Western Mail

Tribunal results for first Covid sackings

SHAREWATCH

- LAW & MORE

THE Covid-19 pandemic has been keeping HR profession­als and employment lawyers busy. We’ve been helping businesses get to grips with major change, including increased health and safety requiremen­ts in the workplace, working from home and the furlough scheme.

Employment tribunal claims brought by employees arising from things that happened in the early days of the pandemic are now reaching final hearings.

Employment tribunal decisions are not binding on subsequent cases, which means employment tribunals don’t have to follow previous decisions. However, in practice earlier decisions give a strong indication of how subsequent tribunals are likely to apply the law to similar facts.

In Kubilius v Kent Foods Limited, an employment tribunal held that an employer had fairly dismissed an employee who refused to wear a face mask when visiting a customer’s site.

AEROSPACE & DEFENCE Avon Rbbr ..................................... £31 7/8 BAE Systems ................................. 500 Chemring ....................................... 266 Meggitt ........................................... 457 1/4 Rolls-Royce .................................... 101 3/4 Senior .............................................. 105 3/4

AIM

600 Group ....................................... 11 1/2 Johnson Service Grp ................. 168 London Security .......................... £24 M”S Intl ........................................... 160 Mothercare ..................................... 16 Nichols ......................................... 1470 Youngs ......................................... 1380

BANKS

Barclays .......................................... 176 3/4 HSBC Hldgs ................................... 454 3/8 Lloyds Banking Gp ....................... 46 1/4 NatWest Group ............................ 199 1/4 Standard Chartered ................... 515

BEVERAGES

Barr (AG) ......................................... 511 Diageo ............................................ £32 3/8

CHEMICALS

Croda Internatio­nal .................... £68 5/8 Elementis 98 ................................. 143 1/2 Johnsn Mat ................................... £32 3/4

CONSTRUCTI­ON & MATERIALS Balfour Beatty .............................. 314 1/4 C”R”H .............................................. £36 1/8 Costain .............................................. 59 7/8 Marshalls ........................................ 718

ELECTRICIT­Y DraxGp .......................................... 4015/8 SSE ................................................ 1460 -1/4

+1/2 +2 1/4

+1/2 +1 3/4

+1/4 +8 3/4

-1/4 -5 -25

+5 7/8 +13 1/4 +1 1/8 +6 1/4 +10

-8 -1/8

+2 1/8 +2 1/8

+1/2

+2 +1 7/8 +7/8 -5

-5/8 +10

ELECTRONIC & ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Morgan Advanced ...................... 303 +5 Ox Instmts ..................................... £21 1/8 +1/4 Volex ................................................ 338

Mr Kubilius was employed as a delivery driver by Kent Foods and the majority of his work was travel to and from the Thames refinery site of Tate & Lyle. Kent required drivers to follow customer instructio­ns about PPE.

Tate required face masks to be worn and all visitors were issued with one on arrival. On May 21, 2020, despite being asked by two Tate employees, Mr Kubilius refused to wear a mask while he was in the cab of his vehicle. Tate reported the incident to Kent and banned Mr Kubilius from site.

Mr Kubilius was invited to a disciplina­ry hearing into the allegation that he had breached requiremen­ts to maintain good relationsh­ips with clients and to co-operate to ensure a safe

EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENT­S Aberdeen Div Inc & Gro Trust... 95 5/8 +3/8 Alliance Trust ................................ 976 +8 Dunedin Inv .................................. 312 1/2 +1/2 Edin Invst ....................................... 631 +8 Electra Private Equity ................ 510 -5 F&C Investment Trust ................ 843 Henderson Smllr Cos .............. 1234 North American Inc ................... 272 1/2 Scot Am .......................................... 483 Scottish Mortgage .................. 1236 Witan ............................................... 239 -14 +2 -2 +25 1/2

FIXED LINE TELECOMMUN­ICATIONS

BT Grp ............................................. 170 1/4 +2 1/4

FOOD & DRUG RETAILERS Morrison (WM) ............................ 176 3/4 Sainsbury ....................................... 246 Tesco ............................................... 224 3/4

FOOD PRODUCERS

AB Food .......................................... £23 1/8 Carrs Group ................................... 155 REA Hldgs ........................................ 53 1/2 TateLyle ......................................... 8031/4 Unilever .......................................... £42 1/4

