Butcher dismissed for attending work after positive COVID test: dismissal unfair but compensation cut by 75%
A butcher with 12 years' service was summarily dismissed for coming to work after testing positive for COVID-19. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but reduced compensation by 75% for contributory fault.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a butcher from 1 November 2009 to 4 January 2022.
- The claimant tested positive for COVID-19 on 25 December 2021 but came to work on 29 December 2021.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant summarily on 4 January 2022 without following any disciplinary procedure.
- The claimant was not provided with a written statement of employment particulars or itemised pay slips.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but reduced compensation by 75% for contributory fault.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a butcher for Bicks Chicks Ltd.
-
Children started nursery
Claimant's twins started attending nursery on extended hours, allowing him to increase his working hours.
-
Returned to full-time hours
Claimant increased his hours from 0600-1130 to 0600-1400.
-
Tested positive for COVID-19
Claimant tested positive for COVID-19 on Christmas Day.
-
Tested negative for COVID-19
Claimant tested negative on Boxing Day and had no symptoms.
-
Attended work
Claimant went to work despite having tested positive four days earlier. He informed colleagues he had tested positive.
-
Sent positive test results
Claimant sent three positive COVID-19 test results to Terry Davies and was advised to come in at 1am.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on the spot without any formal disciplinary process.
-
Mitigated loss
Claimant found new employment, mitigating his loss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's summary dismissal for attending work after testing positive for COVID-19 was fair, and whether the claimant contributed to his dismissal by failing to follow self-isolation guidelines.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because Bicks Chicks Ltd dismissed the claimant on the spot without any investigation or disciplinary process. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal by attending work while he knew he should have been self-isolating.
Compensation was reduced by 75% for contributory fault:
- Basic award: £1,200.00
- Compensatory award: £258.21
- Failure to provide employment particulars: £200.47
- Balance of notice pay: £543.69
- Total: £2,202.37
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary procedure before dismissing an employee, even if the employee's conduct appears to justify summary dismissal.
- Employees who breach COVID-19 self-isolation rules may be found to have contributed to their dismissal, significantly reducing compensation.
- Long-serving employees (12 years) are entitled to a proper process; a 'knee-jerk' dismissal is likely to be unfair.
- Failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars or itemised pay slips can result in additional compensation of up to 4 weeks' pay.
A dismissal that was procedurally unfair but not without fault
This case shows how a clear breach of COVID-19 rules by an employee does not give an employer carte blanche to dismiss without a fair process. The claimant, a butcher with 12 years' service, tested positive for COVID-19 on Christmas Day 2021. Despite this, he returned to work on 29 December and told colleagues he had tested positive. The employer dismissed him on the spot on 4 January 2022, without any investigation or disciplinary hearing.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to follow any procedure. Even if the employer believed the claimant had acted irresponsibly, the law requires a reasonable investigation and a fair process. The employer's failure to attend the hearing or provide a proper defence only worsened its position.
What the employer could have done differently
Had Bicks Chicks Ltd carried out a basic investigation and given the claimant a chance to explain, the outcome might have been different. The claimant had tested negative on Boxing Day and had no symptoms, which might have been a mitigating factor. A fair process could have led to a lawful dismissal or a lesser sanction.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that even in the context of a public health emergency, employment rights still apply. Employees who breach rules may face consequences, but employers must follow the law. The 75% reduction for contributory fault shows that the tribunal took the claimant's conduct seriously, but the procedural failings meant the employer could not escape a finding of unfair dismissal.
The additional awards for failure to provide a written statement and pay slips highlight that basic employment obligations cannot be ignored. For employees considering a similar claim, this case illustrates that while a dismissal may be unfair, your own conduct can significantly affect the compensation you receive.
Similar cases
Hotel manager dismissed for being drunk at work: unfair dismissal but no compensation due to 100% contributory fault
A hotel manager was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct after being drunk on the premises, but the tribunal found she was 100% to blame, awarding only £1,076 for the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.
Swimming teachers dismissed after furlough dispute: a conduct dismissal that went wrong
A tribunal found that Achieve Lifestyle Ltd unfairly dismissed two swimming teachers after a dispute over furlough pay, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for one teacher with breast cancer.