Mr Arthur Mark Robinson v Home Office — 2023

The claimant was employed by the Home Office in the Border Force and had worked in the Humber Command. After earlier grievances and disciplinary proceedings involving Ms Versi, the claimant received a final written warning and was later told he could not return to Humber unless mediation took place. When Ms Versi declined mediation, the respondent instructed the claimant to report to another role at the National Operations Command and Control Centre. The claimant refused, maintaining that the instruction was not reasonable or lawful, and was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct arising from unauthorised absence.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had not established that the claimant's refusal amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal found that the relevant mobility policy and guidance informed the parties' contractual obligations, and that the respondent had not established a business need for the move, let alone a strong one. The instruction to report elsewhere was found not to be lawful and reasonable, and the summary dismissal was therefore in breach of contract.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the disciplinary and appeal decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant was culpable of gross misconduct, but found the investigation was not within the range expected of a reasonable employer. The claimant had repeatedly challenged the reasonableness and lawfulness of the move and asked who had made the decision, but the respondent did not speak to the person found by the tribunal to have made the decision, Mr Bean, or adequately explore the basis for the business need. The appeal did not cure those errors, and dismissal was found unfair.

The tribunal declined to make any reduction on Polkey grounds, finding it too speculative to conclude what would have happened had the mobility policy been properly applied. It also found no just and equitable basis to reduce the basic or compensatory award for conduct. The claimant sought compensation rather than reinstatement or re-engagement, and remedy was left to a separate hearing.