Case 1601260/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr K Chehal – legal consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601260/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent for about five months as an area supervisor and was dismissed on 30 March 2020. The tribunal was concerned with whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because the claimant had raised health and safety concerns in the context of the emerging COVID-19 lockdown, when he was asked to collect cleaning equipment from a school and then take it to his manager's home while she and her daughter were self-isolating with suspected COVID symptoms.
The tribunal preferred the claimant's account of the 30 March telephone discussion. It found that he had queried whether the collection and delivery arrangements were safe, and that his challenge to the proposed arrangement led to the call ending and the manager promptly seeking authority to dismiss him. The tribunal rejected the respondent's denial that COVID was discussed, finding the respondent's evidence contradictory and less reliable than the claimant's near-contemporaneous written accounts.
On that evidence, the tribunal held that dismissal was at least for the principal reason that the claimant had raised concerns about his health and safety. It found that he reasonably believed the circumstances were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety, and that he was taking appropriate steps to protect himself from danger in circumstances he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent. Judgment was therefore entered for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.100(1)(c) and/or (e) Employment Rights Act 1996.
At remedy, the claimant sought one year's net loss of earnings. The respondent accepted his weekly net pay at £320, making a year-long loss £16,640. The tribunal rejected the respondent's mitigation argument, applying the principle that the burden lies on the employer to show a failure to mitigate, and found that the claimant had made sufficient efforts to find work in the pandemic conditions. It therefore awarded £16,640 subject to any recoupment of benefits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under s.100(1)(c) and/or (e) ERA 1996. The tribunal did not split the award between basic and compensatory elements; the judgment records a single award of £16,640 subject to recoupment of benefits. | Upheld | — | £16,640 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,640
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,640
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(c) and/or (e) ERA 1996
- Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings Ltd [1989] ICR 648
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 2010
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.