Unfair dismissal claims following Covid-19

Sponsored feature | Valerie Lambert, partner, HCR Hewitsons

The pandemic saw a number of employees refusing to come into the workplace as they believed that attending work presented a serious and imminent danger to them due to the Covid-19 virus.

Employees are protected from dismissal where they absent themselves from the workplace in circumstances of danger which they reasonably believe to be serious and imminent.

We are just starting to see unfair dismissal cases, where employers have dismissed employees for non-attendance at work due to Covid-19, coming through tribunals. If an employee is dismissed for leaving the workplace when he or she perceived that there was a serious and imminent danger to them, and the employer dismisses, that can amount to an automatic unfair dismissal.

The Court of Appeal, in the case of Darren Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited, recently held that an employee who had absented himself from work, during the pandemic, due to his child being in the shielding category, and who was dismissed by his employer for doing so, had not been unfairly dismissed.

In this case the employer had demonstrated that it had done risk assessments and had implemented the safety measures recommended by the government.

The ‘Rodgers’ case is the first Court of Appeal decision on Covid-19 dismissals. In this case the job was plainly a role which could not be done at home and the employer’s dismissal was held to be reasonable in the circumstances.

The case established that an employee must hold a belief that they would be subject to the perceived serious and imminent danger as a result of actually being at the workplace. A general fear about a danger to society as a whole was not sufficient, the belief had to arise from specific risks in the workplace itself.

[Read more

Government announces further changes to the planning system

Are planning consents required to add a pool or tennis court?]

It is a helpful judgment for employers who undertook risk assessments and adopted the appropriate safety measures in the workplace, and are facing tribunal claims for unfair dismissal. The court did, however, warn that this case was fact specific and it could envisage circumstances where unfair dismissal could be found.

For more information contact Valerie Lambert, partner, employment and education on 01223 447427, 07584 015562 or vlambert@hcrlaw.com.

Visit hcrlaw.com.