Sickness absence over food hygiene concerns: an automatically unfair dismissal

This case shows how the law protects employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns, even when those concerns are about their own fitness to work. The former employee worked for Peter's Food Services Limited, a food company, and left work because he felt too ill to handle food safely. The tribunal found that this fell within the automatic unfair dismissal protection under section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which covers employees who leave work in circumstances of serious and imminent danger.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer had honest concerns about the genuineness of some of the employee's absences, but the tribunal still found the dismissal automatically unfair. This suggests that employers should tread carefully when dismissing an employee who has raised health and safety concerns, even if there are doubts about the employee's motives. A more thorough investigation into the specific circumstances of the absence, and consideration of alternative options such as redeployment or temporary adjustments, might have avoided the finding of unfairness.

Why the result matters

The case reinforces that health and safety dismissals are treated seriously by tribunals, with no need to prove the employee's belief was reasonable — only that it was genuine. The relatively low compensation of £1,092 reflects the Polkey reduction, meaning the employee would only have remained employed for another two weeks in any event. This highlights that even successful claimants may receive limited compensation if their employment was likely to end soon anyway.

The tribunal also rejected the employee's application for a preparation time order, finding that the employer's conduct — including late disclosure and redactions — was not unreasonable. This serves as a reminder that costs orders are exceptional in employment tribunals, and minor procedural errors will not usually justify them.