Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was an HGV driver with COPD, a disability known to the respondent from 22 March 2020.
- The claimant was furloughed during the first lockdown but was refused furlough in November 2020 when he needed to shield again.
- The respondent interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules as not allowing furlough because its business was not adversely affected at that time.
- The claimant resigned on 26 November 2020, citing concerns about safety and the refusal to furlough him.
- The tribunal found the respondent's interpretation of the furlough scheme was correct and that it had not breached any duty.
Timeline
-
Claimant informs employer of COPD
The claimant texted Mr Bishop about his COPD and need to shield.
-
Claimant works despite concerns
The claimant made a delivery to Lincoln after failing to cancel it.
-
First furlough period begins
The claimant was furloughed during the first national lockdown.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work before shielding ended; his new truck was dirty and he had to clean it himself.
-
Complaint about toilet facilities
The claimant complained about dirty toilets at Hensall depot; the issue was resolved.
-
Claimant off work with leg swelling
The claimant texted Mr Bishop about swollen legs and later received shielding advice.
-
Request for furlough refused
The claimant asked to be furloughed but the respondent refused, citing CJRS rules.
-
Claimant resigns
The claimant emailed his resignation, citing safety concerns and refusal to furlough.
-
Employment ends
The claimant's employment terminated.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's refusal to furlough the driver during the second lockdown amounted to disability discrimination, a failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation, or a breach of contract, and whether the driver was constructively unfairly dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the HGV driver, including unfair constructive dismissal, disability discrimination, protected disclosure detriment, and wrongful dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer's interpretation of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) rules was correct: in November 2020, the business was not adversely affected by the pandemic, so the driver was not eligible for furlough. The employer had not breached any duty of care or trust and confidence.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on a reasonable interpretation of government guidance, even if it later turns out to be wrong, as long as it was genuinely held at the time.
- A constructive dismissal claim requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer; a disagreement over furlough eligibility is unlikely to meet that threshold if the employer acts in good faith.
- 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 employer offered alternative work and followed shielding advice.
- Public interest disclosure claims need a qualifying disclosure of information; general complaints about safety may not suffice if they are not specific or made in the public interest.
When a pandemic policy dispute isn't a breach of contract
This case shows the limits of constructive dismissal claims when the disagreement is about the interpretation of a government scheme. The HGV driver, who had COPD and was clinically vulnerable, believed he should have been furloughed during the second lockdown in November 2020. His employer, RT Keedwell Group Ltd, disagreed, concluding that the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme did not apply because its business was not adversely affected at that time.
The driver resigned, arguing that the refusal to furlough him, combined with other grievances about toilet facilities and a dirty truck, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal, however, found that the employer's interpretation of the furlough rules was reasonable and honestly held. There was no evidence that the employer acted capriciously or in bad faith.
What the employer did right
The employer had a clear process: it considered the driver's request, sought advice, and concluded that the business did not meet the CJRS criteria. It also offered the driver alternative work, which he did not take up. The tribunal noted that the employer had previously furloughed the driver during the first lockdown when the business was affected, showing consistency.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that not every disagreement over workplace policy will amount to a breach of contract, especially when the employer has a plausible basis for its decision. For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, the key is whether the employer's conduct was so unreasonable that it destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. A simple difference of opinion, even about a matter as important as furlough, is unlikely to suffice.
Similar cases
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Swimming teachers dismissed after furlough dispute: a conduct dismissal that went wrong
A tribunal found that Achieve Lifestyle Ltd unfairly dismissed two swimming teachers after a dispute over furlough pay, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for one teacher with breast cancer.
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.
Senior care assistant constructively dismissed after flawed grievance process
A senior care assistant who resigned after a manager swore at her and a grievance was poorly handled has won her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.