Assistant Manager with 6 months' service loses automatic unfair dismissal claim over Covid shielding
A Betfred assistant manager who refused to return to work claiming he needed to shield his father was dismissed after 6 months. The tribunal rejected his automatic unfair dismissal claim, finding his refusal was motivated by a pay dispute, not a genuine belief in danger.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #shielding
- #gp-letter
- #automatic-unfair-dismissal
- #section-100
- #qualifying-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Assistant Manager from 1 February 2020 to 15 August 2020.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous service, so could only claim automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA.
- The claimant provided a GP letter stating he needed to shield to protect his father from 12 June to 1 August 2020.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not living with his father and did not genuinely believe there was serious and imminent danger.
- The claimant's refusal to return to work was due to a pay dispute, not a genuine belief in danger.
- The respondent did not adequately address the GP letter or explain safety measures.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Assistant Manager at Betfred.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was placed on furlough due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
-
Attempted contact with Julie Addison
Claimant attempted to call Julie Addison but did not leave a message.
-
Father attacked
Claimant's father was attacked, sustaining fractures.
-
Expected return to work
Claimant was expected to return from furlough but did not attend.
-
Letter from Ryan Webster
Respondent wrote to claimant asking him to make contact.
-
Claimant emailed Cathy Kilner
Claimant explained his father's situation and said he had spoken to Julie Addison (which was incorrect).
-
Second letter from respondent
Respondent warned claimant that failure to contact could lead to termination.
-
Email exchange
Claimant indicated he might return to work on 4 July 2020. Respondent requested medical evidence.
-
GP letter provided
Claimant provided a GP letter stating he needed to shield to protect his father until 1 August 2020.
-
Respondent's response to GP letter
Respondent told claimant he was not eligible for furlough and placed him on unpaid sick leave.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent upheld its position that claimant was not entitled to furlough pay.
-
Final warning
Respondent required claimant to report for work on 15 August 2020 or be deemed to have resigned.
-
Claimant's email
Claimant stated he would not return until paid properly, citing a pay dispute.
-
Employment ended
Claimant did not attend work and was treated as having resigned.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and other payments.
-
Initial strike-out
Employment Judge Lewis struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of qualifying service.
-
Reinstatement of claim
Employment Judge Lewis reinstated the automatic unfair dismissal claim.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
Substantive hearing commenced via CVP.
-
Final hearing (day 2) and judgment
Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
Whether the assistant manager was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(d) or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for refusing to attend work due to a belief in serious and imminent danger from Covid-19, given he had less than two years' service.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The key reason was that the assistant manager did not genuinely believe there was serious and imminent danger to himself or his father. The tribunal found his refusal to return to work was motivated by a dispute over pay, not a genuine concern about Covid-19. He had provided a GP letter recommending shielding, but the tribunal noted he was not living with his father and had not maintained a genuine belief in danger. No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service can still claim automatic unfair dismissal if the reason relates to health and safety, but must show a genuine belief in serious and imminent danger.
- A GP letter recommending shielding is not enough on its own; the employee must actually believe there is a real danger and act on that belief.
- If an employee's refusal to work is primarily about pay or other grievances, it will not be protected under health and safety dismissal law.
- Employers should still engage with medical evidence and explain safety measures, even if the employee's motive is later found to be different.
This case shows the limits of protection for employees who refuse to work during the pandemic. The assistant manager had only six months' service, so he could only claim automatic unfair dismissal under health and safety law. He argued that he needed to shield his father, providing a GP letter. However, the tribunal found that his real reason for not returning was a dispute over pay, not a genuine fear of Covid-19.
What the employer could have done differently
Betfred did not handle the situation perfectly. They failed to properly address the GP letter or explain the safety measures in place. However, because the tribunal found the employee's motive was not genuine, these failures did not make the dismissal unfair. The employer's process was not the deciding factor.
Why the result matters
The case reinforces that the automatic unfair dismissal protection under section 100 requires a genuine belief in danger. Employees cannot rely on a medical recommendation if their own actions show a different priority. For those considering a similar claim, the key is to demonstrate that the fear of danger was the real reason for refusing to work, not a secondary grievance.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Dismissed after requesting to work from home during lockdown: a redundancy sham
A contract manager who asked to work from home temporarily because his son was clinically vulnerable was dismissed for purported redundancy. The tribunal found the real reason was his home-working request and awarded £38,758.
Support worker dismissed for protecting himself from aggressive service user: automatic unfair dismissal
A support worker who used physical force to free himself from a service user who grabbed him was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found the principal reason was his health and safety actions, not misconduct.