Claimant v Ikea Distribution Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. He travelled abroad during lockdown in breach of government regulations, returned to work without the required 10-day quarantine, and put colleagues at risk. The respondent conducted a reasonable investigation and followed fair procedures. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's serious misconduct, lack of remorse, and refusal to comply with health and safety requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The tribunal found by majority that the respondent's Covid-19 safety measures (temperature checks, one-way systems, announcements, hand sanitiser requirements) were not related to the claimant's philosophical beliefs about Covid-19 and human rights. These were universal safety measures applied to all staff in accordance with government guidance to protect health and safety, not targeted conduct related to the claimant's beliefs. The measures were unwanted by the claimant but not harassment.
Facts
The claimant, employed by IKEA since 2007 as Area Responsible, travelled to Poland and Italy in April 2021 during Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. He returned to the UK on 29 April 2021 but failed to quarantine for the mandatory 10 days, instead returning to work on 3 May 2021. Colleagues saw his Facebook posts showing him abroad and reported him. Police attended the workplace, the claimant was prosecuted and fined. The claimant held strong beliefs that Covid-19 was being used by government to control people and that asymptomatic spread was non-existent. He refused to cooperate with the investigation, gave 'no comment' answers, and showed no remorse, stating IKEA should conduct its own scientific research rather than follow government guidance.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The respondent had reasonable grounds to believe he breached health and safety obligations and Covid-19 policies, conducted a reasonable investigation, followed fair procedures, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. By majority, the tribunal dismissed the harassment claims, finding that Covid-19 safety measures (temperature checks, one-way systems, announcements, hand sanitiser) were not related to the claimant's philosophical beliefs but were universal health and safety measures applied to all staff.
Practical note
An employer can fairly dismiss an employee for breaching Covid-19 safety rules even where the employee holds sincere philosophical beliefs opposing such measures, where the conduct puts colleagues at risk and the employee shows no remorse; Covid-19 safety measures applied universally to all staff are not harassment related to anti-lockdown beliefs.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3322439/2021
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Area Responsible
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No