Mr N Hafeez v Maintec Services Limited — 2020

The claimant, Mr N Hafeez, worked for Maintec Services Limited as a mobile multi-disciplined service and installation engineer from 3 September 2018 until his dismissal on 12 March 2019. The tribunal heard that on 11 March 2019 he was sent to a leisure centre in Alton to replace a pump head. Although the Respondent had completed a risk assessment and method statement, it was accepted that these were not provided to him before he attended site. The claimant said the task was a two-person job, that he had not carried it out alone before, and that he did not feel competent to do it on his own.

The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that the work involved lifting and holding a heavy pump head at head height, with a risk of hot water escaping and with on-site assistance needed. It found that he told his line manager he was not comfortable doing the task alone, asked for another engineer, and was told this was not an option. The tribunal also accepted that he was not told that adequate assistance would be available from the client site, and that he reasonably believed asking untrained leisure centre staff to help would be unsafe. It found that he believed there was a serious risk to his own health and safety and to others if he stayed and attempted the work in the way proposed.

The Respondent’s witnesses said the dismissal was because the claimant left the site and thereby put the business at risk with one of its biggest clients. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant’s leaving the site without completing the job, not that he wanted to get home, and it rejected the suggestion that his explanation was inconsistent. Applying section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and referring to Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730, the tribunal held that the claimant’s reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger brought the case within section 100(e), and also within section 100(d). It further found that the Respondent had not shown the claimant was so negligent in taking those steps that a reasonable employer might have dismissed him under section 100(3).

The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed. The unlawful deductions from wages claim had been withdrawn and was dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy award was determined in this judgment; instead, a remedy hearing was listed for 24 February 2020.