Dismissed for refusing to sanitise hands: a conduct decision that was fair but breached contract
A factory operative was fairly dismissed for refusing to sanitise her hands during COVID-19, but the tribunal found the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct, entitling her to notice pay.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #hand-sanitisation
- #refusal-to-comply
- #occupational-health
- #race-discrimination
- #disability-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a factory operative from 20 August 2018 until dismissal on 5 November 2020.
- On 28 October 2020, the claimant refused to sanitise her hands when asked by manager Angela Moreira.
- CCTV showed the claimant did not sanitise her hands at the bottom or top of the stairs.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for unfair dismissal but was a breach of contract because the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct.
- The claimant's claims of race and disability discrimination were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started working directly for the respondent as a factory operative.
-
Assault incident
Claimant alleges she was assaulted in the factory yard, leading to health problems.
-
Grievance closed
Respondent closed the grievance about the December 2019 incident.
-
Second grievance raised
Claimant raised a further grievance about her treatment.
-
Sickness absence started
Claimant went off sick with anxiety and stress, returning on 1 August 2020.
-
Occupational health requested
Claimant first requested an occupational health appointment.
-
Cancelled OH appointment
Claimant cancelled the occupational health appointment scheduled for 15 September, citing annual leave.
-
Hand sanitisation incident
Claimant refused to sanitise her hands when asked by manager Angela Moreira; CCTV confirmed she had not sanitised.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal hearing with Victoria Brown; appeal refused after review of CCTV.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, whether the dismissal breached her contract, and whether she was discriminated against on grounds of race or disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. However, the tribunal upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, ruling that the refusal to sanitise hands did not amount to gross misconduct, so the claimant was entitled to one month's notice pay. All discrimination claims (race and disability) were dismissed.
- Notice pay: one month's salary (amount to be agreed by the parties)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that the disciplinary penalty matches the severity of the misconduct — not every breach of rules justifies summary dismissal.
- CCTV evidence can be decisive in conduct cases, but the employer must still consider whether the conduct amounts to gross misconduct under the contract.
- Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, but may still claim wrongful dismissal for breach of contract.
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward disciplinary matter can lead to a split outcome. The claimant, a factory operative with two years' service, was dismissed after refusing to sanitise her hands when asked by a manager. CCTV confirmed she had not sanitised at the required points. The employer treated this as gross misconduct and dismissed her summarily.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the dismissal was fair for the purposes of the unfair dismissal claim. The employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. However, the tribunal also found that the conduct — a single refusal to sanitise — did not amount to gross misconduct under the contract. The employer had therefore breached the contract by dismissing without notice, entitling the claimant to one month's notice pay.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the breach of contract claim by treating the incident as misconduct warranting a final written warning rather than summary dismissal. Alternatively, it could have made a payment in lieu of notice. The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between conduct that justifies dismissal and conduct that justifies notice pay.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even if a dismissal is fair for unfair dismissal purposes, you may still have a claim for wrongful dismissal if the employer fails to give proper notice. For employers, it underscores the need to assess whether the misconduct is truly 'gross' before dismissing without notice. The discrimination claims were dismissed, showing that not every disciplinary outcome linked to a protected characteristic will succeed without evidence of less favourable treatment.
Similar cases
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.
Traffic engineer dismissed after long-term sickness: capability decision upheld
A traffic engineer with PTSD and chronic pain was fairly dismissed for capability after years of sickness absence and negligible work output, the Watford tribunal has ruled.
Porter dismissed for refusing health screening: employer's decision upheld
A porter who refused blood tests and vaccinations required by the hospital trust was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled, finding Serco acted reasonably.
Redundancy selection after a workplace injury: when a fair process can still lead to dismissal
A Food and Beverage Assistant who fractured his hip at work and was later made redundant during the pandemic has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair and that his disability was not the reason for his selection.