AN immigration advisor sacked in under a fortnight by Bolton and Bury CAB has lost an unfair dismissal claim over his "air of superiority".

Ian Laing, who had been taken on within their EU Settlement Scheme team. even made an unsuccessful attempt to have Employment Judge Clare Grundy removed from hearing his case, amid claims she was favouring female witnesses.

Qualified solicitor Mr Laing was "rude" to his boss, Gail Lyles, on his very first day at the citizen's advice bureau on May 20, 2019, when she asked if he smoked, an employment tribunal was told.

And within days he had questioned the skills of an immigration solicitor, Charlie Smythe, and had already struck another senior colleague, Emma Davies, as "aggressive" and "confrontational", the panel heard.

But the tribunal was told matters came to a head during his second week when a colleague, Rebecca Potts Jacobs, asked if he was catching the train.

Mr Laing is said to have fixed her with a stern stare and said: "Are you talking to me?". She later sat away from him as colleagues observed growing tensions between them.

He also took offence when asked about how he was going to spend his weekend, the hearing was told.

The tribunal heard that the immigration advisor had himself filed an e-mail alleging sexual harassment, towards the end of his second week.

This was judged to be a "pre-emptive strike" though by the tribunal, based on his own "bizarre" perception of the situation, and dismissed.

Richard Wilkinson, the CAB's chief executive, after considering representations from senior managers, sacked Mr Laing on June 4 that year.

Mr Laing later filed three claims - race and sex discrimination cases were thrown out earlier in the proceedings - leaving only a victimisation claim to be pursued.

Ruling against Mr Laing, Judge Grundy, who sat with two lay members, said: "He perceives himself to be superior to others and of higher status, in part this may be due to his qualification as a solicitor since he showed his certificates to fellow employees without request.

"His skewed and uninformed perception would cause grave concern that he lacks the skills to perform the role to which he had been recruited as such a role would require understanding, sensitivity and good social skills.

"The respondent was rightly able to reach this conclusion about the claimant's social skills and interactions.

"Further the claimant's presentation as egotistical and with the air of superiority caused difficulties in his working relationships over a very short period of time."