Personal assistant who refused to attend work during lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A personal assistant with 11 years' service was constructively dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown. The tribunal awarded her over £115,000 in total.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a personal assistant for two separate employers, the first and second respondents.
- She raised health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown due to Covid-19 risks.
- The first respondent insisted she attend work, leading to her resignation and a finding of constructive unfair dismissal.
- The first respondent subjected her to detriments for making protected disclosures and health and safety complaints.
- The second respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant by issuing a P45 without informing her.
- The claimant was awarded a total of £94,291.51 from the first respondent and £20,950.04 from the second respondent.
Timeline
-
Started work as PA
Claimant began working as a personal assistant for the two respondents and Mr Mana.
-
First national lockdown
Claimant worked remotely during the first lockdown; second respondent stopped paying wages.
-
First email raising concerns
Claimant emailed first respondent proposing to continue working from home due to Covid-19 risks.
-
Second email refusing to attend
Claimant emailed first respondent stating she would not attend work during the November lockdown.
-
First respondent's critical email
First respondent emailed claimant, criticising her work quality and implying pay could be reduced.
-
Claimant resigned from first respondent
Claimant sent resignation letter to first respondent, citing health and safety concerns and breach of trust.
-
First respondent demanded resignation from second respondent
First respondent emailed claimant demanding she also resign from second respondent's employment.
-
First respondent accused claimant of malingering
First respondent emailed claimant accusing her of unprofessional conduct and threatening legal action.
-
Claimant discovered P45
Claimant learned from HMRC that a P45 had been issued for her employment with second respondent.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found first respondent liable for constructive unfair dismissal, detriments, and automatic unfair dismissal; second respondent liable for unfair dismissal.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal ordered first respondent to pay £94,291.51 and second respondent to pay £20,950.04.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of both respondents, whether she made protected disclosures and health and safety complaints, and whether she was unfairly dismissed or subjected to detriments as a result.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the first respondent (Mr A Goldstein) constructively dismissed the claimant and subjected her to detriments for raising Covid-19 safety concerns. The second respondent (Mr V Sareen) also unfairly dismissed her by issuing a P45 without notice.
Compensation awarded:
- From first respondent: £94,291.51 (including basic award £13,481.60, compensatory award £66,772.23, and other sums)
- From second respondent: £20,950.04 (including arrears of wages and notice pay)
- Total: £115,241.55
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns about attending work during a pandemic may be protected from detriment and dismissal.
- Constructive dismissal can arise when an employer's conduct, such as criticising work quality or threatening pay cuts, forces an employee to resign.
- Employers should not issue a P45 without informing the employee, as this can constitute unfair dismissal.
- Long-serving employees (11 years in this case) are entitled to a fair process before any dismissal-related actions.
A pandemic dilemma
When the November 2020 lockdown began, a personal assistant with 11 years' service emailed her employer to say she would not attend work due to Covid-19 risks. She had already worked remotely during the first lockdown and believed the office was unsafe. Instead of engaging with her concerns, her employer responded with criticism of her work quality and a veiled threat about pay. Within days, she resigned, citing a breach of trust.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal ruled that the first respondent had subjected the claimant to detriments for making protected disclosures and health and safety complaints. His emails demanding she resign from her other job and accusing her of malingering were found to be retaliatory. The second respondent also unfairly dismissed her by issuing a P45 without telling her, effectively ending her employment without any process.
What could have been done differently
The first respondent could have taken the claimant's safety concerns seriously and agreed to remote working or conducted a risk assessment. Instead, his hostile response forced her to resign. The second respondent could have simply informed the claimant before issuing a P45, avoiding the finding of unfair dismissal.
Why this matters
This case shows that employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns during a pandemic are protected by law. Employers who retaliate—whether by threats, criticism, or withholding pay—risk significant compensation awards. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting concerns and seeking legal advice if faced with pressure to work in unsafe conditions.
Similar cases
Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.
Former employee wins notice pay claim but loses whistleblowing case
A former employee who raised health and safety concerns was awarded £2,953.39 for breach of contract after being dismissed without notice, but the tribunal rejected his whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims.
Sales promoter who quit over volunteering scheme loses constructive dismissal claim
A sales promoter with six years' service resigned the day before a disciplinary hearing after refusing to take part in a volunteering scheme. The tribunal found no constructive dismissal and no unauthorised deduction from wages.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.