But if however, there are no norms that could force Richard to work in an area, or department which he is not supposed to work in the normal course of his duties, the subsequent developments and his dismissal could perhaps be viewed as an unfair dismissal, depending upon what constitutes unfair dismissal in the context of this case and the contractual agreement between Richard and his employer
Further it is seen that a dismissal could also be termed as an unfair one, “If your employer dismisses you for exercising or trying to exercise one of your statutory (legal) employment rights” which include, interalia “An employees statutory employment rights include a right to a written statement of employment particulars.” (Employment: unfair dismissal, n.d.).
Thus, it could be said that indiscipline arouse because Richard was asked to work in a department which was outside his job description.. In the event there is a contract of employment between Richard and his employer, it would specifically stipulate the kind of work that Richard would be expected to do, and dismissing him on ground that he refused to do work which he was not expected to do in the first place, could be viewed as a kind of unfair dismissal. The fact of indiscipline (walking out of the office) has been a natural consequence of Richard being asked to do work that was not really needed of him to perform, and he could hardly be held responsible for it. Another factor that is favourable for Richard is that he has been working for the last ten years or so, which speaks well of his long term employment track record.
Further, under Section 98 (1) (a) of ERA 1996, it is necessary for the employers to exhibit the causes for their decision to dismiss the said employee, and again under Section 98 (4) (a), having complied with Section 98(a), the fact whether the decisions was reasonable or unreasonable depends “ (a) on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative