Badly Treated by Your Employer During the Pandemic? See a Solicitor Today

Hospitality businesses endured a torrid time during COVID-19 lockdowns, but the majority did their best to treat staff fairly. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, those that did not can expect to reap a bitter harvest.

The case concerned a man with mental health…

Oct 27, 2021

The case concerned a man with mental health difficulties who had been praised and promoted for his work as a pub chef. After the pandemic struck and the pub had to close, he was placed on furlough. Whilst at home, he was in close contact with his father, who suffered from a number of serious medical conditions, including a brain tumour, and for that reason was shielding during the health crisis.

As the end of a lockdown approached, the man was asked to return to work to help out. He raised issues with his employer about the possibility of his father catching COVID-19 from him. He asserted that staff were not issued with personal protective equipment and that no precautions were taken to create a COVID-secure working environment. He said that his employer’s response to his concerns was robustly negative and that he began to be viewed as a nuisance.

Without any discussion or process, his employment was terminated with immediate effect, by text. A director of the employer explained that the format of the business would be changing at the end of lockdown and that it would require a smaller team. After the man launched ET proceedings, the employer put in no response to his complaints.

On the basis of his clear and cogent evidence, the ET found that, until he raised his concerns, he had been a successful and valued member of the pub’s staff. He had either been dismissed or selected for redundancy because he had taken steps to protect his father from what he reasonably believed to be the serious and imminent danger posed by the virus.

The ET noted that he had also not received all the furlough pay that was due to him and that, for a period of five months, pension deductions from his wages had not been paid into his pension. He also received no notice pay or holiday pay during the relevant period. His total compensation, including more than £20,000 in respect of his unfair dismissal, came to £23,624.50.

Women are More Likely to Bear Childcare Responsibilities – That’s a Fact

Judges do not operate in a vacuum and are entitled to take the view that some facts are so obvious that there is no requirement to prove them. In an important ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that that principle applies to the fact that women are more likely to bear childcare responsibilities than men. The case involved a community nurse who was primary carer for her three children, two of them disabled. Due to her responsibilities as a mother, she worked only on Wednesdays…

Indoor Ski Slope Operator Not to Blame for Woman’s Agonising Fall

Some sports are inherently risky and unfortunate accidents inevitably occur for which no one is to blame. The High Court resoundingly made that point in the case of a woman who was grievously injured when she fell on an indoor ski slope. The middle-aged woman had not skied for 35 years when she attended the ski slope with a view to honing her skills in preparation for a holiday. She was descending the learner slope when she fell, suffering a complex leg fracture. Despite reconstructive surgery…

Dismissal of a Disabled Employee is Tough to Justify

It is possible objectively to justify an employee’s dismissal for reasons related to his or her disability. However, as a case concerning an autistic university analyst made plain, establishing such a justification is, to say the least, a demanding task. The man, who had been diagnosed with high-functioning autism, was on long-term sick leave, suffering from stress, when he was dismissed. After he lodged a disability discrimination claim with an Employment Tribunal (ET), the university accepted…