Employment Tribunal considers whether an employee who left his workplace over his fears about infecting his children with COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed.
29 April 2021
Case Study
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:
Case Study
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.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More