Supermarket assistant dismissed for refusing instructions: conduct dismissal upheld
A Waitrose employee who refused to carry out reasonable tasks and used foul language about managers was fairly dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal awarded £536.94 for unpaid holiday and overtime.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #refusal-to-follow-instructions
- #swearing
- #written-warning
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
- #holiday-pay
- #unlawful-deduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Supermarket Assistant at Waitrose from 26 November 2018.
- He received a first written warning on 3 March 2020 for failure to follow absence reporting procedures.
- On 25 February 2021 he refused to complete mandatory manual handling training.
- On 2 March 2021 he refused to do 'put backs' when asked by a supervisor and branch manager.
- During an investigation meeting on 11 March 2021 he used inappropriate language about managers.
- He was summarily dismissed on 29 April 2021 for misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Supermarket Assistant at Waitrose, Edgware Road branch, working 11 hours per week.
-
First written warning for absence
Claimant issued with a first written warning for 12 months due to excessive absence levels.
-
Second first written warning
Claimant received a first written warning for failure to follow absence reporting procedures, after taking unauthorised absence due to delayed overtime pay.
-
Refusal to complete training
Claimant refused to complete mandatory manual handling training, leading to suspension.
-
Refusal to do 'put backs'
Claimant refused a reasonable management request to do 'put backs' and used inappropriate language.
-
Investigation meeting
Investigation meeting held regarding the 2 March incident; claimant used foul language about managers.
-
Dismissal
After a disciplinary hearing, claimant was summarily dismissed for misconduct.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal claim not well founded but awarded holiday pay and overtime.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the supermarket assistant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct after refusing to follow reasonable instructions and using inappropriate language, and whether the employer had failed to pay holiday pay and overtime.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that John Lewis PLC acted reasonably in treating the employee's refusals and foul language as gross misconduct. However, it upheld claims for unlawful deduction of wages and unpaid holiday pay.
- Unlawful deduction: £27.81 for 3 hours' unpaid overtime
- Holiday pay: £509.13 for accrued but untaken annual leave
- Total award: £536.94
Lessons & takeaways
- A history of warnings can make a dismissal for further misconduct more likely to be fair.
- Refusing reasonable management instructions, even if you disagree, can be grounds for dismissal.
- Keep records of your hours worked and holiday taken to support claims for unpaid wages.
- Using foul language about managers during an investigation can be treated as misconduct.
- Employers should ensure they pay all holiday pay and overtime owed to avoid unlawful deduction claims.
This case shows how a pattern of conduct issues can lead to a fair dismissal, even when the employee feels they were treated unfairly. The supermarket assistant had received two written warnings for absence and failure to follow procedures before the incidents that led to his dismissal. When he refused to complete mandatory training and then refused a reasonable request to do 'put backs', using foul language about managers during the investigation, the employer had clear grounds for dismissal.
John Lewis PLC followed a proper disciplinary process, including investigation and a hearing, and the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer. The employee's three years of service did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct, especially given his earlier warnings.
What the employer got right: they gave warnings for earlier issues, conducted a thorough investigation, and gave the employee a chance to respond. What they got wrong: they failed to pay all holiday pay and overtime owed. The tribunal ordered payment of £536.94 for these amounts, showing that even when a dismissal is fair, employers must still meet their basic wage obligations.
For employees, the lesson is clear: refusing reasonable instructions and using abusive language can be fatal to an unfair dismissal claim, especially if you have prior warnings. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of following a fair process and keeping accurate pay records to avoid small but costly claims.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Whistleblowing claim fails: conduct dismissal upheld for walking out of shift twice
A general assistant who walked out of his shift twice and claimed he was dismissed for whistleblowing has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the real reason was his conduct, not any protected disclosure.
Civil engineer awarded £5,819 after employer entered liquidation without paying wages
A civil engineer who was dismissed without notice and not paid his final wages, holiday pay, or notice pay has been awarded £5,819 by an employment tribunal. The employer had since gone into liquidation.
Constructive dismissal after 15 years: race harassment and unpaid holiday pay
A former employee with 15 years' service was constructively dismissed after a campaign of race harassment. The tribunal awarded over £34,000 including £21,000 for injury to feelings.