Warehouse operative dismissed for not wearing face covering: dismissal fair
A warehouse operative who refused to wear a face covering during the pandemic was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #face-covering
- #gross-misconduct
- #health-and-safety
- #ppe
- #visor-policy
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a warehouse operative and fork lift driver from 16 July 2016 until 9 November 2020.
- On 28 October 2020 the claimant was observed not wearing a face covering in the warehouse, contrary to the respondent's health and safety policy.
- The claimant had been aware of the requirement to wear a face covering since September 2020.
- The claimant stated he had breathing difficulties and had asked for a visor but was told medical evidence was required.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing on 6 November 2020.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a warehouse operative.
-
Furlough
Claimant placed on furlough due to COVID-19.
-
Return from furlough
Claimant returned to work.
-
Face covering mandate
Mandatory face covering policy introduced.
-
Canteen incident
Claimant challenged for not social distancing in canteen.
-
Failure to wear face covering
Claimant observed not wearing face covering; asked to report to office but did not attend; suspended.
-
Investigatory meeting
Meeting held; claimant said he had breathing difficulties and had asked for a visor.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Mr Silcox; claimant dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Styles; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct (failure to wear a face covering) and whether he was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not redundancy, and that DHL acted reasonably in treating the failure to wear a face covering as gross misconduct. The claimant's request for a visor did not excuse his refusal to comply with a clear policy, especially as he had not provided medical evidence to support his breathing difficulties.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for refusing to follow a clear health and safety policy, even if the employee requests an alternative, unless medical evidence supports the request.
- A claim that dismissal was actually redundancy will fail if the employer shows a genuine belief in misconduct and a reasonable investigation.
- Employees should provide medical evidence promptly if they seek an exemption from a workplace policy; a verbal claim of breathing difficulties is unlikely to be sufficient.
- Length of service (4 years) does not automatically make dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious and the process is reasonable.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how employment tribunals approach dismissals during the COVID-19 pandemic when employees refuse to comply with mandatory face-covering policies. The claimant, a warehouse operative with four years' service, was dismissed after he was seen not wearing a face covering in the warehouse. He argued that he had breathing difficulties and had asked for a visor instead, but did not provide medical evidence to support his request.
What the employer did right
DHL had introduced a clear policy requiring face coverings in September 2020. The claimant was aware of it. When he was observed not wearing one, the company suspended him, carried out an investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered his appeal. The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's failure to provide medical evidence for his breathing difficulties was a key factor.
Why the result matters
This decision confirms that tribunals will support employers who enforce health and safety policies consistently, even during a pandemic, provided they follow a fair process. Employees who seek an alternative to a workplace requirement must back up their request with medical evidence. The case also shows that a claim of unfair dismissal on the basis that the real reason was redundancy will fail if the employer can demonstrate a genuine belief in misconduct and a reasonable investigation.
Similar cases
Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.
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.
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 for refusing to wear a face covering: employer's instruction was reasonable
A production operative with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to wear a face covering during the pandemic, despite claiming an exemption. The tribunal upheld Jaguar Land Rover's decision.