Case 2402122/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Murphy v Private and Industrial Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402122/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Philip Murphy was dismissed by Private and Industrial Services Limited on 18 January 2021 after testing positive for Covid-19 on 7 January 2021. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct, namely a serious breach of health and safety policies and procedures and gross misconduct. The Tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct within section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation, did not have reasonable grounds for its belief, and did not follow a fair procedure. It found that the claimant was not asked for his account of the allegations before the dismissal decision, that the respondent did not resolve inconsistencies in the accounts of Sarah Murray and Philip Buxton, and that the claimant was not invited to the disciplinary meeting on 18 January 2021. The Tribunal also noted that the termination letter did not refer to a right of appeal, and that the later correspondence did not amount to a proper appeal process.
On the factual issue, the Tribunal considered the claimant's evidence that he had taken a PCR test at a walk-in testing station, had no symptoms, and had not been told to isolate before the result came back. It rejected the respondent's case that the mere fact of taking a PCR test meant the claimant must have had symptoms and should have isolated. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for treating the claimant's conduct as gross misconduct and that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The claim for unfair dismissal therefore succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment only; no remedy assessment or award is recorded in this decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 98 ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
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.