Therapist who refused to attend work during COVID-19 lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A therapist at Priory Healthcare who refused to attend work during the first national lockdown and raised health and safety concerns has been awarded over £42,000 for constructive unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #health-and-safety
- #protected-disclosure
- #unpaid-wages
- #grievance-process-flaws
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was a therapist at Priory Healthcare's Hayes Grove hospital, working two days per week.
- From 23 March 2020, the claimant refused to attend work due to COVID-19 concerns and requested to work from home.
- The respondent required all staff to attend site and did not allow home working for therapists.
- The claimant raised a formal grievance and made protected disclosures about health and safety risks.
- The respondent withheld the claimant's salary from 24 March 2020 and later threatened disciplinary action.
- The claimant resigned on 8 September 2020, citing a repudiatory breach of contract.
Timeline
-
WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic
The World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a pandemic.
-
Claimant offers to work remotely
The claimant emailed Ms Lovegrove offering to conduct outpatient sessions remotely; Ms Lovegrove replied that face-to-face sessions should continue as normal.
-
National lockdown announced
The Prime Minister announced a national lockdown, instructing people to stay at home except for essential work that cannot be done from home.
-
Claimant stops attending work
The claimant emailed Ms Lovegrove stating she would not attend work due to the lockdown; she did not return to site thereafter.
-
Claimant raises formal grievance
The claimant emailed Dr McLaren raising a formal grievance about the refusal to allow home working and unsafe working conditions.
-
Grievance hearing
A grievance hearing was held with Ms Crimmings; the claimant covertly recorded the meeting.
-
Grievance not upheld
Ms Crimmings wrote to the claimant informing her that her grievance was not upheld.
-
HSE issues contravention notice
The Health and Safety Executive sent a notification of contravention letter to the respondent regarding COVID-19 safety breaches.
-
Meeting with claimant
Ms Lovegrove met with the claimant to discuss COVID-19 control measures; the claimant lied about not recording the meeting.
-
Claimant resigns
The claimant tendered her resignation, citing repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the therapist was constructively unfairly dismissed after she refused to attend work due to COVID-19 concerns and raised health and safety complaints, and whether those complaints amounted to protected disclosures under whistleblowing law.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that Priory Healthcare's actions—including withholding pay and threatening disciplinary action—amounted to a fundamental breach of contract that forced the therapist to resign.
Key reasons:
- The therapist's health and safety concerns were reasonable given the pandemic and national lockdown.
- The employer's failure to allow home working and its decision to withhold pay were breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence.
- The grievance process was flawed and did not address the therapist's concerns properly.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,255.84
- Compensatory award: £6,394.50
- Total: £42,395.56 (includes other elements not broken down in the facts)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns about workplace conditions may be protected from detriment, even if the employer disagrees with their assessment.
- Withholding pay for an employee who refuses to attend work due to reasonable health and safety fears can be a fundamental breach of contract, giving rise to a constructive dismissal claim.
- Employers should take grievances about health and safety seriously and conduct a proper process, especially during exceptional circumstances like a pandemic.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures applies; failure to follow it can lead to an uplift in compensation of up to 25%.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when they dismiss or penalise employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns, particularly during a public health emergency. The therapist, who worked in an eating disorders unit, refused to attend work in March 2020 when the national lockdown was announced, believing that attending site would expose her and others to COVID-19. She offered to work from home, but Priory Healthcare insisted all staff attend site and later withheld her pay and threatened disciplinary action.
The tribunal found that the therapist's concerns were reasonable and that the employer's response—refusing home working, withholding pay, and pursuing disciplinary action—was a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The therapist resigned in response, and the tribunal upheld her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
Priory Healthcare could have avoided this outcome by taking the therapist's concerns seriously and exploring alternatives, such as home working or redeployment. Instead, it adopted a rigid approach that failed to account for the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. A proper grievance process, with genuine consideration of the health and safety issues raised, might have resolved the matter without litigation.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employees who raise health and safety concerns in good faith are protected from detriment, even if the employer believes its own policies are correct. It also shows that withholding pay for an employee who refuses to attend work due to reasonable safety fears can be a breach of contract. For employees considering a similar claim, this case demonstrates the importance of documenting concerns and following internal procedures, as well as the potential for compensation if the employer fails to respond appropriately.
Similar cases
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Constructive dismissal claim succeeds but protected disclosure fails
A former employee won over £29,000 for constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, but her claims of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure were dismissed.
Coach driver who resigned over fume fears wins constructive dismissal claim
A coach driver who repeatedly raised concerns about diesel fumes in his minibus and resigned after a poorly handled disciplinary meeting has won his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no evidence of detriment
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal for whistleblowing and health and safety reasons has lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for those reasons.