Mr Otchie (Counsel) For the v Ms B Breslin — 2021

The claimant had long service, having worked in the role since 1997 and transferring to the respondent under TUPE in February 2020. The dispute arose after the claimant refused to sign a document following a sharps and biohazard briefing in September 2020. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he could not read, that he believed the document related to a change of job title, and that he had previously raised a grievance about the respondent's treatment of his role. It preferred his evidence on the key factual dispute about the document he was asked to sign.

The respondent relied on conduct, or alternatively some other substantial reason, and alleged gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that the respondent could reasonably believe the claimant had refused a reasonable management instruction by not signing a safety-related document, but it held that the respondent's belief that this amounted to gross misconduct was not formed on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The tribunal relied in particular on the absence of any established policy requiring signatures on the briefing, the incorrect assumption that the claimant had refused to sign eight previous briefings, and the fact that the respondent never actually asked him to sign the document at the investigation, disciplinary or appeal stages.

The tribunal also found that dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. It held that the conduct was more properly characterised as misconduct rather than gross misconduct, especially given the claimant's 23 years of service and clean disciplinary record. The tribunal noted concerns about the extent of HR involvement in the process, although it did not need to resolve every procedural point because the substantive sanction itself was unfair.

On contributory conduct, the tribunal found the claimant's behaviour towards Mr Argote and his refusal to sign the document were blameworthy to a limited extent. It reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 25% for contribution, but it made no Polkey deduction because it was not satisfied that the claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event. A remedy hearing was left to be listed, so no final monetary award was recorded in this judgment.