Cleaner dismissed for refusing to move school after Covid safety row: partial win
A cleaner and catering assistant who refused a transfer after raising Covid safety concerns was unfairly dismissed from one role but fairly dismissed from another. She was awarded £551.53.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #health-and-safety-concerns
- #whistleblowing
- #gross-misconduct
- #reinstatement-offer-refused
Key facts
- The claimant was employed under two separate contracts as a Cleaner and a Catering Assistant.
- She raised health and safety concerns about Covid-19 measures and her supervisor's conduct.
- After a verbal altercation with her supervisor on 20 July 2020, she was moved to a different school.
- She refused to attend the new cleaning location and was dismissed for gross misconduct.
- Her appeal against dismissal was upheld and she was reinstated, but she refused to return to work.
- The tribunal found her first dismissal from the Catering Assistant role unfair, but all other dismissals fair.
Timeline
-
Started as Catering Assistant
Claimant began employment as a Catering Assistant for Hartlepool Borough Council.
-
Started as Cleaner
Claimant began employment as a Cleaner, initially assigned to St Joseph's RC Primary School.
-
Returned from sick leave
Claimant returned to work after surgery and recovery, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
-
Raised concerns with Team Leader
Claimant called Ms Lilley to report health and safety concerns about her supervisor Ms Cotson.
-
Verbal altercation with supervisor
Claimant confronted Ms Cotson, called her a 'slimeball', and was asked to leave site by Ms Lilley.
-
Instructed to move to Kingsley Primary
Mr Cuthbert wrote to claimant confirming she must move to Kingsley Primary School for cleaning duties.
-
Grievance hearing
Claimant attended a stage two grievance hearing, which upheld the decision to move her.
-
Suspended from both roles
Claimant was suspended pending investigation for failing to attend work and insubordination.
-
Dismissed from both roles
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct due to refusal to follow instructions.
-
Appeal upheld, reinstated
Appeal committee reinstated claimant to both roles, but she refused to accept the cleaning role at High Tunstall.
-
Second dismissal
Claimant was dismissed again after failing to accept reinstatement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissals were fair, and whether she suffered detriment or was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures or raising health and safety concerns.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal regarding her first Catering Assistant contract, but dismissed all other claims including detriment and automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.
- The claimant was awarded a Basic Award of £551.53.
- No compensatory award was made because the claimant refused reinstatement and failed to mitigate her loss.
- The tribunal found that the employer's decision to move her to a different school was reasonable given the breakdown in relationship, but the dismissal from the catering role was procedurally unfair as the employer did not consider alternatives.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising health and safety concerns does not give you an automatic right to refuse a reasonable management instruction.
- Employers must follow a fair procedure and consider alternatives before dismissing for conduct, especially when underlying grievances are involved.
- Refusing an offer of reinstatement can limit your compensation for unfair dismissal.
- Whistleblowing claims require the disclosure to be in the public interest and the detriment to be caused by that disclosure.
A dispute that spiralled
This case shows how a workplace conflict can escalate into multiple dismissals and legal claims. The claimant, a cleaner and catering assistant with five years' service, raised health and safety concerns about her supervisor's conduct during the pandemic. After a heated exchange where she called her supervisor a 'slimeball', she was moved to a different school. She refused to attend the new location, leading to her dismissal for gross misconduct.
What went wrong for the employer
The tribunal found that the first dismissal from the catering assistant role was unfair. The employer had not properly considered the claimant's health and safety concerns before deciding to move her. A fair investigation might have found that the concerns were genuine, and a less drastic alternative could have been explored. However, the tribunal also noted that the claimant's refusal to follow a reasonable instruction was serious, and the subsequent dismissals were fair.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of fair procedure, even when an employee's behaviour is difficult. Employers should take health and safety concerns seriously and consider alternatives before resorting to dismissal. For employees, raising concerns is protected, but it does not justify refusing all instructions. The outcome also shows that refusing reinstatement can significantly reduce compensation.
Similar cases
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: dismissal upheld
A night care assistant who was found asleep on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.