Manager wins £12,000 after he refused to break lockdown rules

A “HIGH-PERFORMING” manager at a Scottish recycling firm has won his case for constructive dismissal against an employer who was “overtly critical” of the government’s national lockdown.

Alex Cannon, a former warehouse boss at Re-tek UK Ltd in East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, has been awarded almost £12,000 by an employment tribunal in a row over home working.

Mr Cannon refused to go into the office when the business closed for two months from March 20, 2020, during the first national Covid-19 lockdown.

He told his employers he wanted to adhere to the government’s strict work from home directive and avoid risking the health of his elderly father and severely disabled son.

He claimed the chairman of the firm, Kevin Culligan, resented his approach and this led to a dramatic change in how he was treated by his employers when he returned to the office.

The tribunal was shown a staff email from Mr Culligan that was “overtly critical of the government’s national lockdown strategy.”

Mr Cannon was said to be a high-performing employee, reflected in bonuses allocated to him each year.

In 2018 and 2019 he received £5,000 for “exceptional performance”.

He was responsible for placing staff on furlough and a dispute arose over whether this applied to him. He said he was continuing to work from home but his employer disagreed.

The hearing was told that during his period of absence from the workplace he continued to carry out duties, including devising a shift pattern for the return of skeleton staff in May 2020.

This was accepted by employment judge Ronald Mackay.

Mr Cannon said his relationship with his employer changed when he returned to the work depot in July 2020 and he went from having almost daily verbal communication with Mr Culligan to “almost none”.

He claimed that when his father died his employer did not acknowledge it and failed to express any condolences.

Evidence was heard from Mr Culligan, managing director Gordon Lowrie and Natalie Hunter, an external personnel consultant.

The hearing heard that Mr Lowrie told Mr Cannon on “a number of occasions” that Mr Culligan wanted “rid of him”.

In September 2020, the warehouse manager discovered his pay had been reduced from 37 hours per week to 35 hours without any discussion or consultation.

He also saw a “substantial reduction” in bonus payments, receiving £750 in December of that year.

The hearing was told duties he had previously been responsible for were taken off him, including staff appraisals that were carried out that month.

Mr Cannon discovered in May last year he had been awarded scores of three and two “retrospectively”, representing mediocre or below average performance, despite continuing to hit all his targets. He challenged this but was given no explanation for the low grades.

The hearing concluded there was “nothing to suggest he was performing inadequately”.

The claimant was described as a”credible and reliable witness.”

During the course of his employment, Mr Cannon had discussions about obtaining shares in the firma and it was agreed in 2016, that he should be allocated 5 per cent.

In December 2020, he was advised by Mr Lowrie this would no longer be happening.

He was invited to a meeting in

April 2021 and told that responsibility for the management of 15 warehouse staff and service delivery was being transferred to another manager.

He was signed off work for stress and later resigned from the firm.

The tribunal ruled the company had breached Mr Cannon’s contract and he was awarded £11, 935.

The judgment states: “A distinct change in approach to the claimant arose following the Covid shutdown. The claimant clearly found it a difficult decision and regretted leaving a role which prior to the pandemic he had enjoyed, and in which he had performed very successfully.”

A distinct change in approach to the claimant arose following the Covid shutdown