Case 2600052/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C O Flynn v Turning Point — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600052/2019
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C O Flynn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after attending the workplace while suffering from impetigo, which he had told colleagues was highly contagious. The respondent's dismissal letter identified the principal reason as the claimant returning to the workplace after being told not to attend without confirmation from his doctor that he was fit to work.
The Tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for a potentially fair conduct reason under section 98 ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in the conduct complained of, sustained after a reasonable and thorough investigation, and that it was reasonable to take steps to protect colleagues and service users from infection.
The Tribunal also considered the claimant's complaints about the investigation and alleged inconsistent treatment of colleagues who later contracted impetigo. It found no evidence that other matters influenced the respondent's decision and concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 98(1) ERA 1996
- Section 98(2) ERA 1996
- Section 98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 EAT
- J Sainsbury Limited v Hitt [2003] ICR 111 CA
- range of reasonable responses
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.