Mrs S Bielby v Excil Electronics Ltd. t/a LPA Lighting Systems AT A HEARING — 2020

Mrs Bielby was employed by Excil Electronics Ltd t/a LPA Lighting Systems as a team leader. The tribunal recorded that she attended work in March 2020 while coughing, was sent home to self-isolate, and later returned to work after visiting her estranged wife, whom she believed had coronavirus. The respondent's case was that she had been given clear oral instructions not to attend work if she had symptoms or had been exposed to possible infection, and that she breached those instructions on two occasions in the early months of the pandemic.

On the sexual orientation discrimination complaint, the tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Orme dismissed the claimant or delayed payment of self-isolation pay because she was gay. It found no factual basis from which to infer discrimination under section 136 Equality Act 2010, held that the payment delay was explained by the timing of the payroll process, and found that the identified comparators were not in materially similar circumstances. The tribunal also found no evidence that a hypothetical comparator without the protected characteristic would have been treated differently.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was misconduct within sections 98(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether dismissal was fair under section 98(4). It found that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to communicate Covid-related instructions, had a reasonable basis to treat the claimant's conduct as serious, and was entitled to conclude that her repeated breaches and attitude justified dismissal. The tribunal relied on the claimant's own evidence that she did not want to risk 'earache' by phoning in, together with the witness evidence and the disciplinary record, in concluding that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and therefore justified summary dismissal without notice. It concluded that, even though no actual harm appears to have resulted, the respondent was entitled to treat the claimant's repeated disregard of its instructions during the pandemic as a serious breach exposing the workforce to risk. All complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.