The claimant was employed as Chief Executive of the respondent until her dismissal on the ground of gross misconduct. The respondent contended that the claimant had specifically been told not to use any external HR consultants as sufficient expertise to manage such processes existed internally. 

It later transpired that the claimant had paid for a number of external consultants, without seeking approval. The board therefore decided that a ‘Scheme of Delegation’ should be drafted, in order to define and clarify the boundaries of the Chief Executive’s authority. She was later dismissed for, inter alia, refusal to accept or properly implement the Scheme.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant repeatedly and knowingly ignored clear and reasonable instructions from her employer, any one of which it properly viewed as gross misconduct. It further held that the respondent was genuinely and reasonably satisfied as to the guilt of the claimant after a reasonable enquiry. It was held that the sanction of dismissal was reasonable, and the claimant’s case was dismissed.

At the time of dismissal, the claimant was the respondent’s most senior employee. Employees owe a duty of cooperation in their contract of employment and have a duty to perform any lawful and reasonable direction from their employer.

In most cases, this will involve more junior employees failing to follow directions of a manger or supervisor but this case demonstrates how the duty even extends to Chief Executives. The tribunal praised the ‘Scheme’ introduced by the respondent as it ‘provided the claimant with a clear framework within which to operate’.

Having in place agreed objective standards of employee behaviour in such scenarios places the employer in a stronger position should there be any dispute at a later stage.
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/