Court of Appeal rules on unfair dismissal case

Court of Appeal rules on unfair dismissal case where an employee refused to return to work during Covid-19.

In the case of Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cuttings, the Court of Appeal supports the decision made by the tribunal and the EAT that Rodgers was not automatically unfairly dismissed.

Rodgers had initially taken Leeds Laster Cuttings to tribunal over a claim of automatic unfair dismissal in early 2022.

During the first lockdown, Leeds Laser Cuttings had put provisions in place to ensure staff safety when returning to the workplace.

However, Rodgers stated that he would not return to work until the lockdown had eased, as he had concerns relating to his children.

After no contact between either party and still no return to work, Leeds Laser Cutting dismissed Rodgers a month later.

Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) refers to unfair dismissal in circumstances “where there is a reasonable belief of serious and imminent danger”.

The individual would not be able to reasonably avert this danger and could therefore leave their workplace in order to protect themselves.

Rodger’s tribunal claim was dismissed as Rodgers appeared to exhibit only general concerns around Covid-19.

Furthermore, he had been found to have breached self-isolation guidelines outside of work, and in his exchanges with his manager, he’d made no specific mentions of dangers/risks in the workplace.

He had also continued to work at a pub during this time.

Leeds Laser Cutting had also taken clear precautions in response to Covid-19 since the start of the lockdown.

They had conducted risk assessments and put a series of measures in place to ensure the safety of their employees, such as staggered start/finish times, providing masks, and facilitating social distancing.

Rodgers later appealed to the EAT, which was also dismissed.

The EAT did not consider the refusal to return to work an appropriate step under section 100 of the ERA.

Based on the evidence, they did not find that Rodgers reasonably believed that there was serious or imminent danger at work, or that his concerns around Covid-19 were workplace-specific.

Finally, Rodgers took the case to the Court of Appeal, who also ruled in support of the tribunal and EAT.

The Court of Appeal made its decision based on the following: (i) whether the belief of danger was reasonable and specific to the workplace, (ii) whether they left and/or refused to attend work due to this danger, (iii) whether it could have been reasonably averted, and (iv) whether this was the main reason for dismissal.

This case is an interesting one, particularly as it is the first case relating to Covid-19 and s.100 of the ERA that has reached the Court of Appeal.

It shows that once reasonable steps have been put in place, it is difficult for an employee to argue that the workplace is unsafe.