Case 1404132/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Phillip Allen-Turner v Mr Lawrence Meer T/A Central Auto Repair Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404132/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millard Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Phillip Allen-Turner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Phillip Allen-Turner worked as an auto technician for Mr Lawrence Meer T/A Central Auto Repair Services. The claimant had an immune-system condition and said that, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent had failed to put proper safety measures in place. The tribunal accepted that the claimant raised Covid-19 concerns in mid-March 2020, but found that on 20 March 2020 there were no Covid-19 guidelines, acts, or regulations in force applicable to the garage that the claimant could rely on in the way he pleaded.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in a telephone call on the evening of 20 March 2020, saying that he was not returning to work. It rejected his case that he had left because of a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger from the respondent's conduct. The judge placed weight on the contemporaneous messages exchanged on 21, 25 and 28 March 2020, which did not refer to being put at risk at the garage in the way later alleged, and on the claimant's evidence that he had copied the respondent's customer database before resigning. The tribunal found that conduct dishonest and concluded that the claimant's real purpose was to start or join a business and approach customers and employees.
Applying the section 100 ERA 1996 health and safety provisions and the two-stage approach in Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd, the tribunal held that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief of serious and imminent danger of infection with Covid-19 caused by the respondent's failure to provide a safe working environment. It also found there was no fundamental breach of contract by the respondent, including no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The automatic unfair dismissal claim, the constructive dismissal claim, and the remaining claims, including the notice pay issue, were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal for a health and safety reason under s.100 ERA 1996, specifically s.100(1)(d); the tribunal found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief of serious and imminent danger arising from any failure to follow Covid-19 guidelines on 20 March 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim based on alleged breach of the implied terms of mutual trust and confidence and provision of a safe working environment; the tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent and no resignation because of such a breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay issue listed among the remaining claims. The judgment states that the remaining claims fail and are dismissed, but it does not give separate analysis or a separate monetary award for this issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996
- Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd two-stage test
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.