With decades of experience helping organizations navigate the complexities of technology and change, HRTech expert Ling-Yi Tsai has seen firsthand how a simple process update can spiral into a full-blown legal battle. Today, she joins us to dissect a recent case where an employee’s refusal to participate in a new electronic performance review system, coupled with repeated defiance of management, led to her dismissal. We’ll explore the fine line between employee advocacy and insubordination, the critical importance of documenting escalating conflicts, and how HR can build a legally sound case when a working relationship breaks down beyond repair.
When a company introduces a new, mandatory electronic performance review system, what are the key risks if an employee refuses to participate? Can you walk me through the steps HR should take to manage this defiance, from initial refusal to potential termination?
The immediate risk is a breakdown of a core management function. Performance reviews are not just about pay; they are about alignment, development, and maintaining consistent standards. When an employee outright refuses, like in this case where she replied she wouldn’t “do this again,” it directly challenges the employer’s authority to manage its workforce. The first step for HR isn’t to punish, but to clarify. The CFO did this perfectly by explaining it was a new, company-wide process for 2025. When the defiance continues, you must escalate. This moves from a simple misunderstanding to insubordination. A formal meeting, a documented verbal warning, and clear written directions are next. If the employee still refuses to comply after multiple opportunities, as she did, termination becomes a valid and defensible option.
An employee repeatedly bypasses their manager to email senior executives like the CEO about a pay dispute, despite being directed not to. At what point does this conduct become a valid reason for dismissal, and how should managers document these escalating interactions for HR?
This becomes a fireable offense the moment it transforms from a one-off mistake into a pattern of deliberate defiance. The first time, it might be a coaching moment. But in this situation, the employee was explicitly directed on August 28, 2024, not to involve the CEO or CFO. When she copied the CEO on another email in February 2025, she knowingly crossed a line. That’s the pivot point. For documentation, every interaction is a piece of the puzzle. Managers must log the date and content of the initial verbal directive. They should save every email chain, especially those showing the employee was told to stop and then did it again. Creating a simple timeline—from the first inappropriate email on August 15, 2024, to the verbal warning on October 7, and the final insubordinate email—builds an undeniable record of misconduct for HR.
The term ‘irreconcilable breakdown of the working relationship’ was used to justify a dismissal. From an HR perspective, what specific employee behaviors or events typically lead to this conclusion, and what evidence is crucial for an employer to present to prove it?
This is rarely about a single explosive event; it’s almost always a slow erosion of trust and respect. It’s a pattern of behavior where the employee demonstrates they are unwilling to operate within the company’s reasonable framework. In this case, it was the combination of things: her repeated refusal to follow the performance review process, her deliberate defiance of the directive about emailing the CEO, and her accusations that managers “lie.” These actions show she no longer trusts or respects her superiors. The crucial evidence isn’t just one email; it’s the entire sequence. You need to present the lawful direction given, the employee’s clear refusal, the multiple opportunities provided for her to change course, and her consistent choice to defy management. It’s about showing the relationship is so damaged that productive work is no longer possible.
Imagine an employee, who describes their own performance as ‘exceptional,’ receives a 5% raise but immediately pushes for another review. What communication strategies can managers use to manage salary expectations while also addressing the employee’s concerns without making premature promises?
This is a very common scenario. The key is to be both firm and fair. The manager’s response on August 28 was a masterclass in this. First, acknowledge the employee’s request, but then immediately ground the conversation in established process. He correctly pointed out that she had just received a 5% raise in January 2024 and that the company-wide timeline for her next review was early 2025. You avoid making promises by sticking to the facts of the compensation cycle. You can validate their feelings by saying something like, “I appreciate your passion and commitment to your role,” while simultaneously stating, “Our process ensures fairness for everyone, and your next formal review is scheduled for next quarter.” This separates their personal feelings of being “exceptional” from the objective, equitable process the company must follow.
This case involved verbal warnings and multiple emails before termination. Could you detail a best-practice disciplinary process for insubordination? What are the critical documentation points that strengthen an employer’s position against a potential unfair dismissal claim?
A best-practice process is one of clear, documented escalation. It begins with a lawful and reasonable direction—in this instance, the direction to participate in the new electronic review system. When the employee refuses, the first step is a non-disciplinary conversation to ensure they understand. If defiance continues, you move to a formal verbal warning, which absolutely must be documented by the manager and HR with a date and summary. The next refusal should trigger a formal written warning, typically via email, that explicitly states the required action and the potential consequences of continued non-compliance, including termination. The most critical documentation points are the initial directive, the employee’s documented refusal—like her emails saying she “no longer felt like participating”—the record of each warning given, and proof that the process applied to all staff, which shows it wasn’t discriminatory. This paper trail demonstrates that the employer acted reasonably and gave the employee every chance to correct their behavior.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
Absolutely. My advice is to focus on the power of process. Your company’s policies—whether for performance reviews, communication protocols, or salary discussions—are your best defense. Make sure these processes are clear, communicated effectively, and applied consistently to everyone. When an issue arises, don’t deviate. Follow your own rulebook step by step. As this case shows, an employer who gives a lawful and reasonable direction, provides multiple opportunities for compliance, and documents everything meticulously can be confident in their decisions, even when it ends in a difficult termination. Process is what turns a potentially “unjust” dismissal into a defensible business decision.