Two long-serving managers dismissed for refusing to run a trial: conduct dismissal upheld
Two production managers with 34 and 42 years' service were fairly dismissed after refusing to manage a trial of Cumberland sausage rings. The tribunal rejected their claims of health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- Both claimants were dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to manage a trial production of Cumberland sausage rings and following allegations of bullying and harassment.
- The tribunal found that the claimants did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger.
- The respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimants committed misconduct based on witness statements and the claimants' own refusal.
- The investigation and dismissal procedures were within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
- The claimants had long service (34 and 42 years) and clean disciplinary records.
Timeline
-
Claimant Norman states he will not make Cumberland rings
In a meeting, Mr Norman said he would rather leave than manufacture Cumberland rings.
-
Trial requested by customer
Shelby Morton notified management that a factory trial of 100kg of Cumberland rings was required for an important customer.
-
Claimants refuse to proceed with trial
Both claimants told Shelby Morton they would not run the trial. Mr McGovern attempted to contact them but they did not respond.
-
Claimants suspended
After further refusal, Mr McGovern suspended both claimants for failure to follow a reasonable instruction.
-
Investigation interviews
Stephen Petrowsky interviewed both claimants as part of the investigation.
-
Disciplinary hearing for Mr Gibbons
Angela Black held a disciplinary hearing with Mr Gibbons via Teams.
-
Disciplinary hearings for both claimants
Mr Norman's hearing was held in his absence; Mr Gibbons provided written submissions.
-
Mr Norman dismissed
Mr Paul decided to dismiss Mr Norman for gross misconduct.
-
Mr Gibbons dismissed
Angela Black decided to dismiss Mr Gibbons for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed for refusing to follow a reasonable instruction, and whether they suffered a detriment for raising health and safety concerns under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that Snowbird Foods Limited had reasonable grounds to believe the managers committed gross misconduct by refusing to carry out a trial production run. The investigation and dismissal procedures were fair and within the range of reasonable responses. The managers' long service and clean records did not make the dismissal unfair because their refusal was a clear breach of instructions. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees with clean records can be fairly dismissed for a clear refusal to follow a reasonable instruction.
- A health and safety defence requires a genuine and reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger – a general concern about product quality or process is not enough.
- Employers who conduct a thorough investigation and follow a fair procedure are likely to defeat claims of unfair dismissal, even in conduct cases.
- Bullying allegations raised after the decision to dismiss will not automatically make a dismissal unfair if they were not part of the original reason.
When a refusal to follow instructions costs a long career
Two production managers with a combined 76 years of service lost their jobs after refusing to manage a trial production of Cumberland sausage rings. The case shows that even the most loyal employees can be fairly dismissed if they refuse to carry out a reasonable management instruction.
The managers argued they were concerned about health and safety risks, but the tribunal found they did not have a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Their concerns were more about product quality and process, not worker safety. The employer, Snowbird Foods Limited, had a customer request and gave clear instructions. When the managers refused, the company suspended them, investigated, and dismissed for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
Snowbird Foods followed a proper process: they held investigation interviews, gave the managers a chance to respond, and made dismissal decisions based on witness statements and the managers' own admissions. The tribunal noted that the employer's belief in misconduct was reasonable, and the procedure was within the range of reasonable responses. The fact that the managers had long service and clean records did not outweigh the seriousness of the refusal.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that conduct dismissals can be fair even for long-serving staff if the instruction is reasonable and the employee's refusal is clear. Employees who rely on a health and safety defence must show they genuinely believed in serious and imminent danger – a vague concern is not enough. For employers, the case confirms that a thorough investigation and fair hearing can protect against unfair dismissal claims, even when the employee has decades of service.
Similar cases
32-year field engineer dismissed for falsely reporting stolen gas detector
A field engineer with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after falsely reporting his gas detection unit stolen and failing to use it on four jobs. The tribunal upheld Openreach's decision.
Breakers Yard Manager with 17 years’ service dismissed for disobeying instructions: misconduct dismissal upheld
A Breakers Yard Manager who had worked for the company for 17 years without any prior warnings was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after he ignored express instructions about a customer, sold tyres without authorisation and granted extended credit. The tribunal rejected all three claims.
Residential support worker dismissed for attending work with possible COVID-19 symptoms: dismissal fair
A residential support worker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attending work while possibly having COVID-19 symptoms. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.
Covid-19 safety concerns: dismissal for refusing to attend work upheld
An installation engineer who refused to attend work over Covid-19 safety fears was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his disability discrimination claim as out of time.