Handing over keys after lockdown refusal: words that amounted to dismissal
A studio sales administrator was unfairly dismissed when her employer asked for her keys after she refused to attend work during lockdown. The tribunal awarded £723, reduced by 50% for her own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19-lockdown
- #refusal-to-attend
- #keys-returned
- #contributory-conduct
- #lay-representation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a studio sales administrator from 3 January 2017 until 4 November 2020.
- On 4 November 2020, the day before a national lockdown, the respondent asked the claimant for her keys after she refused to attend work during lockdown.
- The claimant handed over her keys and left, believing she had been dismissed.
- The respondent did not advance any potentially fair reason for dismissal.
- The tribunal found the words used, in context, amounted to a dismissal.
- The award was reduced by 50% for contributory conduct due to the claimant's unreasonable refusal to attend work.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant began working as a studio sales administrator for Fresh Doors Ltd.
-
Business transferred to respondent
The business of Fresh Doors Ltd was sold to Fresh Transformations Ltd, and the claimant's employment transferred under TUPE.
-
Claimant placed on PAYE payroll
The respondent placed the claimant on the PAYE system, regularising her tax status.
-
Second national lockdown announced
The Prime Minister announced a second national lockdown starting 5 November 2020.
-
Claimant dismissed
The claimant and respondent argued about working during lockdown; the respondent asked for her keys and she left, believing she was dismissed.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid wages and holiday pay.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Flood determined the claimant was an employee from 3 January 2017.
-
Final merits hearing
Employment Judge Perry found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £723.
The legal issue
Whether the employer's request for the claimant's keys, following a dispute about working during lockdown, constituted a dismissal, and whether any award should be reduced due to the claimant's own conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reason was that the respondent's request for her keys, in the context of the argument about lockdown attendance, amounted to a dismissal, and the respondent did not put forward any potentially fair reason for that dismissal.
The compensation was reduced by 50% for contributory conduct because the claimant unreasonably refused to attend work. The breakdown:
- Basic award: £189.00
- Compensatory award: £284.00
- Total before reduction: £473.00
- Reduction for contributory conduct (50%): £236.50
- Total award: £723.00
Lessons & takeaways
- If an employer asks for keys or other property back during a dispute, it can be seen as dismissing the employee, even if the word 'dismissed' is not used.
- Refusing to attend work without a valid reason can reduce compensation if it contributes to the dismissal.
- Employers should clearly communicate whether an employee is dismissed or suspended, especially in heated situations.
- Having a lay representative is possible but may not be as effective as legal advice in complex cases.
This case shows how a poorly handled dispute during the pandemic led to an unfair dismissal finding. The claimant, a studio sales administrator, was asked to hand over her keys after refusing to attend work during the November 2020 lockdown. She did so and left, believing she had been dismissed. The employer later argued she had not been dismissed, but the tribunal found the words and actions, in context, clearly amounted to a dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer did not advance any potentially fair reason for the dismissal. If they had wanted to end the employment, they should have followed a proper process, including giving warnings or following a disciplinary procedure. Instead, the ambiguous request for keys created a situation where the employee reasonably believed she was dismissed. Clear communication would have avoided this outcome.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that dismissal does not require formal words like 'you're fired'. The context and conduct of the employer matter. For employees, it also highlights that unreasonable refusal to attend work can reduce compensation. The 50% reduction for contributory conduct significantly cut the award, showing that tribunals will take into account an employee's own behaviour when calculating damages.
Similar cases
Delivery driver dismissed via WhatsApp P45 after 20 years: unfair dismissal with ACAS uplift
A delivery driver with over 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer sent a P45 via WhatsApp without any disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £5,786.78 after deductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey reduction.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.