In the case of Ms L Best v Embark on Raw Ltd Leigh Best, a sales assistant at Embark on Raw, a pet food retailer employing six persons including a part time work experience trainee aged 14, made numerous complaints about adherence to Covid precautions at work but was identified by colleagues as a source of ‘alienation’ instead.
The owners and directors of the business, David and Andrea Fletcher, both of whom gave evidence, have been in business since 2014 selling raw food for cats and dogs from a unit near Billericay in Essex. The shop was permitted to stay open throughout lockdowns because it is classed as an essential business.
Ms Best was employed from January 2019 until her dismissal in May 2020 on a ‘zero hours’ contract although it is not in dispute that she regularly worked ’full time’ hours every week. Around the start of the pandemic, in March 2020, Embark on Raw gave instructions to staff about Covid-secure measures in the shop.
However, the tribunal heard that Ms Best was “extremely worried” that neither management nor staff were “consistently following the rules”, sharing concerns that her colleagues were not wearing a face covering and failing to follow social distancing. After she shared her concerns in a feedback form, David Fletcher sent out a reminder about the importance of social distancing and the wearing of masks and gloves. Andrea Fletcher told the tribunal there were regular telephone and text message conversations about the measures.
Best also complained about not having access to hot water to wash her hands while in her main place of work, despite having to handle raw meat, and expressed concern about a colleague who continued to work while someone in his household appeared to have Covid-19 symptoms – however she later found out the individual did not have the virus.
The tribunal stated “The claimant’s reasonable belief in the endangerment to health and safety is evidenced by the fact that she was present in the shop and observed and noted the actions of her colleagues.
“There is no documented investigation of the claimant’s allegations; there is no evidence from the respondent that any steps were taken to interview the other five employees or speak to them individually or collectively to find out if the claimant’s anxieties were in fact justified. On the contrary the respondent entirely believed the co-workers’ complaints that they were the ones being treated badly by Mrs Best.”
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.
