In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked for Asda from 22 September 2003 until 7 December 2018. The dispute arose in 2018 after he was asked to use the store's TC70 system and to work beyond what he said was his grocery role. He refused to attend work after the appeal outcome in October 2018, and the respondent dismissed him for continued unauthorised absence and gross misconduct.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had been employed to replenish stock on the shop floor of whichever store he was working in, with no contractual limit to one type of stock. It accepted evidence that the respondent in practice expected grocery colleagues to cover other duties, including BWS, Frozen, Health & Beauty and checkouts. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and considering authorities including Burchell, Farrant and Ford, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant was required to do the work, that the dismissal decision was within the range of reasonable responses, and that the disciplinary procedure was unimpeachable.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was in repudiation of the contractual term requiring him to attend work and also in breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It concluded that summary dismissal without notice was justified at common law. The judgment ends by stating that none of the claimant's claims succeeded.