Dismissed for refusing to return to work over danger fears: claim fails
A former employee who refused to return to work due to a belief in serious and imminent danger was dismissed for conduct. The tribunal rejected claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for conduct reasons.
- The claimant alleged dismissal was due to refusing to return to work in serious and imminent danger.
- The claimant alleged dismissal was due to making a protected disclosure.
- The claimant claimed detriment for refusing to return to work and for protected disclosure.
- The claimant claimed unauthorised deductions from wages.
- The claimant withdrew a claim for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
Timeline
-
Hearing day 1
Employment Tribunal hearing commenced at Teesside Justice Hearing Centre.
-
Hearing day 2
Employment Tribunal hearing continued.
-
Hearing day 3
Employment Tribunal hearing concluded.
-
Judgment signed
Employment Judge Morris signed the judgment dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee's dismissal was automatically unfair because he refused to return to work in circumstances of serious and imminent danger, or because he made a protected disclosure, or whether the employer's reason was conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not the employee's refusal to return to work or any protected disclosure. The employee's belief in serious and imminent danger was not reasonable. Claims for detriment, unauthorised deductions, and holiday pay were also dismissed or withdrawn.
Lessons & takeaways
- An employee who refuses to return to work due to a subjective fear of danger must show that belief was objectively reasonable.
- A protected disclosure must be a qualifying disclosure in the public interest; personal grievances are not enough.
- Employers can dismiss for conduct if an employee refuses to follow reasonable instructions, even if the employee claims danger.
- Withdrawing a claim at hearing may avoid an adverse costs order but does not affect the outcome of other claims.
When a fear of danger is not enough
This case shows the limits of the legal protection for employees who refuse to return to work because they believe it is dangerous. The former employee argued that his dismissal was automatically unfair because he refused to return to work in circumstances of serious and imminent danger. However, the tribunal found that his belief was not reasonable on the facts. The employer, Decorative Panels Furniture Limited, had dismissed him for conduct – essentially for refusing to follow a lawful instruction.
The employee also claimed that he had made a protected disclosure, but the tribunal rejected this. A protected disclosure must involve a reasonable belief that information tends to show a legal violation, danger, or other wrongdoing, and must be in the public interest. Here, the employee's concerns were personal and did not meet the legal test.
What the employer did right
The employer was able to show that the dismissal was for conduct, not for any automatically unfair reason. The tribunal accepted that the employer had a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct and followed a fair process. This highlights the importance of employers documenting the reasons for dismissal and ensuring that the real reason is not a protected act.
Key takeaway for similar cases
Employees who refuse to work due to safety concerns must have a reasonable and genuine belief in serious and imminent danger. A purely subjective fear, without objective evidence, will not attract protection. Employers should carefully assess any such claims but can proceed with disciplinary action if the refusal is unreasonable.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Legal secretary awarded £29,000 after assault and protected disclosures
A trainee legal secretary who was assaulted by her employer and made protected disclosures has won claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She was awarded £28,986.85.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Healthcare assistant with 3 months' service wins wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay
A healthcare assistant who was dismissed without notice after just three months has been awarded £480 in notice pay. The tribunal rejected his other claims for automatic unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.