Mr M Ayoob v Ummah Welfare Trust — 2023

Mr Ayoob was employed by Ummah Welfare Trust from 6 February 2017 and had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him on 19 November 2020 for conduct, with the principal issue being his refusal to travel to Iraq for a field visit during the COVID-19 period. It accepted that field travel was an essential part of his role as Regional Desk Manager for Programmes - Middle East, and that the organisation expected managers in that role to make such trips when required.

The dismissal arose after a disciplinary process in which three allegations were ultimately upheld: gross insubordination in refusing to travel, bringing the employer into serious disrepute by providing information that led a partner organisation and beneficiaries to question the distribution figures, and failing to carry out a proper risk assessment for the Iraq trip. The tribunal found that the refusal to travel was the main reason for dismissal, with the other two matters secondary. It accepted that the respondent believed the allegations were made out, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation and disciplinary procedure.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the Burchell approach and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that dismissal was fair. It also considered that the claimant had been given opportunities to explain any medical or personal reason for not travelling, but did not do so. Even if there had been procedural defects or some overstatement of the lesser allegations, the tribunal said the outcome would have been the same because the refusal to travel alone was sufficient to justify dismissal in the circumstances.

The wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim also failed. The tribunal held that the refusal to travel was gross misconduct that struck at the heart of the employment relationship and entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice. It did not accept that the information disclosure allegation or the risk assessment issue, taken alone, would have justified summary dismissal, but that did not alter the result because the refusal to travel was sufficient on its own. No monetary remedy was awarded because both claims were dismissed.