Partial win £27,871 awarded Employment Tribunal · 29 March 2023

Operations manager with asthma placed on short-time work during lockdown: constructive dismissal and disability discrimination

An operations manager with asthma was constructively dismissed after being placed on short-time work for raising health and safety concerns during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The tribunal awarded £27,871 in damages.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant started work as Office Manager in October 2019 and was promoted to Operations Manager in February 2020.
  • The claimant has asthma, which the tribunal found to be a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
  • On 17 March 2020, the claimant informed the respondent she was vulnerable due to asthma and requested to work from home.
  • The respondent allowed home working but on 25 March 2020 placed the claimant on short-time working of 8 hours per week.
  • The tribunal found the short-time working was a reaction to the claimant's health and safety concerns and her disability.
  • The claimant resigned on 11 May 2020 citing loss of trust and confidence.

Timeline

  1. Employment started

    Claimant started as Office Manager/Secretary at Demicon Ltd.

  2. Promotion to Operations Manager

    Claimant promoted to Operations Manager with additional health and safety responsibilities.

  3. Annual leave started

    Claimant went on annual leave, returning on 18 March 2020.

  4. Government announcement

    UK Government advised working from home where possible; claimant heard this while on holiday.

  5. Claimant emailed respondent

    Claimant informed respondent she was vulnerable due to asthma and requested to work from home.

  6. Meeting with director

    Claimant attended office, discussed working from home and raised health and safety concerns; respondent allowed home working.

  7. Lockdown announced

    Prime Minister announced stay-at-home order; only essential travel to work permitted.

  8. Placed on short-time working

    Respondent emailed claimant reducing her hours to 8 per week, effective 26 March 2020.

  9. Formal warning issued

    Claimant received a formal warning for submitting timesheets indicating availability to work.

  10. Resignation

    Claimant resigned, citing loss of trust and confidence due to respondent's conduct.

  11. Employment ended

    Claimant's notice period ended.

The outcome

The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of detriment for health and safety activities, discrimination arising from disability, breach of contract (constructive dismissal), and unauthorised deduction from wages.

  • The short-time working was a direct response to the claimant's health and safety concerns and her disability (asthma).
  • The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments or properly consider alternatives.
  • The claimant was awarded £27,871.03 in total damages, including compensation for injury to feelings and financial losses.

Lessons & takeaways

  • Employees with less than two years' service can still claim automatic unfair dismissal if the reason relates to health and safety or discrimination.
  • Placing an employee on short-time work because they raised health and safety concerns is likely to be seen as detrimental treatment.
  • Employers must consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, especially during a pandemic, before imposing changes to working hours.
  • A constructive dismissal claim can succeed even if the employee resigns shortly after the employer's conduct, provided trust and confidence are destroyed.

This case highlights the risks employers face when responding to an employee's health and safety concerns, particularly during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. The claimant, an operations manager with asthma, was placed on short-time work of just eight hours per week days after she requested to work from home due to her vulnerability. The tribunal found that this was not a neutral business decision but a reaction to her raising health and safety issues and her disability.

What the employer could have done differently

The respondent could have engaged with the claimant's concerns, considered alternative arrangements such as full-time home working, and explored whether her health and safety role could be performed remotely. Instead, they imposed a drastic reduction in hours without proper consultation, which the tribunal saw as a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. The respondent also issued a formal warning for submitting timesheets indicating availability, further undermining the relationship.

Why this result matters

This decision confirms that employees with less than two years' service are not left without protection if they are dismissed for raising health and safety concerns or because of disability. The tribunal applied the automatic unfair dismissal provisions under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which do not require a qualifying period. It also serves as a reminder that disability discrimination claims can succeed even in the early stages of employment, and that employers must take reasonable steps to avoid putting disabled employees at a disadvantage.

Similar cases