Claimant v Bumi Armada UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, specifically his wilful refusal to complete mandatory MIST training and mobilise offshore after repeated lawful management instructions. The dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and procedurally fair under the test in BHS v Burchell.
The tribunal accepted the claimant had made protected disclosures about health and safety, but found no evidence these disclosures were a factor in the dismissal. The true reason was the claimant's conduct in refusing to mobilise, not his whistleblowing.
The tribunal found the dismissal was for gross misconduct (wilful repudiation of contract by refusing lawful instructions), which entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss without notice. The notice pay claim therefore failed.
The tribunal found the respondent was under no legal obligation to pay wages when the claimant was on unauthorised absence, able to work but unreasonably refusing to do so. The wages claim was dismissed.
Facts
The claimant, an offshore mechanical technician, was off sick from May 2023 and declared fit to return in January 2024. He refused to mobilise offshore on four occasions because he would not complete mandatory MIST training without pay, claiming he had accrued annual leave to take first. The respondent's position was that all annual leave had to be taken during field breaks under the contract. After grievance procedures upheld the respondent's position and the claimant continued to refuse to mobilise, he was dismissed for gross misconduct on 26 April 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. His refusal to complete MIST training (which would have taken 2-3 hours) and mobilise offshore was a wilful repudiation of contract and unreasonable, especially after the respondent offered to pay him for the training. The tribunal rejected the whistleblowing claim, finding no evidence health and safety disclosures were a factor. The wages and notice pay claims also failed as the dismissal was for gross misconduct.
Practical note
An employee's unreasonable refusal to comply with a lawful and reasonable management instruction that is fundamental to their role can constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, even where the employee is otherwise competent and valued.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001224/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Mechanical Technician
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No