𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

A drainage worker has successfully sued his brother for nearly £30,000 after a dispute over weekend shifts that led to his dismissal.

Kevin Bond and a colleague were both awarded £29,639 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled they were wrongfully and unfairly dismissed from Bond’s Utilities Services.

The Bristol-based company is owned by Kevin’s brother, Darren Bond.

The tribunal heard that Kevin has not spoken to his brother since the day he was fired, following a row that began when both he and colleague Steve Haberfield refused to work specific weekend shifts in September 2024.

Both men cited commitments to care for ill family members as their reason for not being able to work.

The pair were employed by Bond’s Utilities Services from 2010 to 2019, and again from 2021 until their dismissal.

When Kevin returned to the company in 2021, he had discussed with his brother Darren the possibility of not working as many weekends, with Darren assuring him that younger employees would cover those shifts. Both Kevin and Mr Haberfield had indicated they were willing to work weekends occasionally.

The situation came to a head in September 2024 when a message was sent via a WhatsApp group chat, singling out Kevin and Mr Haberfield and instructing them to work Saturday night shifts later that month.

Kevin refused, explaining that his ill partner was expecting him at home.

His operations manager responded, stating he was “fed up” with Kevin’s excuses and that he needed him to work due to staff shortages.

Mr Haberfield initially delayed his reply as he needed to confirm when his ill son would be admitted to hospital for surgery. About 24 hours later, he received a message stating: “Steve H are you refusing to work weekends if so I will view the refusal to work procedure and you can have your weeks notice we have discussed previously you were happy to do the odd weekend so what has changed?”

Mr Haberfield explained his situation, saying that he had “never refused to work”.

The operations manager then replied: “Steve there is no need to be rude. I suggest that you make it your last day tomorrow Friday 13/9/24 then you can spend quality time with your son before he goes into hospital this is all I have to say on the matter.”

Mr Haberfield attempted to appeal to Darren, but the company owner said that he would not interfere with the decision.

Both Mr Haberfield and Kevin were subsequently informed they had been fired for misconduct and refusing to obey a legitimate management instruction.

Employment Judge Jeremy Stuart, presiding over the hearing in Bristol, found that both men had been wrongfully and unfairly dismissed.

He said: “In any event Mr Haberfield had not refused to work the weekends in question – but merely explained that he was waiting to see if he could or not, having regard to his son’s pending hospitalisation. In the case of Mr K Bond he had refused to work those particular weekends but had not said that he refused to work all weekends.”

Judge Stuart criticised the dismissal process, noting: “The dismissals were carried out without any semblance of a fair procedure and were in breach of every aspect of the ACAS code. The attitude and conduct towards them was rude, aggressive and cavalier.”

He added that while Mr Haberfield had responded rudely, the operations manager “had started it by singling them out in front of the workforce and by making an unwarranted threat of dismissal to back up his demands.”

The judge also highlighted Darren’s failure to intervene despite being given the opportunity.

The tribunal concluded that there was no contractual obligation for either employee to work weekends, meaning they could not be dismissed for refusing to do so.

Judge Stuart acknowledged the company’s operational need for weekend work and the frustration caused by the employees’ reluctance, but stressed: “The fact that an employee refusing to work overtime caused frustration and operational problems does not equate to misconduct by the employee if the employee is under no legal obligation to work the overtime.”

Given the “substantively and procedurally unfair” nature of the dismissals and the complete lack of a reasonable process, no deduction was made from the compensation.

Judge Stuart concluded: “In any event, if the company had acted fairly, I find it highly likely that both men would still be employed by them.”