Assistant Director dismissed for refusing redeployment: unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal win
A 9-year Border Force Assistant Director was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after refusing a redeployment instruction. The Leeds tribunal awarded £51,891.73, including a 10% ACAS uplift.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Assistant Director at Humber Command from November 2014.
- He was dismissed summarily on 27 September 2021 for refusing to accept a redeployment to a different role.
- The tribunal found the instruction to redeploy was not reasonable because the employer failed to follow its own mobility policy.
- The claimant's refusal did not amount to gross misconduct, making the dismissal wrongful and unfair.
- The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,896 and a compensatory award of £37,926.71, including a 10% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Assistant Director, Humber Command, Border Force.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
Claimant complained about unfair criticism and bullying by Director Ms Versi.
-
Ms Versi submitted complaints
Ms Versi made allegations against the claimant, leading to a disciplinary investigation.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into disciplinary allegations.
-
Final written warning issued
Disciplinary hearing upheld four allegations of bullying; claimant received final written warning for 18 months.
-
Redeployment to CTC proposed
Claimant was offered a temporary role at Clandestine Threat Command pending mediation.
-
Mediation declined by Ms Versi
Ms Versi decided not to engage in mediation, closing off return to Humber Command.
-
Instruction to report to NCC
Claimant was instructed to report to National Operations Command and Control Centre; he refused.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct for refusing to follow the instruction.
-
Judgment on liability
Tribunal found dismissal wrongful and unfair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's refusal to accept a redeployment instruction amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and whether the dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the Home Office's instruction to redeploy the Assistant Director was not reasonable because it failed to follow its own mobility policy. His refusal therefore did not amount to gross misconduct, and the summary dismissal was both wrongful and unfair.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £4,896.00
- Compensatory award: £37,926.71 (including a 10% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures)
- Total: £51,891.73 (includes additional amounts for wrongful dismissal and other heads)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own policies when issuing instructions – a failure to do so can make the instruction unreasonable and any resulting dismissal unfair.
- A refusal to follow an instruction may not amount to gross misconduct if the instruction itself was unreasonable or not properly authorised.
- The ACAS Code of Practice applies to disciplinary dismissals; failure to follow it can lead to a 10% uplift in compensation.
- Long-serving employees with a clean disciplinary record may be entitled to more procedural fairness before dismissal.
A breakdown in trust leads to dismissal
This case shows what can happen when a workplace relationship breaks down and the employer tries to resolve it by moving the employee rather than addressing the underlying issues. The Assistant Director had worked for the Home Office for nine years, but after a grievance against his director and a counter-allegation of bullying, he was suspended and later given a final written warning. When mediation was refused by the director, the employer tried to redeploy him to a different role. He refused, and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the employer had not followed its own mobility policy when issuing the redeployment instruction. This made the instruction unreasonable, and the refusal to obey it could not be treated as gross misconduct. The dismissal was therefore both wrongful (because no notice was given) and unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The Home Office could have avoided this outcome by following its own procedures. The mobility policy required a proper process before redeployment could be ordered, and this was not done. The employer also failed to consider the employee's long service and clean disciplinary record. The tribunal noted that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed in these circumstances.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers cannot simply order an employee to accept a new role without following their own contractual and policy requirements. Employees who are asked to move roles should check whether the employer has a mobility clause and whether it has been properly invoked. If the instruction is unreasonable, a refusal may not be a disciplinary offence.
The 10% ACAS uplift also highlights the importance of following the ACAS Code – failure to do so can increase compensation significantly.
Similar cases
Dismissed by email while on maternity leave: a conduct process that never happened
An account manager with 19 years' unblemished service was summarily dismissed by email while on maternity leave, with no investigation or disciplinary hearing. The tribunal awarded £37,310.
Site manager with 26 years' service unfairly dismissed after owner's family dispute
A site manager with 26 years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a breakdown in the relationship between the owner and his son. The tribunal awarded £51,785, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Cleaners dismissed for alleged misconduct without any disciplinary meeting: unfair dismissal
Two cleaners were unfairly dismissed after their employer accused them of gross misconduct but failed to hold a disciplinary hearing or give details of the allegations. The tribunal awarded over £9,600 in compensation.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.