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.

Locum Consultant Not Entitled to Permanent Contract

Under Regulation 8 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, employees who have worked continuously for four years or more under a series of fixed-term contracts automatically become permanent employees unless the renewal of their employment on a fixed-term contract was objectively justified. Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether such justification applied in the case of a locum consultant. The consultant was employed by…

Man Who Worked for Membership Association Was an Employee

The Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled that a man who worked for a membership association which acted on behalf of free-range egg producers was an employee rather than a self-employed contractor. The man began working for the association in 2011 as Policy Director, going on to become Chief Executive in 2016. He was required to work a set number of days per week and invoiced the association monthly for the work he had performed, plus travel and accommodation expenses. In March 2023 he was given…

Supreme Court Urges ‘Give and Take’ in Town or Village Green Dispute

Town or village greens (TVGs) are effectively sacrosanct against development and public access to them is heavily protected by law. However, they are often privately owned and, as an important Supreme Court ruling showed, that can create some stark conflicts of interest. The case concerned a 200-square-metre area on the quayside of a privately owned port. Entirely covered by concrete and long in use by HGVs and port vehicles, there was nothing bucolic about the site. The port’s owner erected a…