Case 3307459/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss A Fadipe (Counsel). For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 3307459/2020
Decision date: 21 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Warren Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Miss A Fadipe (Counsel). For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Rendina worked for Royston Veterinary Centre Limited from 20 January 2020 until her dismissal on 30 March 2020. The tribunal found there was no health and safety representative or committee at the practice. It accepted that, against the background of the Covid-19 outbreak, she raised concerns about masks, limiting consultations, hand sanitising, cleaning, reducing numbers in the building, and moving to emergency-only or remote working where possible.

The tribunal found that those concerns were brought to the respondent by reasonable means, including the 23 March 2020 email and the meetings on 16 and 24 March 2020, and that they were concerns she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety. It therefore held that the requirements of s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 were met. It did not accept the s.100(1)(e) case because, although Ms Rendina avoided some procedures on 24 March 2020, the tribunal found she did so to consult the RCVS rather than as a step taken to protect herself or others from serious and imminent danger.

On causation, the tribunal preferred the claimant's account and the wording of the dismissal letter, finding that Dr White dismissed her because of a level of discord caused by her health and safety concerns. It found the respondent had not proved that complaints from clients, lateness, poor record keeping or other performance issues were the real reason for dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.

The notice pay and holiday pay claims also succeeded. The tribunal found that under the contract the claimant was entitled to one week's notice, that the day notice was served did not count in the notice period, and that she had been paid for only three days when five were due. It also found she had accrued 5.5 days' holiday, had taken one day, and was owed 4.5 days' holiday pay. No monetary award was set in this judgment; the question of remedy was left for a later hearing on 27 October 2021.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had reasonably raised Covid-19 health and safety concerns by speaking to Mrs Young, raising them at meetings, and sending the 23 March 2020 email. It rejected the respondent's asserted reasons of performance, complaints and attendance as the reason for dismissal. The s.100(1)(e) case was not made out.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to five days' pay in lieu of notice, had been paid for three days, and was therefore owed two further days' pay. No monetary figure was quantified in this liability judgment; remedy was left to the later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	Holiday pay claim succeeded under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 5.5 days' holiday, taken one day, and was owed payment for 4.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday. No monetary figure was quantified in this liability judgment; remedy was left to the later hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.