Unclear COVID-19 instructions and delay in investigation led to unfair dismissal
A First Line Leader with 5 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Unilever after unclear instructions on social distancing measures and a 6-week investigation delay. The tribunal reduced compensation by 30% for his own contribution.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #social-distancing
- #gross-misconduct
- #contributory-conduct
- #delay-in-investigation
- #whistleblowing-allegation
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for failing to follow instructions to mark social distancing tape on factory lines on 23 April 2020.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not receive verbal instructions from his manager that evening and the written instructions were confusing.
- The claimant had a disability of anxiety and depression, which the respondent knew about.
- The investigation was delayed by 6 weeks, affecting witness memory and the fairness of the process.
- The claimant failed to clarify instructions with his manager, which contributed to his dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment with Unilever UK Ltd as a First Line Leader.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
Claimant worked night shift; instructions to implement Tier 4 Covid measures were unclear; he did not complete taping of lines.
-
Investigation notified
Claimant first informed of investigation into events of 23 April, six weeks after the incident.
-
Claimant signed off sick
Claimant went on sick leave due to anxiety and depression.
-
First investigation meeting
Meeting with Mr Maher; claimant denied receiving verbal instructions.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing before Mr Collins; claimant dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal before Ms McCann; dismissal upheld.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and breach of contract; discrimination and whistleblowing claims dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for failing to follow instructions was fair, whether it was automatically unfair due to whistleblowing, and whether the employer discriminated against the claimant because of his disability (anxiety and depression).
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer did not have a reasonable belief in misconduct: the instructions were confusing and the claimant had not received verbal instructions. The six-week delay in starting the investigation also made the process unfair.
However, the claimant's failure to clarify the instructions contributed to his dismissal, so compensation was reduced by 30%. The whistleblowing and disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that instructions are clear, especially during a crisis like COVID-19, and provide written confirmation where possible.
- A delay in starting an investigation can undermine the fairness of a dismissal, as witness memories fade and the process appears less thorough.
- Employees who are unsure about instructions should seek clarification; failing to do so can be seen as contributory conduct, reducing compensation.
- Disability discrimination claims require evidence that the employer knew or ought to have known of the disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments; here, the claimant's anxiety did not affect his ability to follow instructions.
A case of unclear instructions and delayed process
This case highlights how even in a pandemic, employers must ensure that instructions are clear and investigations are prompt. The claimant, a First Line Leader at Unilever, was dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to mark social distancing tape on factory lines. The tribunal found that the instructions were confusing and that the claimant had not received verbal instructions from his manager that evening. A six-week delay in starting the investigation further tainted the process, as witnesses' memories had faded.
What could have been done differently
Unilever could have avoided this outcome by providing clearer written instructions and starting the investigation sooner. The claimant could have asked for clarification when he was unsure, which would have reduced his contribution to the dismissal. The tribunal noted that the claimant's disability (anxiety and depression) did not affect his ability to follow instructions, so the discrimination claims failed.
Why this matters
This case shows that tribunals will scrutinise the reasonableness of an employer's actions, especially when instructions are ambiguous and investigations are delayed. Employees who are dismissed in similar circumstances may have a claim for unfair dismissal, but their own conduct can reduce compensation. The 30% reduction here reflects the claimant's failure to seek clarification, a lesson for both sides in such disputes.
Similar cases
Dismissed for refusing to work from home during Covid: a conduct decision that went too far
A customer service advisor with Ménière's disease was unfairly dismissed after refusing to work from home when her face shield was banned. The tribunal reduced her compensation by 75% for her own conduct.
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.
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.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.