COVID-19 and automatic unfair dismissal

Book your free initial call

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*
Our 72 Hour Return Policy*
We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 72 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 72 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.

There was much speculation during the pandemic that we would see cases brought for automatic unfair dismissal where employees refused to work in circumstances where they considered there was a risk to health and safety.

Thus far we have not seen many but here is one ….

The EAT held in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd it was not automatically unfair to dismiss an employee who refused to work in circumstances where he was concerned about the risk to his vulnerable children.

The Claimant had refused to work on the basis that he had vulnerable children who could be very ill if they caught Covid-19. He was dismissed and brought a claim that his dismissal was automatically unfairly because he had refused to work in order to protect himself from circumstances of danger, which he had reasonably believed were serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avoid.

The claim was dismissed the Tribunal concluding he had general concerns about Covid-19, but these were not directly related to his workplace. The facts of the case also demonstrated other actions by him which did not support his arguments like not wearing a facemask, leaving his home during self-isolation, and working in a pub during lockdown.

Whilst the EAT accepted an employee can reasonably believe that there were serious and imminent circumstances of danger arising outside the workplace that prevented them from returning to work the facts of this case, were such that this was not the case for this Claimant.

Written by
Astons Solicitors
17th May 2022