A sub-editor whose Internet access was removed by his bosses decided it was the final straw in what he saw as bullying by the company and quit his job.

An employment tribunal decided that Bruce Wyer had been constructively and unfairly dismissed by the Evening Express in Aberdeen and awarded him £6,630 in compensation.

The row blew up after the sub-editor had his access to e-mail - and later the Internet - removed following his refusal to give permission for his photograph to be featured on the company's intranet.

Editor Donald Martin said that the removal of facilities such as e-mail had been made in a bid to persuade those who had refused permission to change their mind, and he considered that the request had been reasonable.

But the tribunal ruled that the sub-editor had done nothing wrong in refusing his permission, and therefore the actions by the newspaper had been unreasonable.

Following the decision, Bruce, who is now working as a freelance sub-editor, said: "I'm delighted and relieved to have won.

"I owe a debt of gratitude to the staff of the NUJ in Scotland who gave me unvarying support throughout this case."

The tribunal heard that Bruce, who had worked for Evening Express owners Aberdeen Journals for 26 years, did not make particular use of e-mail to carry out his normal duties, and his use of the Internet was not a significant part of his job.

He declined to sign a consent form, which had been circulated to all employees, about using photos on a new electronic staff directory, saying that he felt it unnecessary - and that he had a distrust of electronic media and feared others could steal his identity.

In its written decision, the tribunal said that the company had "flouted common sense" in applying a sanction against those who exercised their free choice not to consent.

It said: "The action of the respondents in withdrawing e-mail and Internet was punitive in its nature and was thus a measure of a kind which one would expect to be taken only after disciplinary procedures were carried out.

"Of course, there could have been no sensible disciplinary process in this case since the applicant had done nothing other than exercise a freely given choice.

"Although, on one view, the penalty imposed might be regarded as relatively innocuous, the fact that an employer is capable at all of imposing a form of punishment without any good reason is likely to impair seriously the manner in which he is regarded by an affected employee."

Do you have a story about the regional press? Ring 0116 227 3122/3121, or
e-mail pastill@nep.co.uk