Warehouse assistant who refused to return over Covid fears loses whistleblowing claim
A part-time warehouse assistant who refused to return to work due to Covid-19 safety concerns has lost his claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment against the British Heart Foundation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #health-and-safety
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #whistleblowing
- #quarantine-procedures
- #refusal-to-return
Key facts
- The claimant returned to work on 17 July 2020 before his shielding period ended.
- On 3 August 2020, the quarantine system at Brixton was not functioning properly and volunteers were not wearing full PPE.
- The claimant left work on 3 August 2020 and never returned.
- The respondent took steps to address the claimant's concerns, including diverting donations to Kingston for quarantine and offering redeployment.
- The claimant refused to return to work even after being offered a temporary transfer to Old Kent Road.
- The claimant was dismissed on 22 September 2020 for some other substantial reason (refusal to return to work).
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a part-time warehouse assistant at Brixton.
-
Shops closed due to Covid-19
The respondent closed its shops due to the pandemic.
-
Claimant furloughed
Claimant was furloughed and advised to shield due to COPD.
-
Claimant returned to work
Claimant returned to work before his shielding period ended.
-
Conversation with Mr Wendels
Claimant expressed concerns about Covid-19 risk; Mr Wendels explained procedures and offered shop floor work, which claimant declined.
-
Conversation with Ms Tiruwa
Claimant raised concerns about bay signage; Ms Tiruwa agreed to improvements.
-
Conversation with Ms Tiruwa
Claimant expressed concerns about volunteers not complying with training.
-
Meeting with Ms Tiruwa
Claimant and Ms Tiruwa agreed on changes to quarantine bays.
-
Claimant left work
Claimant observed quarantine system not working and volunteers without PPE; he left work and emailed concerns.
-
Telephone call with Mr Wendels
Claimant refused offer to work on shop floor; said he would return if stock quarantined elsewhere.
-
New quarantine system
Donations diverted to Kingston for quarantine.
-
Redeployment offer
Claimant offered temporary transfer to Old Kent Road; he declined.
-
Pay stopped
Respondent stopped paying claimant as he was not attending work.
-
Meeting with Mr Beaney
Claimant declined offer to inspect Brixton store.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for some other substantial reason (refusal to return to work).
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Prichard.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for leaving work or refusing to return due to health and safety concerns, and whether he suffered detriment or dismissal for making protected disclosures about Covid-19 risks.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the British Heart Foundation had acted reasonably. The claimant's concerns about Covid-19 were not considered protected disclosures because they were raised as personal worries rather than information in the public interest. The employer had taken steps to address the issues, including diverting donations for quarantine and offering redeployment. The claimant's refusal to return to work was therefore not a protected act, and his dismissal for some other substantial reason was fair.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, a concern must involve disclosing information that you reasonably believe is in the public interest, not just a personal worry.
- Employers who take reasonable steps to address health and safety concerns, such as offering alternative work, can defend against automatic unfair dismissal claims.
- Refusing to return to work without accepting reasonable alternatives may lead to fair dismissal for some other substantial reason.
- Claimants bringing whistleblowing claims should ensure they have clearly communicated information that tends to show a legal breach or danger to health and safety.
When Covid fears don't amount to whistleblowing
This case shows the fine line between raising a genuine health and safety concern and making a protected disclosure. The claimant, a part-time warehouse assistant with COPD, was worried about catching Covid-19 at work. He raised his concerns with managers and left the workplace when he felt safety procedures were not being followed. However, the tribunal found that his complaints were personal worries rather than disclosures of information made in the public interest.
What the employer did right
The British Heart Foundation did not ignore the claimant's concerns. They explained the procedures in place, offered him a role on the shop floor, and later diverted donations to another store for quarantine. When he still refused to return, they offered a temporary transfer to a different location. The tribunal noted that these were reasonable steps, and the claimant's refusal to accept any of them left the employer with no choice but to dismiss.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, the key lesson is that the content and context of the disclosure matter. Simply expressing fear or dissatisfaction is not enough — the information must be such that a reasonable person would believe it shows a legal breach or danger to health and safety, and that it is in the public interest. For employers, this case confirms that a fair process, including listening to concerns and offering alternatives, can protect against automatic unfair dismissal claims even in the sensitive context of the pandemic.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection upheld despite employee's COVID-19 safety disclosures
A structural fabricator who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was fairly selected for redundancy when his employer closed a business unit. The tribunal found no link between his disclosures and his dismissal.
Covid cleaning concerns: constructive unfair dismissal claim fails
A customer service specialist who resigned over Covid cleaning concerns lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no threat of disciplinary action and no protected disclosure.
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.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.