Long-serving centre manager dismissed for gross misconduct: insubordination and breach of confidentiality
A part-time centre manager with 40 years of voluntary service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to follow management instructions and breaching confidentiality. The tribunal upheld the dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #insubordination
- #breach-of-confidentiality
- #summary-dismissal
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as part-time manager from 1 July 2013 until summary dismissal on 17 April 2019.
- The claimant had previously volunteered for the respondent for 40 years.
- The claimant consistently failed to follow reasonable management instructions regarding rotas and administration.
- The claimant initiated letters and a petition from centre members about his disciplinary process, breaching confidentiality.
- The claimant discussed his disciplinary process with a centre member after being suspended and instructed not to contact members.
- The claimant encouraged a centre member to retrieve a confidential file from the office.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
David Perry started as part-time manager of Millstream Day Centre.
-
Change in trustees
New trustees took over and introduced more formal management processes.
-
Appraisal meeting
An appraisal highlighted issues with the claimant's organisation, management skills, and teamwork.
-
Meeting about appraisal confidentiality
A meeting was held to discuss the claimant's complaint about disclosure of appraisal information.
-
Back-to-work meeting
After a medical absence, the claimant was told his performance in communication, rotas, and diary entries would be monitored.
-
Final informal warning
The claimant was given a letter stating that if improvements were not made, formal disciplinary action would follow.
-
Formal disciplinary action initiated
The claimant was notified of formal disciplinary action for insubordination and failure to comply with management instructions.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended with pay and instructed not to contact staff, members, or volunteers without permission.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held, resulting in findings of gross misconduct on two allegations.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's summary dismissal for gross misconduct was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether it breached his contract or involved unlawful deduction of wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The employer had reasonable grounds to believe he had failed to follow instructions, breached confidentiality, and encouraged a member to retrieve a confidential file.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The claim for breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) failed because the misconduct justified summary dismissal.
- The claim for unpaid holiday pay failed as the claimant had taken all accrued holiday.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not protect an employee from dismissal if they commit gross misconduct.
- Failing to follow reasonable management instructions, especially after warnings, can amount to gross misconduct.
- Breaching confidentiality during a disciplinary process is a serious matter that can justify summary dismissal.
- Employers should ensure they carry out a reasonable investigation and follow a fair procedure, even when the employee has a long service record.
This case shows that even employees with decades of service can be fairly dismissed if they commit serious misconduct. The claimant had worked for the charity for 40 years as a volunteer and then six years as a paid manager. However, when new trustees introduced more formal processes, he struggled to adapt and repeatedly failed to follow instructions.
What went wrong
The claimant's conduct escalated over time. He ignored management requests about rotas and administration, and after being suspended, he breached confidentiality by discussing the disciplinary process with a centre member and encouraging that member to retrieve a confidential file. The employer had given him several warnings and a chance to improve, but the behaviour continued.
What the employer did right
The employer carried out a reasonable investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant the opportunity to respond. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief. The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses.
Key takeaway
This case is a reminder that gross misconduct can override long service. Employees should take formal management instructions seriously, especially after being warned. For employers, the case confirms that a fair process and reasonable investigation are key to defending a dismissal, even when the employee has a long history with the organisation.
Similar cases
Long-serving postman dismissed for drink-driving: Royal Mail's decision upheld
A postman with 17 years' service was fairly dismissed after a member of the public reported him drinking alcohol from a can and driving away. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were reasonable.
Postal worker with 21 years' service dismissed after physical altercation: a fair decision
A postal worker with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for pushing a colleague during a dispute over equipment, the tribunal has ruled. No compensation was awarded.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
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.