Edwards v Bramble Foods Ltd
In this case the tribunal held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee who refused to do overtime and whose protests at being asked to do so threatened to disrupt the business.
Background:
The small food company’s busiest period is the eight weeks from mid-September, when it produces and packs goods such as gifts and hampers for Christmas.
All employees are expected to work extra hours, with contracts of employment including a clause requiring employees to "work such further hours as may be reasonably necessary to fulfil [their] duties or the needs of the business".
Prior to 2014, overtime was voluntary. From 2014, the employer formalised its overtime arrangements. This involved asking employees which Saturday mornings they could work in September and October. In 2014, Mrs Edwards was excused from overtime because of caring responsibilities.
In June 2015, the employer decided to formalise its overtime arrangements and provided staff with a form for them indicate their willingness to work from four to eight Saturday mornings (for four hours) in September and October 2015.
All employees, with the exception of Mrs Edwards and one other employee, returned the forms agreeing to work at least four Saturdays. The other employee later agreed to the overtime, but Mrs Edwards returned the form with the word "none" written on it.
Management had a number of “informal chats” with her to explain that, by sharing the workload fairly, the company would be able to meet the demands of the Christmas period.
Mrs Edwards continued to refuse, stating that she spent Saturday mornings with her husband.
Mrs Edwards was invited to a disciplinary hearing to address allegations that she had:
- unreasonably refused to comply with the terms of her employment and/or a reasonable management instruction; and
- used inappropriate and unacceptable conduct towards a fellow employee.
The disciplinary hearing went over the same ground that had been discussed in earlier meetings. Mrs Edwards reiterated that she would not work on Saturdays.
She was dismissed following a number of complaints from colleagues about her behaviour, which included that she had mocked those who had agreed to Saturday overtime (for example by boasting that she would be having a lie in on Saturdays).
A key reason for her dismissal was the employer’s belief that a number of other employees would withdraw their agreement to work overtime if Mrs Edwards was excused.
The employer was convinced that her behaviour was having an adverse effect on the workforce and that discontent was spreading. It saw her actions as a growing threat to its ability to fulfil orders.
Mrs Edwards claimed unfair dismissal.
Decision:
The unfair dismissal claim failed.
The employment tribunal accepted that there were a number of minor flaws in the employer’s procedure but despite these flaws, it had no doubt that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It was reasonable for the employer to require Mrs Edwards to do some overtime as required by her contract of employment and she had no legitimate reason for refusing to do so. The consequences for the employer of not dismissing her could have been "disastrous".
The tribunal praised the employer's "extraordinarily patient" approach to a very difficult situation. It had dismissed Mrs Edwards only after "all their attempts to reason with her and persuade her had fallen on deaf ears".
Comment: Victory for common sense! The tail should never wag the dog anyway but especially so when the consequences could have been very detrimental to the employer as in this case. Always follow a fair disciplinary procedure.
Add a Comment