Refusing to wear PPE and follow safety instructions: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A Process Improvement Leader who refused to wear face masks and glasses during the pandemic and behaved aggressively towards managers was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #refusal-to-obey-instructions
- #ppe-non-compliance
- #aggressive-behaviour
- #covid-19
- #disciplinary-procedure
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to follow instructions from a safety adviser and his line manager.
- The claimant admitted being forceful and obstructive but did not accept his behaviour was inappropriate.
- The dismissing officer found that the claimant's conduct showed a general disregard for safety and disrespect for management.
- The claimant's allegations that he was being targeted for dismissal were not supported by evidence.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the claimant's lack of acceptance of wrongdoing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Unilever UK Ltd as a Process Improvement Leader.
-
Performance improvement plan
Claimant was put on a Performance Enablement Plan by his line manager Ann Donaghy, but no paperwork was provided.
-
PPE mandate announced
Unilever sent an email requiring all staff to wear glasses and masks at all times in all areas.
-
Incidents leading to dismissal
Claimant refused to wear PPE, refused to follow instructions from safety adviser Mike Richardson, and behaved aggressively towards managers.
-
Further refusal to follow instructions
Claimant refused to repair a gate, telling Mike Richardson to follow process instead.
-
Investigation started
Unilever appointed Nick Maher to investigate the claimant's conduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing for six allegations of misconduct.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended with union representative; he apologised for some matters but did not accept his behaviour was inappropriate.
-
Second disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Ms Tasker found allegations 1,3,4,5,6 proven and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Fabio Pastena; decision to dismiss upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 — specifically, whether the employer genuinely believed the employee was guilty, had reasonable grounds for that belief, carried out a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
Unilever proved that the reason for dismissal was conduct, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant refused to follow instructions about wearing PPE, was aggressive towards managers, and showed no acceptance of wrongdoing.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Refusing to follow reasonable safety instructions, especially during a pandemic, can amount to gross misconduct justifying dismissal.
- Employers should ensure they carry out a reasonable investigation and give the employee a chance to respond before dismissing.
- Employees who admit to forceful behaviour but deny it was inappropriate may struggle to argue that dismissal was unfair.
- A clean disciplinary record does not prevent dismissal if the conduct is serious enough.
When safety rules become a conduct issue
This case shows how a dispute over personal protective equipment (PPE) during the Covid-19 pandemic escalated into a dismissal for gross misconduct. The claimant, a Process Improvement Leader with three years' service, refused to follow instructions from a safety adviser and his line manager to wear glasses and a mask in all areas. He also failed to complete a task he was asked to do, and behaved aggressively in a meeting.
At the disciplinary hearing, the claimant apologised for some matters but did not accept that his behaviour was inappropriate. The dismissing officer found that his conduct showed a general disregard for safety and disrespect for management. The appeal upheld the decision, noting the claimant's lack of acceptance of wrongdoing.
What the employer did right
Unilever appointed an investigator, held a disciplinary hearing with the claimant present and represented by a union official, and gave him a chance to respond to six allegations. The dismissing officer considered the evidence and gave reasons for her decision. The tribunal found that the investigation was reasonable and that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct.
What the employee could have done differently
The claimant argued that he was being targeted for dismissal, but the tribunal found no evidence to support this. He also claimed that the CEO had forgotten to wear glasses, but the tribunal noted that the CEO was not on site and the claimant's conduct was different. The key lesson is that admitting to the behaviour but denying it was misconduct is unlikely to persuade an employer to take a lesser penalty.
Why this matters
The case confirms that tribunals will not substitute their own view for that of the employer, provided the employer acts reasonably. For employees, it is a reminder that refusing to follow reasonable instructions, especially on safety, can have serious consequences. For employers, it shows that a thorough process and clear evidence can defend a dismissal even where the employee has a clean record.
Similar cases
Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Healthcare consultant dismissed for gross misconduct after customer complaints: race discrimination claims rejected
A healthcare consultant with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following four customer complaints about his attitude. The tribunal also rejected his claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
32 years' service not enough to save job after aggressive outburst at work
A process technician with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after kicking and throwing his bump cap towards a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.