Ms Y Daly v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2022

The Claimant was dismissed after refusing to return to work following an earlier disciplinary process in which a final written warning was upheld on appeal and she was asked to transfer to the Respondent's Irvine store. The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the Claimant's refusal to return to work, rather than any wish to punish her for raising issues about a WhatsApp group.

The Tribunal considered the earlier disciplinary process only insofar as it bore on the Claimant's refusal to return. It found that the final written warning and appeal were conducted in good faith and were not manifestly inappropriate, although the initial outcome letter lacked clarity. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's alternative case that the dismissal was for conduct under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had a genuine belief that the Claimant was refusing to attend work without authorisation and that no wider investigation was required. It rejected the challenge based on actual or apparent bias by Mr Millar, and held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It added that, if there had been a procedural failing, it would have applied a 100% Polkey reduction because the outcome would have been no different with another manager.