Ms N Gyane, Counsel For the v Ms P Hall, Employment Consultant — 2022

The tribunal refused the respondent's postponement application after finding that Mr Dhinjan was in the United Kingdom on 30 December 2021 and that the contrary account was false. It accepted the claimant and his witnesses as credible and found that the respondent's witnesses did not give oral evidence. It also found that the claimant worked his normal office hours during the furlough period from 3 April 2020 to 16 September 2020, despite being paid only 80% of his salary, and that the respondent's Covid policy had been prepared but was not implemented during his employment.

On the s.44 ERA 1996 claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had raised reasonable health and safety concerns about the absence of masks, hand sanitiser, social distancing, and adequate ventilation, and about a colleague who was coughing and appeared to have Covid-like symptoms. It held that he suffered detriments when his calls after 3 September 2020 went unanswered and when he was subjected to a hostile meeting on 16 September 2020, during which the tribunal found that Mr Dhinjan insulted him and threw a watch at him. The tribunal also found that the claimant reasonably believed there was serious and imminent danger from Covid-19 and that he took appropriate steps by raising the concerns and leaving the office.

The tribunal held that the s.100 ERA 1996 health and safety dismissal claim was well-founded because the claimant's dismissal followed from his health and safety concerns. It found that after he returned the office keys, laptop and printer, he was not given a proper opportunity to return to work, and that the respondent's later correspondence did not displace the finding that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was his protected health and safety conduct. In the alternative, the tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because there was no evidence of a fair process and dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.

On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant had a contractual right to be paid in full and that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages by paying only 80% of salary for the furlough period, together with failing to pay three days' wages for 1 to 3 September 2020. The judgment listed the case for a separate Remedy Hearing and did not quantify the final award in this decision.