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.

Sexual Harassment and the Rights of Accused Employees – Guideline Ruling

Sensible employers take accusations of sexual harassment very seriously indeed. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling underlined, however, the rights of any employee accused of such harassment must be treated with equal gravity. The case concerned a male scientist who was accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague. Following a lengthy grievance procedure, a panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had attempted to hug and kiss her when they were in a car together…

Fear of COVID-19 is Not a Philosophical Belief – Employment Ruling

A fear of contracting COVID-19 or infecting others with the virus is both worthy of respect and readily understandable. However, an Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled in a novel case that it does not amount to a philosophical belief. The case concerned a woman who said that her wages had been withheld after she declined to return to work in July 2020. She believed that the pandemic at that time continued to pose a serious and imminent health and safety risk. She was worried about contracting…

Financial Consultant Who Failed to Disclose Bankruptcy Fairly Dismissed

You would generally be right to think that what goes on in your life away from your workplace is nobody’s business but your own. In one case, however, a financial consultant’s failure to disclose his bankruptcy to his employer was ruled by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to be a sufficient ground for dismissal. The man, who worked for an estate agency, was suffering financial difficulties after prolonged periods on sick leave and was declared bankrupt at his own behest. His bankruptcy came…