Security officer dismissed for attending work with Covid-19 symptoms wins unfair dismissal claim

A flawed process from the start

This case highlights how a rushed and biased disciplinary process can lead to an unfair dismissal, even when the underlying allegation is serious. The security officer, who had 14 years of unblemished service, was dismissed for attending work while waiting for a Covid-19 test result after developing a cough. However, the tribunal found that the cough was a side effect of his blood pressure medication, not a Covid-19 symptom. The employer's investigation assumed guilt from the outset, and the dismissing officer did not consider the claimant's explanation properly.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more balanced investigation. Instead of treating the claimant's attendance as an automatic breach of Covid-19 rules, they should have explored whether he genuinely believed he was symptom-free. The appeal process also failed: the appeal officer embellished evidence and did not correct the original defects. A fair process would have given the claimant a proper opportunity to respond and would have considered his long service and clean record.

Why this matters for similar claims

This decision reinforces that even in the context of a pandemic, employers must follow fair procedures. A dismissal based on a flawed investigation and a predetermined outcome will be found unfair, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. The 60% Polkey reduction reflects that the claimant might still have been dismissed if a fair process had been followed, but the employer's failures meant the dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. For employees, this case shows that a long service record and a lack of prior issues can strengthen a claim of unfair dismissal when the process is defective.