Mr D Lemer of Counsel For the v Ms A Richards employment consultant — 2021

The claimant was employed as a Digital Media Executive from 20 May 2019 and had a two-month notice entitlement except in cases of gross misconduct. In June 2020 he was asked to work on the release of a documentary titled Black Bias Matters. He objected to the title and said he did not want to be associated with the film. Mr Stucke told him that refusal to work on the project would be treated as potential gross misconduct, and the parties exchanged emails and text messages in which the claimant said he was not refusing to work but would rather not do so for political and personal reasons.

The tribunal accepted that both sides became entrenched early on, and that Mr Stucke overreacted when he first threatened termination. It also accepted that he was willing for the claimant to remain employed if he carried out the required work. The tribunal held that the claimant had been given a reasonable managerial instruction to work on the documentary, that the work was not shown to be inappropriate, and that the claimant said he would not do it. It noted that the claimant could have made his concerns while continuing in employment, and that the documentary title was later changed during the release process.

Applying the authorities cited in the reasons, including Palmeri v Charles Stanley & Co Ltd and Petrofac Offshore Management Ltd v Wilson, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's refusal to carry out the work was sufficient to justify summary dismissal. It found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss him summarily for gross misconduct, so the breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed. No monetary award was made.