Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #conduct-dismissal
- #final-written-warning
- #refusal-to-attend-meetings
- #dignity-at-work-course
- #lack-of-engagement
- #reasonable-management-instruction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Clerical Officer from 26 November 2018.
- She received a final written warning on 2 July 2021 for failing to follow management instructions and inappropriate behaviour.
- She refused to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings, and did not appeal the final written warning.
- She was dismissed on 13 December 2022 for further misconduct including failure to comply with the warning and inappropriate behaviour.
- The dismissal was upheld on appeal on 9 June 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Clerical Officer at Leeds General Infirmary.
-
Grievance outcome
Claimant found to have raised her voice at a colleague; mediation and Dignity at Work course suggested.
-
Informal meeting
Manager discussed concerns about behaviour; claimant refused to sign action note.
-
Formal investigation started
Due to claimant's refusal to meet, a formal investigation was initiated.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant did not attend; allegations of failing to follow instructions and inappropriate behaviour were upheld.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning effective until 3 June 2022.
-
Further investigation
New allegations investigated; claimant declined all meeting invitations.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for misconduct including failure to comply with warning and inappropriate behaviour.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal heard by Ms Ali; decision to dismiss upheld.
-
Tribunal hearing
Employment Judge Jones heard the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for conduct was fair, focusing on whether the employer had a reasonable belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. It found that the Trust had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant had committed misconduct by refusing to attend meetings and failing to comply with management instructions. The investigation was reasonable, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
Lessons & takeaways
- Refusing to attend investigation or disciplinary meetings without good reason can be treated as misconduct and lead to dismissal.
- Employers are entitled to expect employees to comply with reasonable management instructions, including attending meetings and training courses.
- A final written warning puts employees on notice that further misconduct may result in dismissal.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but challenging, especially when the respondent has legal representation.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how a breakdown in communication and cooperation can lead to dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The claimant, a clerical officer with five years' service, had a history of disputes with colleagues and managers. After receiving a final written warning for failing to follow instructions and inappropriate behaviour, she continued to refuse to attend meetings and comply with management requests, including a Dignity at Work course. The Trust eventually dismissed her for further misconduct.
The tribunal found that the Trust had acted reasonably. The employer had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant had committed misconduct. The investigation was thorough, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's refusal to engage with the process, including not attending the disciplinary hearing or appealing the final written warning, weakened her position.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have avoided dismissal by attending meetings and engaging with the Trust's attempts to address her behaviour. Even if she disagreed with the allegations, participating in the process would have shown willingness to resolve the issues. The Trust, on its part, could have considered whether there were any underlying reasons for the claimant's refusal, such as health or personal issues, but the claimant did not raise any such concerns.
Why this matters
This case confirms that employers can dismiss for conduct when an employee repeatedly refuses to comply with reasonable management instructions. It also highlights the importance of engaging with disciplinary processes. Employees who ignore invitations to meetings or refuse to follow instructions risk losing their jobs, even if they have a long service record. The tribunal's decision reinforces that the range of reasonable responses test gives employers some leeway in how they handle such situations.
Similar cases
Dismissed after final written warning: conduct decision upheld by tribunal
A client care associate with six years' service was dismissed for aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences while on a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Shouting at a colleague after a final warning: dismissal for conduct upheld
A production worker with a final written warning for threatening behaviour was fairly dismissed after shouting at a colleague. The tribunal also ordered Bighams Ltd to pay £648.96 for unpaid holiday.
Border Force officer dismissed for misconduct while under a live final written warning: dismissal fair
A Border Force officer with three years' service was fairly dismissed after shouting at managers while under a live final written warning. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Delivery driver dismissed for speeding: a fair decision despite live warning
An online delivery driver with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after speeding 30% over the limit. The tribunal upheld Sainsbury's decision, finding it fell within the band of reasonable responses.