Dismissed for disobeying light-duties instructions: a fair outcome for a long-serving employee
A recycling contractor with 26 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after repeatedly ignoring health and safety restrictions following a heart condition. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant had a heart condition and an ICD implanted in October 2017.
- The respondent required medical evidence before allowing a return to full duties.
- The claimant refused to provide full medical consent and disputed the need for restrictions.
- The claimant was offered light duties (painting and yard work) under a risk assessment.
- The claimant disobeyed instructions by serving customers and unloading a van.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process.
Timeline
-
Claimant falls ill
Claimant admitted to hospital with heart condition; later had ICD implanted.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Claimant attended meeting to discuss return to work; offered light duties.
-
Attempted return to work
Claimant attempted to return but was sent home pending medical clearance.
-
Medical suspension
Respondent suspended claimant pending medical advice; sought information from GP.
-
Risk assessment completed
Respondent completed risk assessment for light duties (painting, yard work).
-
Claimant returns to light duties
Claimant started light duties; instructed not to serve customers or lift furniture.
-
First breach of instructions
Claimant served customers and answered phone behind counter.
-
Second breach of instructions
Claimant again served customers and helped unload a van, lifting furniture.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant admitted actions; dismissed for gross misconduct on 24 October 2018.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal dismissed; decision to dismiss upheld by secret ballot.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed for misconduct after he disobeyed instructions restricting him to light duties following a heart condition, and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that as gross misconduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the employer acted fairly.
Key reasons:
- The employer genuinely believed the employee had committed misconduct by repeatedly ignoring instructions.
- The employer carried out a reasonable investigation and followed a fair disciplinary process.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, especially given the health and safety risks.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Health and safety instructions must be followed, even if you disagree with them; disobedience can amount to gross misconduct.
- Long service does not protect you from dismissal if you commit serious misconduct, especially where safety is at risk.
- Employers should ensure risk assessments are documented and that employees understand the restrictions placed on them.
- A fair disciplinary process, including an appeal, can help defend a dismissal decision at tribunal.
When safety instructions become a disciplinary issue
This case shows how a breakdown in trust over health and safety compliance can lead to dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The claimant, a recycling contractor with 26 years' service, had a heart condition that required an implanted defibrillator. His employer, Magpie Recycling Co-operative Limited, took a cautious approach and restricted him to light duties such as painting and yard work, based on a risk assessment.
The employee disagreed with the restrictions and repeatedly ignored them. On two occasions, he served customers and helped unload a van, lifting furniture. The employer saw this as a serious breach of instructions, especially given the potential risk to his health and the employer's duty of care.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief that the employee had committed misconduct. They carried out a reasonable investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave the employee a chance to appeal. The disciplinary procedure clearly listed refusal to carry out reasonable instructions as gross misconduct. The employer also considered the employee's long service but concluded that the safety risk justified dismissal.
Why the claim failed
The employee argued that the restrictions were unnecessary and that he was fit to do his normal job. However, the tribunal found that the employer's instructions were reasonable given the medical advice available at the time. The employee's disobedience was deliberate and repeated, and the employer's response was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal emphasised that health and safety obligations can override an employee's personal view of their own capabilities.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that ignoring safety instructions can have serious consequences, even if you believe you are fit to work. For employers, it shows the importance of documenting risk assessments, communicating restrictions clearly, and following a fair process. A well-handled disciplinary procedure can withstand scrutiny, even when the employee has many years of service.
Similar cases
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Science director dismissed over cannabis smell in company car: dismissal fair
A science director who was dismissed after a colleague reported smelling cannabis in his company car has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.