to get rid of him then, but failed. Now he’s been barred from 2A following multiple undisclosed allegations of unexplained ‘unacceptable’ behaviour.

Is this the way a state regulator like Ofcom is supposed to operate? Forcing a low-paid cleaner out of his job without even saying what he is being accused of, or who is accusing him?

Client Confidentiality

When we wrote to Mitie about Teddy, they said there was nothing they could do because their contract allowed Ofcom to decide who to allow into their building. Mitie wouldn’t even tell us what Teddy was being accused of, or by whom, because of their confidentiality obligations to Ofcom.

So we wrote to Ofcom.

Employee Confidentiality

Ofcom say that they took the decision to bar Teddy following ‘a consistent, documented pattern of aggressive and detrimental behaviour displayed by Mr Bariqui Leiva over the past 12 months’.

Obviously his behaviour was so consistent, aggressive and detrimental that at no stage did anyone at Mitie think it worth saying anything about it to Teddy himself or taking any further action. And when they did finally investigate, they deemed Teddy's alleged offences—the offences for which Ofcom has barred him—worthy of just a first written warning.

Ofcom went on to claim that they raised concerns with Mitie over ‘a number’ of incidents involving Teddy, which they ‘insisted’ Mitie should investigate. Yet no investigations were held, and nothing was said to Teddy at any point over the last year about his behaviour. Not one single word. Ofcom wouldn’t say any more, insisting that the evidence they are referring to is confidential. So we wrote again, pointing out that Ofcom has a publicly declared commitment to treat ‘all colleagues with dignity and respect’, and that in our view this commitment was inconsistent with a policy of barring someone on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, without the barred individual knowing of what they stood accused, and with no mechanism by which to seek redress.

Once again, Ofcom replied claiming that employee confidentiality requirements prevent them from providing further details, and that Mitie is in possession all information regarding Teddy’s employment.

While Mitie and Ofcom both hide behind their claims of ‘confidentiality’ Teddy has been thrown out of his job with no process, no evidence, and no possibility of appeal.

Please sign our petition to let Ofcom know what you think about their treatment of Teddy and to help him get reinstated.