Priest dismissed for breaching Covid-19 rules: unfair dismissal win despite contributory fault
A Hindu priest who was summarily dismissed after a dispute over Covid-19 safety measures has won his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £15,924, reduced by 40% for his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #priest-employment-status
- #covid-19-safety
- #acas-code-uplift
- #contributory-conduct
- #failure-to-mitigate
- #vanishing-dismissal
Key facts
- The Claimant worked as a priest at the Mandir from 2016, initially for 40 hours per week, later reduced to 15 hours per week.
- The Claimant was dismissed on 17 November 2020 for alleged misconduct, including disregarding Covid-19 safety instructions.
- The Respondent offered an appeal, which resulted in a recommendation to reinstate the Claimant as a casual worker, but the Claimant did not accept.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant was an employee and that the dismissal was unfair.
- The Claimant's conduct contributed to the dismissal, leading to a 40% reduction in the basic and compensatory awards.
- The Claimant failed to mitigate his loss, limiting compensation to losses up to 1 August 2021.
Timeline
-
Start of paid work
The Claimant began working as a priest at the Mandir and received £800 per month for approximately 40 hours per week.
-
Dispute over hours
The Claimant sought to reduce his hours; the Chairman confirmed his permanent position and salary.
-
Draft contract offered
The Respondent sent a draft contract of employment proposing 15 hours per week and a salary of £300 per month plus Dakshinas. The Claimant objected to several terms.
-
First lockdown
The Mandir closed due to Covid-19; the Claimant continued to be paid £300 per month for limited duties.
-
Mandir reopens
The Mandir reopened with Covid-19 restrictions; the Claimant's hours increased to about 35 per week.
-
Festival dispute
The Claimant disagreed with the decision to cancel a festival and took leave to celebrate elsewhere.
-
Covid test dispute
The Claimant reported flu-like symptoms; Dr Datta instructed him to get a Covid test before returning to work.
-
Unauthorised attendance
The Claimant attended the Mandir despite being told not to, performing rituals.
-
Dismissal
The Respondent sent a letter summarily terminating the Claimant's engagement.
-
Appeal meeting
Christopher Edgley conducted an appeal meeting and recommended reinstatement as a casual worker.
-
Reinstatement offer
The Respondent offered to re-engage the Claimant as a casual worker on a zero-hours contract, which he did not accept.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the priest was an employee (not a volunteer or casual worker), whether he was dismissed, and whether the dismissal was fair. It also considered how much his own behaviour reduced any compensation.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the priest was an employee and was unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was procedurally flawed because the respondent did not carry out a proper investigation or give the priest a chance to respond before deciding to dismiss.
However, the priest's conduct – attending the temple when told not to and refusing a Covid test – contributed to the dismissal. The tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 40%. The priest also failed to mitigate his losses, so compensation was limited to losses up to 1 August 2021.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £516.46
- Compensatory award: £4,107.11
- Total: £15,924.45 (including other elements not broken down in the facts)
Lessons & takeaways
- Even in a religious or charitable setting, a regular worker may be an employee with full employment rights – check your status if you have regular duties and pay.
- A fair dismissal requires a proper investigation and a chance for the employee to respond before a decision is made – skipping these steps can make a dismissal unfair.
- If you ignore reasonable safety instructions during a pandemic, a tribunal may find you contributed to your own dismissal, reducing any compensation.
- You must take reasonable steps to find a new job after dismissal – failing to mitigate your losses can limit the compensation you receive.
- An employer's offer to re-engage you after dismissal does not automatically undo the unfairness of the original dismissal.
A priest's dismissal over Covid-19 safety concerns
This case shows how a breakdown in communication over health and safety rules can lead to an unfair dismissal – even when the employee was partly at fault. The priest had worked at the Mandir for four years, first full-time and later part-time. When the temple reopened after the first lockdown, tensions arose over how to celebrate festivals safely. The priest disagreed with the decision to cancel a festival and took leave to celebrate elsewhere. Later, after reporting flu-like symptoms, he was asked to get a Covid test before returning. Instead, he attended the temple without a test and performed rituals, leading to his summary dismissal.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The trustees did not carry out a proper investigation, did not give the priest a chance to explain his side, and did not consider alternatives to dismissal. A fair process would have involved a meeting, a proper look at the facts, and a reasoned decision. The employer also failed to follow its own disciplinary procedure. The priest's appeal resulted in a recommendation to reinstate him as a casual worker, but by then the damage was done.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that employment status can be unclear in religious or community organisations. The tribunal confirmed that the priest was an employee because he had regular hours, pay, and a mutuality of obligation – even though there was no signed contract. For anyone in a similar role, it shows that you may have more rights than you think. However, the 40% reduction for contributory conduct also shows that employees who ignore reasonable instructions – especially around safety – will see their compensation cut. The priest's failure to look for other work after dismissal further limited his award. The total compensation of £15,924 reflects both the unfairness of the dismissal and the priest's own role in it.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Demoted without consultation: constructive dismissal after 20 years' service
A long-serving installations manager was constructively dismissed after being demoted twice without consultation. The tribunal awarded £24,331.