Senior campaigner dismissed after refusing to work over Navalny prisoner-of-conscience decision
A long-serving Amnesty International campaigner who refused to return to work unless the organisation reversed its decision to reinstate Alexei Navalny's prisoner-of-conscience status has lost her unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #prisoner-of-conscience
- #alexei-navalny
- #religion-or-belief-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #harassment
- #victimisation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Amnesty International as a Senior Campaigner from 2005 until her dismissal in 2022.
- The claimant objected to Amnesty's decision to reinstate Alexei Navalny's Prisoner of Conscience status in May 2021, citing his past anti-Muslim statements.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 27 May 2021, which she claimed was a protected disclosure about the risk of violence to Muslims.
- The claimant went on sick leave from June 2021 and refused to return to work unless the POC decision was reversed.
- The claimant was dismissed on 9 May 2022 for a breakdown in trust and confidence due to her refusal to return to work.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's belief that the POC reinstatement endangered health and safety was not reasonable.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Claimant commenced employment with Amnesty International as a Research and Campaign Assistant on a fixed-term contract.
-
Navalny POC reinstated
Amnesty International publicly reinstated Alexei Navalny's Prisoner of Conscience status, citing a policy that past conduct should not exclude him.
-
Claimant raised grievance
The claimant submitted a formal grievance arguing that the POC decision was racist and Islamophobic, and that it endangered Muslims.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
The claimant began sick leave for work-related stress, stating she could not work for an organisation that endorsed Navalny.
-
First tribunal claim
The claimant presented her first Employment Tribunal claim (2206526/2021).
-
Claimant refused return to work
The claimant confirmed by email that she could not return to work while the POC decision remained in place.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed on notice due to a breakdown in trust and confidence, as she refused to return to work.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard by Kyle Ward; she maintained she could not return unless the POC decision was reversed.
-
Appeal dismissed
Kyle Ward upheld the dismissal decision.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for a 'some other substantial reason' (breakdown in trust and confidence), whether she made a protected disclosure, and whether she was discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief, disability, or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure, discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments), harassment, and victimisation.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's refusal to return to work unless the POC decision was reversed was a clear breakdown in trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's belief that the POC reinstatement endangered health and safety was not reasonable, so her grievance was not a protected disclosure.
- The dismissal was procedurally fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- An employee cannot dictate organisational policy as a condition of returning to work; doing so may justify dismissal for breakdown in trust and confidence.
- A belief that an employer's decision endangers health and safety must be objectively reasonable to qualify as a protected disclosure.
- Long service does not protect an employee from dismissal if they refuse to perform their duties over a policy disagreement.
- Employers should follow a fair process when dismissing for some other substantial reason, including giving the employee an opportunity to respond.
When a policy dispute becomes a dismissal
This case shows how a fundamental disagreement over an employer's policy decision can lead to a breakdown in the employment relationship, even for a long-serving employee. The claimant, a senior campaigner with 16 years' service at Amnesty International, objected to the organisation's decision to reinstate Alexei Navalny's prisoner-of-conscience status. She raised a grievance, went on sick leave, and ultimately refused to return to work unless the decision was reversed.
Amnesty dismissed her for a breakdown in trust and confidence, arguing that her refusal to work made the relationship untenable. The tribunal agreed, finding that the dismissal was for a 'some other substantial reason' and that the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
What the employer did right
Amnesty followed a fair process: it investigated the grievance, considered the claimant's position, and gave her multiple opportunities to return to work. The dismissing manager explained that the claimant's refusal to work was incompatible with her role. The appeal process was also properly conducted. The tribunal noted that the claimant's belief that the POC decision endangered Muslims was not objectively reasonable, so her grievance did not qualify as a protected disclosure.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who disagree with their employer's policies cannot simply refuse to work until those policies change. While employees have the right to raise concerns, they must continue to perform their duties. A refusal to work can be a legitimate ground for dismissal if it destroys trust and confidence. Employers, for their part, should ensure they follow a fair procedure and give the employee a chance to reconsider before dismissing.
Similar cases
Legal secretary awarded £29,000 after assault and protected disclosures
A trainee legal secretary who was assaulted by her employer and made protected disclosures has won claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She was awarded £28,986.85.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Missed promotion while off sick: constructive dismissal claim fails
An occupational therapy assistant who missed a promotion opportunity while on sick leave because she did not check her work email has lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled the oversight was unintentional.
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.