GAS, WATER & MULTIUTILI­TIES Centrica ............................................ 56 1/8 National Grid ................................ 910 1/8 Pennon Grp ................................ 1034 Severn ............................................. £24 5/8 United Utils ................................... 966

GENERAL FINANCIAL

3i Group ...................................... 1235 1/2 Close Bros ................................... 1624 London StockExch ...................... £72 3/8 Man Group .................................... 166 ProvidentF­inancial .................... 2371/4 Schroders ...................................... £35 3/4 Schroders NV ................................ £26

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL­S Smith (DS) ..................................... 425 1/8 Smiths Grp ................................. 1612 1/2

+2 1/2 +7 3/8 +2 5/8

+1/4 +1 1/4

+5 1/4 +1/8

-5/8 -5 1/4 +3

+1

+9 1/2 +26 +3/4 -2 1/8 -3/4 +3/8 -1/4

+6 1/4 +23 1/2 working environmen­t. Mr Kubilius was summarily dismissed.

An employment tribunal held that the dismissal had been fair.

Kent had carried out a reasonable investigat­ion into the facts (which were largely not in dispute) and had a genuine belief that Mr Kubilius had been guilty of misconduct. It had acted reasonably in treating that misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

In Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd, a tribunal found that the dismissal of an employee who told his manager he would not return to work until after lockdown because he feared he would infect his children with Covid-19, was not automatica­lly unfair.

Mr Rodgers messaged his manager

GENERAL RETAILERS Dixons Carphone ........................ 141 3/4 Inchcape ........................................ 7931/2 Kingfisher ...................................... 3673/4 M&S ............................................... 157 Next ................................................. £81 1/4 WH Smith ................................... 1868 1/2 +2 7/8 +10 1/2 +10 3/4 +3/4 +1 7/8 +50

HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT & SERVICES Smith Nph .................................. 1539 1/2 +4 1/2

HOUSEHOLD GOODS Barratt Devel ................................ 765 5/8 Bellway ........................................... £36 1/8 Persimmon .................................... £31 1/4 Reckitt Benckiser ........................ £64 5/8 Taylor Wimpey ............................. 180

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERIN­G I”M”I .............................................. 1622 Molins ............................................. 158 Renold .............................................. 25 Spirax-Sarco ............................... £120 1/4 Weir Grp ...................................... 1902

INDUSTRIAL METALS Ferrexpo ......................................... 452 3/8

+10 1/4 +3/4 +5/8 +1/4 +6 3/8

+1/4 +2 5/8 +49 1/2

INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTA­TION Signature Avi ................................ 402

LIFE INSURANCE Aviva ................................................ 403 5/8 Lgl & Gen ....................................... 273 3/4 Prudential ................................... 1532 1/2 Standard Life Aberdeen ........... 273 1/2

MEDIA

Daily Mail & Gen Tst ................... 904 ITV .................................................... 127 1/2 Pearson ........................................... 807 3/8 Reach .............................................. 220 RELX .............................................. 1885 1/2 STV Group ..................................... 355 WPP ................................................. 998

+33

+7 5/8 -1 1/4

+9 5/8 +3 3/4 +17 +3 3/4

+19 +3 1/8 +14 +1 +27 1/2

+26 1/4

MINING

Anglo American .......................... £32 3/4 Antofagast­a ............................... 1895 1/2 BHP Group .................................... £23 Fresnillo .......................................... 853 Kaz Minerals ................................. 849 1/4 Rio Tinto ......................................... £64 1/8 on March 29, 2020, to state he would be staying away “until the lockdown has eased” because he was worried about infecting his vulnerable children (a baby and a child with sickle-cell anaemia). He was dismissed.

Mr Rodgers did not have the two years’ service required to claim ordinary unfair dismissal. Instead, he alleged that he had been automatica­lly unfairly dismissed for exercising his rights under sections 100(1)(d) and (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provide employees with protection from dismissal for exercising their rights to leave the workplace and take steps to protect themselves where they reasonably believe there is serious and imminent danger.

The tribunal found that a reasonable belief in serious and imminent workplace danger had to be judged on what was known when the acts took place. On the facts, such a belief could not be establishe­d, and the claim failed.

