Case 3307902/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms E Afriyie (consultant) — 2022

Case reference: 3307902/2020
Decision date: 5 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms E Afriyie (consultant)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant was employed as Engineering Manager from 1 April 2019 and was summarily dismissed on 2 June 2020 for gross misconduct. The tribunal applied s.100 ERA 1996, referring to Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd and Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Ltd. It accepted that on 19 March 2020 the claimant had, by reasonable means, brought to the respondent's attention a health and safety concern when he said that he and Mr Pietersen might have Covid symptoms and should be self-isolating; the respondent had no health and safety representative. The tribunal treated a 20 April 2020 message about sanitising spray as a helpful suggestion rather than a protected disclosure.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that his dismissal in June 2020 was because of those health and safety disclosures. It found that when he refused to return to work on 1 June 2020 he referred to childcare commitments, not PPE or safety concerns, and it preferred Mr Wiltshire's evidence on that point. The judge found the dismissal was already being actively contemplated by 26 May 2020, and that the principal reasons were the claimant's refusal to return to work and the intemperate way he replied to Mr Wiltshire on 26 May. The automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.100 therefore failed.

The tribunal held that the claimant's summary dismissal was not justified, so the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded, but it recorded that no damages were payable because he had already been paid for his notice period. The notice pay / breach of contract claim was dismissed on that basis. It also dismissed the claims for arrears of pay, unpaid expenses and holiday pay because the claimant produced no schedule of loss and no evidence that any such sums remained unpaid.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal, but recorded that no damages were payable because he had already been paid for his notice period.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Automatically unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996 (health and safety). The tribunal accepted a March 2020 disclosure about possible Covid symptoms and self-isolation, but found it formed no part of the reason for dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim. The judgment's top-line order dismissed notice pay, and the reasons stated that no further damages were due because the claimant had already been paid for his notice period.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for arrears of pay. The tribunal found no proof of any unpaid sums and noted that the claimant had been paid for the whole of June.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Unpaid expenses claim. The tribunal said the claimant had not proved any outstanding expenses.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Claim for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement. The tribunal found no evidence that any holiday pay remained unpaid.	Dismissed

Legal tests applied

3 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.

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.