Cases2501570/2022

Claimant v Community Integrated Care

12 February 2024Before Employment Judge LoyNewcastlein person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service ending with the effective date of termination. His employment began on 8 July 2020 and terminated on 28 June 2022, falling short of the two-year qualifying period by several weeks. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear this claim under s.94 ERA 1996.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was unauthorised absence for five months and failure to comply with a reasonable management instruction to return to work, not the claimant's health and safety concerns about wearing face masks. The respondent made repeated attempts to get the claimant to return, including offering alternative work not requiring mask-wearing, which the claimant declined. The tribunal also found the claimant did not hold a genuine or reasonable belief that mask-wearing was harmful to health and safety, particularly given he smoked and vaped during the same period.

Detrimentfailed

The claim failed for the same reasons as the automatic unfair dismissal claim: the claimant did not hold a genuine or reasonable belief that mask-wearing was harmful to health and safety, and the detriments alleged (disciplinary action, dismissal) were due to unauthorised absence and refusal to follow reasonable management instructions, not health and safety disclosures.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the claimant was in fundamental breach of contract by being absent without authorisation for five months, refusing to attend work, and failing to follow a reasonable management instruction to agree a return-to-work date. The respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss without notice. The claimant had been offered alternative work not requiring mask-wearing but declined, demonstrating his refusal was not based on genuine health concerns.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The claimant's claim for unpaid wages from 19 January 2022 to 28 June 2022 failed because he was absent without authorisation and without proper reason during that period. He was able but unwilling to perform his contractual obligations, including the alternative work offered that did not require mask-wearing.

Facts

The claimant worked as a Support Worker for a social care charity from 8 July 2020 to 28 June 2022. After complying with PPE requirements including face masks for 18 months, in December 2021 he refused to wear masks except during personal care, citing concerns about unknown health risks despite smoking and vaping. He was given a written warning but agreed to comply. He then reneged and refused to return to work unless the employer proved 'zero risk' from mask-wearing. The employer offered alternative work not requiring masks, which he declined. After five months' unauthorised absence, he was summarily dismissed for absence without authorisation and failure to follow reasonable management instructions.

Decision

All claims dismissed. The claimant lacked the two years' service required for ordinary unfair dismissal. His automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims failed because: (1) the reason for dismissal was prolonged unauthorised absence and refusal to obey management instructions, not health and safety concerns; and (2) he did not hold a genuine or reasonable belief that mask-wearing was harmful given his smoking/vaping and refusal of mask-free alternative work. His wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages claims failed because he was in fundamental breach of contract by refusing to work for five months despite being able and having been offered suitable alternatives.

Practical note

An employee who refuses to comply with reasonable and lawful workplace safety requirements during a pandemic, declines suitable alternative work that would accommodate their concerns, and remains absent without authorisation for months cannot succeed in claims that their dismissal was for raising health and safety concerns, particularly where the purported belief lacks objective reasonableness and is contradicted by their own conduct.

Legal authorities cited

Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.100(1)(c)ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.44(1)(c)ERA 1996 s.108ERA 1996 s.211ERA 1996 s.212ERA 1996 s.86ERA 1996 s.97

Case details

Case number
2501570/2022
Decision date
12 February 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
8
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Support Worker
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No