Covid-19 safety concerns: dismissal for refusing to attend work upheld
An installation engineer who refused to attend work over Covid-19 safety fears was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his disability discrimination claim as out of time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Installation Engineer from 5 March 2019 until his dismissal on 24 February 2021.
- The claimant is dyslexic, which the tribunal found to be a disability.
- The claimant raised health and safety concerns about Covid-19 risk assessments in November 2020 and refused to attend work.
- The respondent updated risk assessments and repeatedly invited the claimant to discuss his concerns, but he refused.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to persistent unauthorised absence and failure to follow management instructions.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims: disability discrimination was out of time, and the health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal claims failed on the merits.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an Installation Engineer for Lasyl Audio and Visual Ltd.
-
Alleged discriminatory remark
Claimant alleges Ms Adams made a remark about his emails relating to his dyslexia.
-
Self-isolation began
Claimant began self-isolating due to household contact with Covid-19.
-
Last day at work
Claimant attended work for the last time; had a heated conversation with store manager about Covid-19 safety.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant emailed a formal grievance raising concerns about risk assessments and stating he would not attend work until resolved.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent partially upheld grievance, updated risk assessments, and instructed claimant to return to work on 30 November.
-
Claimant refused to return
Claimant emailed stating he still considered it unsafe and would not return, citing s.44 ERA.
-
Tribunal claim submitted
Claimant submitted employment tribunal claim for disability discrimination and detriment.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to unauthorised absence and failure to follow management instructions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's disability discrimination claim was brought in time, and whether his health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal claims were well-founded, including whether he reasonably believed there were serious and imminent circumstances of danger from Covid-19.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims.
- The disability discrimination claim was out of time: the alleged remark about his dyslexia occurred in May 2019, and the claim was not submitted until December 2020, well beyond the three-month time limit.
- The health and safety detriment claim failed because the claimant did not have a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. The respondent had updated risk assessments and invited him to discuss his concerns, but he refused to engage.
- The unfair dismissal claim (under section 100 ERA) also failed. The dismissal for gross misconduct – persistent unauthorised absence and failure to follow instructions – was fair in all the circumstances.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict: you generally have three months minus one day from the act you are complaining about.
- If you raise health and safety concerns, you must engage with your employer's attempts to address them – refusing all communication can undermine your position.
- A genuine belief in danger is not enough; it must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
- Employers should document their risk assessments and communications clearly to show they have taken concerns seriously.
When safety fears lead to dismissal
This case shows the difficulties employees can face when they disagree with their employer's Covid-19 safety measures. The claimant, an installation engineer with two years' service, stopped attending work in November 2020 after raising concerns about risk assessments. He said he would not return until the issues were resolved. The employer updated the assessments and repeatedly asked him to come in to discuss them, but he refused.
What the employer did right
Lasyl Audio and Visual Ltd took the claimant's grievance seriously, partially upheld it, and made changes. They then gave clear instructions for him to return to work. When he continued to stay away, they followed a disciplinary process and dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found this was a reasonable response – the employer had done enough to address the safety concerns, and the claimant's continued absence was not justified.
Why the claims failed
The claimant's disability discrimination claim was out of time because the alleged remark about his dyslexia happened 18 months before he lodged his claim. His health and safety detriment claim failed because he did not have a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger – the employer had taken steps to reduce the risk. And his unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer acted reasonably in dismissing him for misconduct.
The case is a reminder that employees who raise safety concerns must still cooperate with their employer's reasonable attempts to resolve them. Simply refusing to attend work without engaging in the process is unlikely to be protected.
Similar cases
Clinically extremely vulnerable manager dismissed for refusing to return to unsafe office: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A branch manager with 12 years' service who was clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after his employer demanded he return to an office he considered unsafe. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was a sham.
Residential support worker dismissed for attending work with possible COVID-19 symptoms: dismissal fair
A residential support worker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attending work while possibly having COVID-19 symptoms. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.
Dismissed after absence management meetings: tribunal rejects disability discrimination claims
An employee with a mental health disability lost all claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination after the tribunal found the health board's absence management process was reasonable.
25-year employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after harassment allegations ruled out of time
A process controller with 25 years' service had his harassment claim struck out as too old, and his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after a full hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and any discrimination was justified.