Mass insubordination over a canteen move
One matter filed against a former employer became affectionately known as the Biddulph matter, named after the moving company involved, due to the unique facts of the case.
The employer had recently renovated the staff canteen and ablution facilities, representing a significant upgrade for employees, as the previous facilities had always been intended as a temporary arrangement.
The new facility, situated one floor above the old location on a mezzanine level, offered several improvements. The ablution area featured double-sealed bathroom doors to suppress odours, was located further away from warehouse stock, and had concrete screeded flooring to allow for more effective cleaning and maintenance.
Under the previous arrangement, employees could clock in before entering the canteen. Because they were already on the clock, many employees would spend excessive amounts of time socialising in the canteen instead of working.
When the canteen was relocated, the biometric scanner was moved as well. Employees would now enter the premises through the canteen but would only clock in once they exited the canteen and entered the workspace. This significantly reduced lost working time. Unsurprisingly, the employees were unhappy with the new arrangement.
Management selected a day and, after working hours, moved all tables, chairs, and microwaves to the new location. Approximately 25 employees then took it upon themselves, without authorisation, to move all the furniture back to the original location.
Management again moved the furniture to the new canteen, and once again the employees moved everything back.
After a third relocation, management installed surveillance cameras. The footage clearly captured the faces of all individuals involved, and each participant was positively identified. All implicated employees were suspended and subjected to disciplinary hearings on charges of insubordination, unauthorised removal of company property, and dishonesty in the case of employees who were given an opportunity to come forward but falsely denied involvement before learning that video footage existed.
All employees, bar one, were dismissed. One employee avoided dismissal because the timestamp on the relevant camera footage was found to be unreliable in relation to his alleged involvement.
The dismissed employees referred a class-action unfair dismissal dispute through MIBCO, challenging both the substantive and procedural fairness of their dismissals. The matter was initially heard by a DRC commissioner, who found in favour of the employees and held that the dismissals were unfair.
The matter was subsequently escalated to arbitration, where we successfully overturned the earlier finding and secured a favourable outcome for the employer.
Why we succeeded
- The instruction was lawful and reasonable — The employer was fully entitled to relocate the canteen and implement systems designed to improve productivity and reduce operational inefficiencies.
- Misconduct was deliberate and collective — This was not a misunderstanding or isolated act of defiance. The repeated relocation of company property demonstrated coordinated and intentional insubordination.
- Evidence was compelling — Surveillance footage clearly identified the individuals involved, significantly reducing factual disputes around participation.
- The disciplinary process was fair — Employees were suspended, charged appropriately, and afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations before dismissal.
- Operational impact mattered — The conduct directly undermined managerial authority and disrupted legitimate operational decisions, making continued employment difficult to sustain.