The Claimant had been offered a job with the Respondent for a 43-hour week including Sunday working, which he appeared to have accepted. When he indicated that he could not work on Sundays for religious reasons, the Respondent made a revised offer which accommodated the Claimant not working on Sunday if he worked 37 hours rather than 43 hours. The Claimant did not accept that offer, and so the Respondent retracted the original job offer on the basis that the Claimant was not willing to accept the revised hours. The Claimant brought a claim in the ET that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for opting out of Sunday working. The ET concluded that the Claimant had not shown that the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was that he proposed to opt out of Sunday working, finding instead that he was dismissed because he rejected the alternative offer made to him by the Respondent. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET misapplied the law and that its decision was perverse.

The EAT held that the ET had directed itself correctly about the relevant test and had made a finding as to the reason for dismissal which was open to it on the evidence. Accordingly, the ET did not err in law in reaching its conclusion and did not reach a perverse decision.