Furlough Whistleblower Succeeds in Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough…

Nov 22, 2022

Magnet me ldcc7acwvlo unsplash 1024x683

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough scheme.

The sales manager was on part-time flexible furlough during the pandemic and, on most days, her agreed working hours were between 10am and 4pm. During a performance review meeting with her boss, she realised that it was about 4.10pm and that they were not even halfway through their discussion. She asked if the meeting could continue on another day at a time within her agreed hours. Her boss became annoyed and angry at that suggestion.

She made it clear to him, however, that she was not prepared to work beyond her part-time furlough hours and that it would be wrong to do so. She reminded him that she and some colleagues were working longer than agreed hours to get the job done and expressed the view that it would be unfair for that to continue. She wanted him to understand that working during time for which furlough money was being claimed from the government was wrong. She was dismissed a few weeks later and lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.

In upholding her whistleblowing claim, the ET found that she had made a protected disclosure. She had clearly communicated to her boss her belief that continuing the meeting beyond her fixed hours was a breach of the legal obligation to comply with the furlough rules. The ET was also satisfied that her protected disclosure was the principal reason why she lost her job and that her dismissal was thus automatically unfair. If not agreed, the amount of her compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…

A Lack of Legal Expertise Can Be Fatal to Your Employment Tribunal Claim

It is only too easy for Employment Tribunal (ET) claims to founder at an early stage due to a lack of legal expertise. That very nearly happened in the case of a worker who got his employer’s name wrong when lodging an unfair dismissal complaint. When filing his claim via an online portal, the worker misidentified his former employer, a food wholesaler. As a result, his claim was initially rejected. It was later accepted after he amended his claim, giving the employer’s correct name. By that…

Can COVID Scepticism Be a ‘Belief’ Protected Under the Equality Act 2010?

A significant minority of people – often referred to as ‘COVID sceptics’ – firmly believe that measures taken to control the virus are an unwarranted impingement on their personal freedom. The question of whether such beliefs can qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010 was considered in a guideline employment case. The case concerned a warehouse operative who expressed the belief that COVID-19 testing is flawed, that face masks afford no protection against the virus and that…