Ms M Moore v Respondent — 2021

Ms M Moore worked for Ecoscape UK Limited from 21 January 2019 until her employment ended on 2 September 2020. After the Covid-19 lockdown began, she was furloughed, then asked to return when the business reopened. She repeatedly said she did not feel comfortable returning to the office because of Covid-19 risks and asked to work from home instead. The respondent said the work could not be done remotely, relied on workplace measures including hygiene controls, distancing, masks, staggered hours and a separate office, and offered unpaid leave, holiday, and later part-time alternatives.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Moore genuinely feared Covid-19, but held that her belief that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger in her workplace was not objectively reasonable. It found that Ecoscape had assessed the risks and taken reasonable steps to reduce them, and that Mr Farrell had tried to engage with her repeatedly and even offered further adjustments. The tribunal also found that she was not in a shielded or medically vulnerable group at the material time, and that her concern had become a general fear of returning to the workplace rather than a specific workplace danger.

The tribunal further held that Ms Moore could reasonably have averted any danger by using the measures offered by the employer, including distancing, staggered shifts, hygiene precautions, and the proposed separate office. It found that by mid-May 2020 she had taken the position that it was effectively homeworking or nothing, and would not engage in further negotiation. Her communications to the employer did convey her concerns, and she raised a grievance and appeal, but by then the tribunal found the employer had already taken all reasonable steps to address those concerns.

Ms Moore resigned on 5 August 2020, saying the reasons were non-payment of wages, rejection of her grievance, breach of trust and confidence, and the threat of disciplinary action. The tribunal held that Ecoscape had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract, that the grievance process had been handled properly, and that the non-payment of wages was understandable in the context of her refusal to return to work. The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.