- MR R MURAWIAK FOR THE v - Mr F Currie — 2020

The claimant, a Manufacturing Operator employed since 2014, was dismissed after refusing a management instruction on 11 June 2019 to move from servicing to operate Press 44. The tribunal found that he had been asked to swap because he had missed his rotation on Press 44 the previous day, and that he refused the request when made by his line manager and again when the matter was raised through the shift leader and production supervisor. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s managers genuinely believed he had refused a reasonable management instruction and that the dismissal was based solely on those events, not on earlier disciplinary matters.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell questions and the range of reasonable responses test, citing Sainsburys Supermarket v Hitt. It held that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation overall, even though the disciplinary notes of witness interviews were not disclosed during the internal process and some suggested witnesses were not interviewed. The tribunal found that the claimant suffered no material prejudice from the missing notes because the essential allegation was clear and the only disputed factual point was whether he had also refused Mr Fell. It also held that the omitted witnesses could only have gone to mitigation, not to the core issue of whether the claimant had refused a management instruction.

The tribunal found it was reasonable and rational for Mr Turner and Mr Franklin to conclude that the claimant had refused a reasonable instruction to work on a press he was trained to operate and that his refusal was gross misconduct. It concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, especially because the claimant maintained throughout that he was entitled to refuse rather than presenting mitigation. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It added that, had it been necessary, it would have found 100% contributory fault because the dismissal was caused by the claimant’s deliberate and persistent refusal to perform a role within his duties.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal applied the factual question whether the claimant had in fact committed a fundamental breach. It held that the rotation and cell system had no contractual effect and was only a working method, and that the claimant had no contractual right to refuse a task within his competence and ordinary duties. On that basis, his refusal to move to Press 44 was a breach of contract going to the heart of the employment relationship, and the wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed.