Where can precautions against COVID-19 constitute gross misconduct?
This case demonstrated how tribunals deal with claims of unfair dismissal where someone has been dismissed for attempting to prevent the spread of COVID-19.Read more
In the recently reported case of Rodgers -v- Leeds Laser Cutting ET1803829/2020, the Employment Tribunal considered whether an employee had been automatically unfairly dismissed after leaving his workplace because he was worried about infecting his vulnerable children with COVID-19.
Mr Rodgers had been working as a laser operator for the respondent for just under a year when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Following the announcement of the first national lockdown on 23 March 2020, the respondent issued an ‘employee’ communication which stated that the business would remain open and asked staff to work normally, but with measures such as social distancing and enhanced hand-washing in place.
On 29 March 2020 Mr Rodgers sent a message to his manager to say that he would be keeping away from his workplace “until lockdown has eased” as he was concerned about infecting his vulnerable children with COVID-19. He obtained a self-isolation note from the NHS for the period 28 March 2020 to 03 April 2020; however, on 30 March 2020 he drove his friend to hospital.
Mr Rodgers brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal alleging that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for exercising his rights under sections 100(1)(d) and (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In order for a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(d) and (e) to succeed, an employee must establish that they were dismissed because:
In this particular case, the Tribunal found that a reasonable belief in serious and imminent workplace danger had to be judged on what was known by the employee at the relevant time when actions were taken.
The Tribunal felt that Mr Rodgers had failed to establish a reasonable belief that he was in serious and imminent danger if he remained at work because:
Taking these facts into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Rodgers’ decision to remain off work was not directly linked to his working conditions and was, instead, related to general concerns about the pandemic.
It is important to note that this decision is not binding, and each case will be reviewed on its own specific facts.
However, the case does reinforce the importance of assessing workplace risks in relation to COVID-19, implementing appropriate measures to reduce those risks and effectively communicating with staff so that they are clear on what has been put in place to reduce risk.
Employers who do this are likely to establish a defence to any claims brought under sections 100(d) and (e) ERA 1996 as it will be harder for employees to establish that it was reasonable for them to believe their workplace was dangerous.
Should you require any further information regarding employee dismissals relating to COVID-19 issues or any other employment law related matters that you may be facing, please contact a member of our Employment team on 01332 226 149 or complete the form below.
An Employment Tribunal published its judgement in the case of X v Y . The case offers an insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic interacts with employment law.Read more
Scroll to next section
Scroll back to the top