Claimant v Tom W Beaumont Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, specifically the claimant's refusal to provide evidence of a doctor's appointment which raised issues of trust and integrity. The respondent followed fair procedures including a disciplinary hearing, adjournment, and right of appeal. The tribunal concluded that by refusing to assist the respondent, the claimant cast suspicion upon himself and left the employer with no alternative but to dismiss him for gross misconduct.
Facts
The claimant was a driver employed from October 2020 to July 2024 by a materials recovery company. On 26 June 2024 he initially refused a job, stating he had made plans, then mentioned a doctor's appointment. When the employer requested evidence of the appointment, the claimant refused to cooperate or provide authority for the surgery to confirm the appointment. Following a disciplinary hearing on 8 July, adjourned to 15 July 2024, the claimant was dismissed for refusing to carry out a reasonable request and failing to provide evidence of the doctor's appointment. The claimant did not pursue his right of appeal.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, specifically the refusal to cooperate regarding the doctor's appointment which undermined trust and integrity. Fair procedures were followed including a proper disciplinary hearing and right of appeal. The tribunal held the dismissal was fair, as by refusing to provide the requested authority the claimant cast suspicion on himself and left the employer with no alternative.
Practical note
An employee's unexplained refusal to provide simple verification of their stated reason for refusing work can constitute gross misconduct justifying dismissal where it fundamentally undermines trust and integrity.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013673/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- driver
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No