Despite Mr Rodgers’ concern about +1 7/8 +41 +1 1/8 +1 5/8 +1/4 +2 7/8

MOBILE TELECOMMUN­ICATIONS Vodafone Group ......................... 140 1/2 +2 3/4

NONLIFE INSURANCE AdmiralGrp .................................. £311/8 Marsh McL ..................................... £98 3/8 RSA Ins Gp ..................................... 683 1/4

OIL & GAS PRODUCERS BP ..................................................... 318 1/2 Cairn Energy ................................. 177 1/4 Premier Oil ...................................... 21 1/4 Royal Dutch Shell A ................. 1407 3/8 Royal Dutch Shell B ................. 1334 1/4 Total ................................................. £33 5/8 Tullow Oil ......................................... 56

OIL EQUIPMENT & SERVICES Petrofac .......................................... 128 3/4 Wood Gp(J) ................................... 274 3/4

PERSONAL GOODS Burberry Gp .................................. £21 3/8 PZ Cussons .................................... 257 +1 1/4 +3/8

+8 3/8 +2 +1 +25 3/4 +26 +1 1/8 +2

+1/2 -3 1/2

+5/8 -9

PHARMACEUT­ICALS & BIOTECHNOL­OGY Astrazenec­a .................................. £76 3/4 +1/2 GlaxoSmith­Kline ...................... 1339 5/8 +7 3/8

REAL ESTATE

Brit Land ......................................... 520 3/4 Hammerson .................................... 38 1/2 Land Securities ............................ 718 5/8 SEGRO ............................................. 999 3/4

-3 -7/8 -12 5/8 -8 3/4

SOFTWARE & COMPUTER SERVICES Computacen­ter ........................... £26 1/2 -1/8 Sage Group ................................... 634 +8

SUPPORT SERVICES Bunzl ............................................... £23 1/4 Capita ................................................ 42 1/2 De La Rue ....................................... 176 1/4 Elctro Com .................................. 1063 Electrocom­p .............................. 1063 Experian ......................................... £27 3/4 G4S ................................................... 245 1/4 Hays ................................................. 161 1/4 Homeserve ................................. 1090 Menzies J ....................................... 312 Redde Northgate ........................ 250 Rentokil .......................................... 486 Smiths News ................................... 39 1/2 Travis & P ..................................... 1578

TOBACCO

Br Am Tob ...................................... £27 1/8 Imperial Brands ........................ 1538

TRAVEL & LEISURE Carnival ....................................... 1624 5/8 Compass Grp ............................. 1558 1/2 easyJet ......................................... 1017 1/2 FirstGroup ....................................... 74 3/4 Go-Ahead Gp ............................ 1218 Intercontl Htls .............................. £50 7/8 Intl Cons Airl ................................. 203 1/4 Marston’s .......................................... 96 1/2 Mitchells & Butlers ...................... 316 1/4 Natl Express .................................. 296 Rank Org ........................................ 195 Restaurant Grp ............................ 125 Ryanair ......................................... 1434 3/8 Stagecoach Group ....................... 86 1/4 Whitbread ..................................... £32 1/4 +1/8 -5/8 -2 1/4 +4 +4 +3/8 +1/2 +1/2 +3 -2

-1 3/4 +1 1/8 +60 3/8

TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE & EQUIPMENT IBM ................................................ £104 1/4 -1/2 Spirent Comms ............................ 250 5/8 +1 5/8 +1

+18 3/4 +7 1/2 -22 +5/8 -15 +3/8 -3/8 +3/4 -5/8 -1 1/4 -1 1/4 +3 +6 7/8 -1 1/2 +1/4

INDEX

FTSE 100 ......................... 7039.30 +116.13 FTSE 250 ....................... 22385.90 +55.86

Covid-19, he had breached self-isolation guidance to drive a friend to hospital the day after leaving work. (In his decision the employment judge notes that he found Mr Rodgers’ case confusing and his views apparently contradict­ory at times.)

Mr Rodgers’ message to his boss did not mention concerns about workplace danger and he could not show there had been any such danger. In March 2020, UK Government safety guidance advised hand washing and social distancing and the employer had implemente­d both of these.

Mr Rodgers had not taken any steps to avert danger or raised concerns with his manager before absenting himself from work.

Of course, a very important factor in this case was that the employer had followed UK Government guidance in place at that time to protect health and safety. Had the employer been unable to demonstrat­e this, the decision could have been very different.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? > A worker was dismissed for refusing to wear a face mask
> A worker was dismissed for refusing to wear a face mask
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom