In Gibson v Lothian Leisure an employee successfully persuaded a tribunal that his concerns about the safety of his workplace rendered his subsequent dismissal automatically unfair.
G was employed as a restaurant chef. He was good at his job and had been promoted. As was the case for many businesses, the restaurant had to shut in March 2020 because of the lockdown restrictions and G was furloughed.
In April 2020, the restaurant asked G to ‘come in and help out for a bit’ in the expectation that some of the lockdown restrictions would be lifted. G was reluctant to do so. He lived with his father who had several medical conditions including a brain tumour, colitis and Addison’s disease and was shielding during the lockdown. He informed his employers that he was worried that the workplace was not safe and that if he caught coronavirus, he could pass it onto his clinically extremely vulnerable father. The company did not provide any PPE for staff and, according to G, had no intention of adopting measures to create a COVID-secure working environment.
The employer’s response was to tell to G to ‘shut up and get on with it’. G refused to return to work and was dismissed via text in May 2020. The company intimated that it was going to re-organise the restaurant staff and that he was, in effect, being made redundant.
G argued that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed because he had raised concerns about the safety of his workplace. He also argued that he was entitled to notice pay, accrued annual leave and pension contributions.
The tribunal was satisfied there were circumstances of danger which were serious and imminent at the time G raised concerns. It found that G believed that his workplace was unsafe and posed a real danger to the health of his clinically extremely vulnerable father. It said that G took appropriate steps to protect his father by raising the issue of PPE with his employer.
The tribunal concluded that G was either dismissed because he took steps to protect his father, or that he was selected for redundancy because had taken those. G was awarded a basic award of £6,562 and £14,500 compensation reflecting the fact that he was out of work for 29 weeks. He also received one week’s notice pay and £1,200 for accrued holiday. He was compensated for pension contributions his employer had deducted from his salary but had not paid into a pension scheme.
