Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Ross v Camden Group [2008] NIIT 1688_07IT (31 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/1688_07IT.html
Cite as: [2008] NIIT 1688_7IT, [2008] NIIT 1688_07IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1688/07

CLAIMANT: Kenny Ross

RESPONDENT: Camden Group

DECISION

It is the unanimous decision of the Industrial Tribunal that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms Crooke

Members: Ms Hughes

Mr Gunn

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.

The respondent was represented by Mr J Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law, instructed Carson McDowell, Solicitors.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant on his own behalf and from Mrs Irene Wilson and Ms Kathy McKinstry, both of whom were managers with the respondent company. Additionally the tribunal had an agreed bundle of documentation before it and samples of holiday leave slips and cards.

THE CLAIM AND THE DEFENCE

The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with the respondent. The respondent contended that the claimant had been fairly dismissed for failure to carry out a reasonable work instruction and that this amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal of the claimant.

THE RELEVANT LAW

The relevant law is found in Article 126 and Article 130 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a supervisor in one of its factories in which the respondent manufactures windows and doors.

Coming up to all holiday periods, the respondent experiences heightened demand. Immediately prior to the July holidays of 2007, the respondent was facing a situation in which its production had fallen behind and this situation needed to be rectified.

On Friday 29 June 2007 Mrs Irene Wilson and two fellow managers held a meeting with all the supervisors of the respondent to decide what action to take to rectify the difficult situation in which the respondent found itself. It was decided that on Saturday 30 June 2007 the whole company would work some overtime to try to rectify the production deficit. The respondent not only supplies its goods to Northern Ireland, but also to England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. It was not challenged by the claimant that if it had not rectified the situation there was a chance that the respondent would have lost customers.

At the end of the meeting on 29 June 2007 the claimant informed Mrs Wilson and her co-managers that he was unable to attend work the next day for the purposes of carrying out overtime because he had booked a weekend off to go to Dublin with friends to see the Irish Derby. It was emphasised to the claimant that his presence was needed and he was asked if he could re-arrange matters to allow him to come to work. He said that if he could do so he would.

The claimant failed to attend at work the next day and instead arrived in on the following Monday, which he claimed that he had booked off for the purposes of his holiday. He was summoned to a disciplinary hearing. It was a term of the claimant's contract that he would work reasonable overtime when required. It was provided in the company handbook that failure to comply with a reasonable work instruction would be deemed gross misconduct. The claimant accepted that the instruction given was reasonable and lawful and one that the respondent was entitled to give.

The claimant knew what the practice in terms of being required to undertake overtime was in the company. This was not a new requirement. On his own evidence he had previously carried out overtime as required.

The claimant accepted that at the meeting of 29 June 2006 he received a clear warning as to what consequences his failure to attend at work the next day would have.

The claimant did not deny that his attitude was "you can call it gross misconduct if you want". The claimant accepted that it would have been feasible for him to have worked the overtime on Saturday morning as required and travelled to Dublin by a later train and met up with his friends in Dublin. He accepted that a key part of the weekend programme was attending the Irish Derby on the Sunday of that weekend being 1 July 2007. He simply chose not to comply with the reasonable instruction.

The claimant did not deny that he had been given the opportunity by the respondent to provide evidence of not being able to change his arrangements at both the disciplinary hearing and appeal hearing stages.

Conclusions

We find that the employer has proved that the reason for the claimant's dismissal was –

(1) Relating to his conduct as set out in Article 130(2)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It was clearly part of the claimant's contract that failure to comply with a reasonable work instruction was gross misconduct. The claimant was warned as to the consequences of his refusal to work and he chose to ignore those consequences. He was not prepared to make a fairly minor alteration in his travelling arrangements to allow him to accommodate the reasonable work instruction of the respondent.

(2) Accordingly, we find that the claimant's dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses that an employer acting reasonably would have before it when faced with the situation presenting at that weekend. There was a side issue before the tribunal as to whether or not the claimant had been authorised to have this holiday in advance. We find that he was not so authorised. The claimant seemed to consider that he alone in the whole company had the right to authorise his own holidays. We do not accept that this is the case.

(3) No issue was taken by the claimant concerning the procedural aspects of his dismissal.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 8 February 2008, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: