Cases of Unfair Dismissal in 2022 have been surrounded by a variety of circumstances. Many claims have been successful, while a few others have been thrown out. If you are considering making a claim, and are unsure as to whether your case has merit, it may help you to examine some of the recent success stories that have come into the public spotlight. Here are five of the juiciest cases!
1. Pet shop worker who was not allowed to wash hands claims endangerment.
A man who worked as a sales assistant for a firm that made raw food for cats and dogs claimed he was dismissed unfairly for refusing to come into work. Mr D blew the whistle on colleagues for not taking Covid-19 measures, failing to wear face coverings and to adhere to social distancing rules. He had shared his concerns in writing during his time with the company. His employer was aware of his grievance but was negligent in not taking the correct steps to investigate the matter and provide relevant documentation. The tribunal also heard how Mr D was denied access to hot water to wash his hands before and after preparing food. The court stated that there was ‘reasonable belief in endangerment to health and safety.’
2. Theatre nurse not allowed to wear a cross round her neck.
Mrs O, a Catholic, claimed discrimination after she was dismissed for failing to adhere to her employer’s uniform policy. Croydon Health Services NHS Trust asked her to remove her necklace, which had a small cross, on health and safety grounds. When she refused to do so, she was suspended from clinical duties and demoted to a receptionist post. As a result, she left the job, claiming constructive and unfair dismissal.
Mrs O stated that other staff had been allowed to wear jewellery, while she wasn’t. There was also a lack of documentation showing action by management to enforce the policy against any staff other than Mrs O. It could not be proved that her cross had caused harm or infection. The employment tribunal upheld her claim, stating that she had been singled out for an aggressive application of the Trust’s uniform policy. It was found that her right to religion had been breached under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, her demotion had breached the 2010 Equality Act.
3. Air conditioning and refrigeration engineer dismissed in a WhatsApp message.
Mr W visited a variety of businesses including hospitals and food manufacturers, and when lockdown 2020 began, his employer told him he must go to work as he was still authorised to do so. This went against the government advice at the time. Mr W refused, however, to go to work for non-urgent tasks and as a consequence, he was dismissed for “redundancy” immediately by his employer in a WhatsApp message. The employment tribunal upheld his claim for automatic unfair dismissal for reasons of health and safety, under Section 100 (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
4. Nursery employee made redundant shortly after telling employer she was pregnant.
Ms L was subjected to several negative comments by her manager in relation to her pregnancy and was asked whether she thought keeping her baby was a good idea. When she suggested that she ought to be self-isolating to protect herself and her unborn baby, she was told to go on statutory sick leave. Her hours were also reduced, supposedly because there had been a drop in numbers of children attending the nursery. She had been working 37 hours a week but was told to sign a contract for 20 hours, and she was placed on a furlough scheme. This entitled her to 80% of 20 hours’ pay, even though the furlough reference date was at the time when she had been working 37 hours per week. Ms L was later made redundant, despite there being no record of the selection process.
The employment tribunal stated that the claimant had been dismissed while on furlough, which went against the UK government guidance during the pandemic. Ms L won the case for pregnancy-related discrimination and unfair dismissal.
5. University academic unfairly dismissed for being too loud.
Mrs P, a university lecturer, was found by colleagues to be overbearing and argumentative. Some of her students had suffered from stress and anxiety due to being shouted at by her in tutorials. She was consequently suspended and given a written warning. However, her ‘behaviour’ continued and she was dismissed later that year. It was argued in her favour that she was not an unpleasant person but just that she tended to get over-excited about her subject, and this often sparked a heated debate. She told the tribunal that her ’loudness’ was a cultural characteristic stemming from her Eastern European Jewish heritage.
The employment tribunal found that her experimental teaching style was not a reason for dismissal and many students and colleagues respected her and valued her work at the university. The tribunal ruled in her favour, stating that Mrs P had been subjected to victimisation and harassment, despite her being a long-serving and dedicated academic.
