Tribunal rejects reporter's claims over work in Iraq

A judge today overturned part of a UK employment tribunal ruling in favour of a TV correspondent who claims he was sacked for refusing to work in Iraq.

Richard Gizbert, a former London-based broadcaster for American channel ABC News, claimed his freelance contract was terminated after he twice declined assignments in the Middle East.

In December an employment tribunal panel in London found he was unfairly dismissed, but today the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in London reversed the decision.

Judge Peter Clark rejected the panel’s judgement that Mr Gizbert was unfairly dismissed under a section of the 1996 Employment Rights Act relating to health and safety cases.

He also ruled against the journalist’s cross-appeal that his case was covered by a related section of the act protecting employees who refuse to work in circumstances of “serious and imminent” danger.

The judge said: “The claimant was under no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to visit war zones. The respondent [ABC News] operated a voluntary war zones policy.

“His place of work was London. He chose not to visit war zones. He was thus in no danger, let alone imminent danger, nor could he, in the circumstances, reasonably believe otherwise.”

He recommended that the original employment tribunal panel should reconvene to decide whether Mr Gizbert could claim ordinary unfair dismissal on grounds unrelated to health and safety.

David Westin, president of ABC News, welcomed today’s ruling, saying: “At ABC News, we have always adhered to the inviolable principle that coverage of news stories involving personal risk is strictly voluntary.

“We’ve made it abundantly clear that there will be no consequences for those who decline to enter war zones in pursuit of the news.

“We’re very pleased that today’s court decision confirms our long-standing policy and soundly rejects any claim to the contrary.”

Canadian Mr Gizbert, 48, had been employed by ABC for 11 years, but in 2002 left his post as a staff correspondent to go freelance.

Today he announced he planned to appeal the EAT ruling, which he argued did not dispute the original tribunal’s finding that the principal reason for his dismissal was his refusal to go to war zones.

The journalist said: “ABC’s principal reason for firing me was my refusal to go to Iraq. That was the judgement reached last December and it doesn’t change with today’s decision.

“We disagree with the appeal tribunal’s view that the case does not fall within the health and safety provisions of the law.

“Given the importance of this case and its implications for journalists in the UK and elsewhere, we will be seeking leave to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.”

Last year’s tribunal heard he had previously reported from Bosnia and Chechnya, but no longer wanted to work on long assignments abroad because of family commitments.

ABC denied that pressure had ever been put on Mr Gizbert to go to Iraq.

Instead it maintained that the reporter’s lack of flexibility – and the cost of £560 per day – made him unaffordable when he was axed in 2004.

Marcus Wilford, London bureau chief at ABC News, told the tribunal in September that Mr Gizbert had been “an average, not an outstanding correspondent”.

The tribunal panel’s original judgement in December stated: “The tribunal has concluded that the principal reason for dismissing the claimant, in circumstances where (ABC News) was cutting back on its budget, was his refusal to go to war zones.”

ABC News said today’s decision meant Mr Gizbert would not receive the £98,000 (€144,000) the tribunal awarded him in July for unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds.

But Mr Gizbert claimed he was still in line to receive up to £60,000 (€88,000) for ordinary unfair dismissal.

These sums are only a fraction of the £2.2m (€3.2m) he had sought in compensation for lost earnings during the employment tribunal hearing last September.