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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #home-working
- #shielding
- #redundancy-sham
- #carer-responsibilities
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a contract manager from 11 December 2017 until 18 February 2021.
- The claimant's son is extremely clinically vulnerable, and the claimant requested to work from home temporarily during the January 2021 lockdown.
- The respondent refused the request and dismissed the claimant, purportedly for redundancy.
- The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's request to work from home, not redundancy.
- The respondent failed to follow any fair procedure before dismissal.
- The claimant mitigated his loss by setting up his own business, but the tribunal reduced the award by 20% for the chance he would have left employment earlier.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a contract manager with Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd.
-
Salary increase and notice period change
Claimant received a £10,000 salary increase and, according to the tribunal, a three-month notice period was agreed.
-
NHS shielding letter
Claimant's son deemed extremely clinically vulnerable; claimant advised to shield at home for 12 weeks.
-
First national lockdown
Claimant began working from home with employer's agreement.
-
Return to office work
Claimant returned to working at the respondent's office after furlough.
-
Request to work from home
Claimant requested to work from home temporarily due to new COVID-19 variant and his son's vulnerability.
-
Notice of redundancy
Respondent issued formal notice of redundancy, terminating employment on 18 February 2021.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated; he received a statutory redundancy payment of £1,614.
-
First COVID-19 vaccination
Claimant received his first COVID-19 vaccination.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found claimant was unfairly dismissed; remedy hearing ordered.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal awarded £38,758.80 compensation for unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key issue was whether the true reason for dismissal was redundancy (as the employer claimed) or the claimant's request to work from home during the pandemic, and whether the employer acted reasonably.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer claimed redundancy, but the tribunal concluded the real reason was the claimant's request to work from home temporarily due to his son's extreme clinical vulnerability during the January 2021 lockdown. The employer failed to follow any fair procedure, such as consultation or considering alternatives.
Compensation:
- Compensatory award: £38,758.80
- Polkey reduction: 20% (for the chance the claimant would have left employment earlier)
- Total award: £38,758.80
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly after making a reasonable request, the tribunal may look behind the stated reason to see if it is a sham.
- Employers must follow a fair procedure even in redundancy situations, including consultation and considering alternatives like home working.
- A Polkey reduction can apply if there is evidence the employee might have left employment anyway, reducing compensation.
- Having a vulnerable family member does not automatically protect you from dismissal, but it makes the employer's actions less reasonable if they refuse a temporary accommodation.
A reasonable request, a drastic response
During the January 2021 lockdown, a contract manager with three years' service asked his employer if he could work from home temporarily. His son was extremely clinically vulnerable, and the family had been shielding. The employer, Bridge Facilities Engineers Limited, refused the request and instead dismissed him, citing redundancy. The tribunal found this was a sham – the real reason was the home-working request.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have considered a temporary home-working arrangement, especially given the government guidance at the time. Instead, they jumped to redundancy without any consultation or exploration of alternatives. The tribunal noted that the claimant had successfully worked from home during the first lockdown, and the employer's claim that the office was essential was not convincing. A fair process would have included discussing options and giving the employee a chance to respond.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will scrutinise the real reason behind a dismissal, especially when it follows a reasonable request. Employers cannot hide behind redundancy as a cover for other motives. It also highlights the importance of following a fair procedure – even in a small business. The 20% Polkey reduction (for the chance the claimant would have left earlier) meant the award was reduced, but the total of £38,758 still reflected the unfairness.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Dismissed after a stroke: employer refused home working despite medical advice
A lettings manager who suffered a stroke was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to allow him to work from home. The tribunal awarded £27,664.
Dismissed for refusing to work from home during Covid: a conduct decision that went too far
A customer service advisor with Ménière's disease was unfairly dismissed after refusing to work from home when her face shield was banned. The tribunal reduced her compensation by 75% for her own conduct.