In the case of Mr N Quelch v Courtiers Support Services Ltd Nicholas Quelch was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to return to work. Although initially allowed to work from home – something his line manager believed he did successfully – his employer asked him to return in July 2020. This request was based on a concern that allowing him to remain at home would encourage other employees to make the same request. It also contradicted risk assessments previously carried out by the employers.
Mr Quelch refused to return due to concerns about putting his clinically vulnerable partner at risk, the UK Government guidance at the time was people should be working from home if they could and he was concerned that Covid-19 safety measures were not being properly implemented at work. His line manager was sensitive to the anxiety the instruction caused him and supported his request to continue to work from home.
Despite this Mr Quelch was placed on unpaid leave, had his access to work systems withdrawn and disciplinary proceedings were started. He confirmed he remained willing and able to work from home. The employer subsequently dismissed him for failing to follow a reasonable instruction (to return to work) and failing to comply with the terms of his contract.
The disciplinary procedure followed was inadequate. An employment tribunal upheld his claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal where in circumstances of serious and imminent danger he refused to return to work and/or he took steps to protect another person (his partner) from that danger, and detrimental treatment on health and safety grounds.
His breach of contract claim for unpaid notice was also successful as was an unlawful deduction from wages claim for the period he was placed on unpaid leave. He was compensated in respect of these claims, including an award for injury to feelings and an 20% uplift due to his employer’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
