A software developer, who claimed he discovered a fraud cover-up, had his unfair dismissal case thrown out after he started eating during his own tribunal.
Artiom Borisov claims he was unfairly fired for ‘aggressive behaviour’ and ‘not following instructions’ by the multinational finance company American International Group (AIG).
He claimed he uncovered that company’s government reinsurance scheme was fraudulent, as it was a misuse of public funds. He also alleged there were data breaches due to the scheme.
AIG investigated fraud and data-breach allegations, Mr Borisov says, before it was concluded there was no wrongdoing.
Mr Borisov said he ‘did not agree with the conclusion and alleged cover-up’.
After his dismissal, he took his case to an employment tribunal, but midway through his case, he started eating a full meal, claiming, ‘why should I trust the process, why should I trust the judge?’
Mr Borisov said he believed the judge was against him and thought the tribunal was a ‘circus’ and a ‘scam’.
Employment Judge Richard Nicolle said that Mr Borisov showed a ‘flagrant show of disrespect’ during the hearing.
Artiom Borisov had his unfair dismissal case against American International Group (AIG) thrown out after he started eating during his own tribunal
Mr Borisov said he believed the judge was against him and thought the tribunal was a ‘circus’ and a ‘scam’.
Judge Nicolle said he would have let him off if it had been a cup of coffee or a chocolate bar, but this was ‘very blatant’.
The case was thrown out as Mr Borisov’s manner was judged to be ‘scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious’.
Mr Borisov previously also took insurance giant Zurich to an employment tribunal in 2019 after he claimed he ‘exposed a multi-million-pound fraud’ while working for the London branch of the company.
But after alerting the company’s fraud prevention and investigations unit of his belief that their new IT project was a scam, he claims his allegations were not followed up on.
The software developer alleges his former employer intimidated him, cut him off from all IT systems and tried to cover up the fraud, eventually dismissing him in April 2019.
But Zurich says Mr Borisov was fired for ignoring management orders to not contact underwriters about the contested UW 360 IT project, which was due to replace the former system called Plum Z.
Zurich said an internal investigation that took more than 40 days found no evidence of fraud with the new IT project.
The case was also thrown out and Mr Borisov was ordered to pay £445.20.
In the most recent tribunal against AIG, Mr Borisov had continually described the proceedings as a ‘circus’ and the judge decided that continuing would be a ‘waste of his time and the Tribunal’s time’.
He claimed the company’s government reinsurance scheme was fraudulent, as it was a misuse of public funds. He also alleged there were data breaches due to the scheme.
Judge Nicolle said: ‘I had refused [Mr Borisov’s] application for witness orders he very visibly and blatantly started to consume a meal during the hearing.
‘This was despite the standard protocol given by a Tribunal clerk before a CVP hearing that there should be no drinking or eating during the hearing save for a glass of water.
‘I would have been prepared to take a reasonably indulgent approach had [Mr Borisov] been consuming a cup of coffee or a bar of chocolate but he was eating a meal and when I asked him to desist he continued to eat in a very visible manner.
‘It was a flagrant show of disrespect and a refusal to comply with my reasonable request for him to desist.
‘He went on to say: “Why should I trust the process, why should I trust the judge?”
The judge added that the approach adopted by Mr Borisov was ‘egregious, repeated and manifestly disrespectful to the tribunal, judicial process, me as the judge and other attending parties’.
He continued: ‘He refused to accept my reasonable request to desist from eating and in my view showed utter contempt for the Tribunal process and those on the CVP hearing by eating in a very blatant and obvious way during the hearing despite my request for him to desist.
‘He refused to answer a very basic and reasonable question as to whether he was recording the proceedings and it is relevant that there has been a past history in that respect.
‘He made repeated and serious allegations as to the integrity of the Tribunal process and my role as a judge to include, but not limited to the process being a sham, a circus and a crime being committed.
‘His multiple contentions were primarily because he disagreed with my decision to refuse his application for witness orders.
‘He repeatedly asserted that he did not understand why I had made that decision.
‘However I use my best endeavours, both orally and in writing, to ensure that he was aware of my reasons.
‘Nevertheless he refused to accept that I had explained the reasons to him.’