Covid concerns dismissal: employee lost automatic unfair dismissal claim but won notice pay
A plumbing engineer who was dismissed after raising concerns about his son's vulnerability to Covid-19 lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim but won £1,849 for breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a plumbing gas and heating engineer from 1 May 2019 to 22 May 2020.
- The claimant was placed on furlough from 29 March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant raised concerns about his son's vulnerability to COVID-19 during a meeting on 21 May 2020.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 22 May 2020, citing inability to accommodate his personal needs.
- The tribunal found the claimant did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of danger.
- The claimant was awarded £1,849.20 for breach of contract in respect of notice.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a plumbing gas and heating engineer.
-
Furlough started
Claimant placed on furlough due to COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Spire hospital job
Claimant worked at Spire hospital after expressing initial worry about COVID-19 but was reassured by Mr Hancox.
-
Back to Work advice issued
Respondent issued written advice on safety measures including PPE and social distancing.
-
Telephone conversation
Claimant texted Mr Hancox asking to talk; tribunal found claimant did not raise health and safety concerns in the call.
-
Return to work meeting
Meeting held where claimant mentioned his son's vulnerability; Mr Hancox assured PPE availability.
-
Dismissal
Claimant sent WhatsApp saying he could not return until 1 June; respondent dismissed him by letter.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claim to employment tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal and detriment claims but awarded damages for breach of contract.
The legal issue
Whether the employee was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about Covid-19, and whether he was wrongfully dismissed without notice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment under sections 100 and 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employee had not reasonably believed there were circumstances of danger, and the employer's reason for dismissal was not the health and safety concerns.
However, the employer conceded it was not entitled to dismiss without notice. The employee was entitled to one month's notice, and the tribunal awarded £1,849.20 in damages for breach of contract.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in an automatic unfair dismissal claim for health and safety concerns, you must show you reasonably believed there were circumstances of danger.
- Employers must still give contractual or statutory notice even if they believe they have a reason to dismiss.
- Raising concerns about a family member's vulnerability may not be enough to trigger health and safety protections if the danger is not imminent or serious.
A case of Covid-19 concerns and dismissal
A plumbing gas and heating engineer with one year's service was dismissed after raising concerns about his son's vulnerability to Covid-19. The tribunal found that while the employee genuinely worried about his son, he did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of danger at work. The employer had provided PPE and a risk assessment, and the employee had previously worked at a hospital without incident.
The employee was placed on furlough in March 2020. When asked to return to work, he raised his concerns in a meeting on 21 May 2020. The employer dismissed him the next day, saying it could not accommodate his personal needs. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was not the health and safety concerns but the employee's inability to return to work as required.
What the employer did wrong
Although the employer succeeded in defending the automatic unfair dismissal claim, it made a critical error: it dismissed without notice. The employer conceded it was not entitled to summarily dismiss for gross misconduct, and the contract entitled the employee to one month's notice. The tribunal awarded £1,849.20 for breach of contract.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that raising concerns about a family member's health during a pandemic does not automatically trigger the strongest protections for health and safety dismissals. Employees must show a reasonable belief in danger at their own workplace. However, employers cannot skip notice periods, even if they feel the employee's requests are unreasonable. The award for notice pay was a small but important win for the employee.
Similar cases
Cleaner dismissed during Covid-19: employer's failure to respond leads to £2,719 payout
A part-time cleaner who was dismissed after asking to be furloughed has won her unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to submit a response to the tribunal.
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.
Bus driver's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims fail after resignation over unpaid leave
A bus driver who resigned after a dispute about unpaid leave and alleged unfair treatment during the pandemic has lost all his claims at an employment tribunal.
Pregnancy discrimination claim fails after nail technician resigned during furlough dispute
A nail technician who resigned after a disagreement over furlough pay lost her pregnancy discrimination claim. The tribunal found she was not dismissed but resigned voluntarily.