Employment News: health and safety, pay reporting

Hogan Lovells
Contact

Hogan Lovells

First tribunal guidance on "serious and imminent" danger in context of COVID-19

Under s44 and s100 of the Employment Rights Act, an employee is entitled not to be subjected to a detriment or dismissed because they have:
  • Left or refused to return to the workplace;
  • In circumstances of danger;
  • That the employee reasonably believed were serious and imminent; and
  • Which they could not reasonably be expected to avert.
There has been a debate about how that protection operates in the context of a public health emergency such as COVID-19. The Employment Tribunal decision in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd, while not binding on other tribunals, gives some guidance on when the protection will be engaged.

Mr Rodgers told his employer on 29 March 2020 that he would not be returning to work until after the national lockdown in place at that time had eased. He was concerned about the risk COVID-19 presented to his children, as one had an underlying health condition. He was dismissed approximately a month later and brought an automatic unfair dismissal claim, arguing that he had been dismissed for refusing to return to the workplace in circumstances of danger which he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent. He had insufficient service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The Employment Tribunal rejected his claim. Although Mr Rodgers had a genuine belief that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger, that belief was not objectively reasonable. The mere existence of COVID-19 did not mean that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger that the employee could not reasonably be expected to avert. If that were the case, any employee could refuse to attend their workplace simply by virtue of the pandemic.

There had to be something more that created a situation of serious and imminent danger in the workplace. In this case the employer had carried out an external risk assessment and followed the government guidance that was in place at the time around social distancing and hand-washing. The workplace was large and had a relatively small number of employees, so social distancing was possible, as Mr Rodgers accepted. Employees had been reminded about the importance of not congregating during breaks and of regular hand washing. The employer made masks available.

In the circumstances the employee’s reason for refusing to work was not directly linked to his working conditions but to the situation at large. He did not have a reasonable belief that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger in the workplace so his claim failed.
 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hogan Lovells | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hogan Lovells
Contact
more
less

Hogan Lovells on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.