Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today

CoronavirusBullying and harassmentSelf-isolationLatest NewsHealth and safety

Employee who blew whistle on Covid safety was unfairly dismissed

by Ashleigh Webber 19 Jan 2022
by Ashleigh Webber 19 Jan 2022 The claimant raised concerns about staff not wearing face masks at work
Shutterstock
The claimant raised concerns about staff not wearing face masks at work
Shutterstock

A pet food retailer unfairly dismissed an employee after she raised concerns about health and safety and blew the whistle on managers and colleagues flouting Covid-19 rules.

The East London employment tribunal found that Mrs Best, who worked at raw pet food company Embark on Raw in Billericay, Essex, made protected disclosures when she raised alarm over colleagues not wearing face coverings – although these were optional at the time – and ignoring social distancing guidelines.

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.

She also made a claim for harassment related to her age and sex, alleging that the company owner suggested she might be menopausal.

The tribunal was told that Best “expressed extreme anxiety and stress” after witnessing a colleague coughing in the shop while not wearing a mask.

She raised her concerns about mask-wearing on a WhatsApp group which included several of her colleagues. She ended her message by asking managers to speak to staff about what she perceived to be a “worrying situation”.

The organisation dismissed her health and safety concerns and told her “we are doing the best that we can and we are not breaking any rules. Masks are not required but we do it as an extra measure”.

She was told to “relax” and “stop digging [sic] the youngsters”.

Covid-related judgments

Worker who refused to go to work because of Covid fear loses tribunal claim

Cleaner who attended work with Covid-19 was unfairly dismissed

Porter who lost pay while awaiting result of wife’s Covid test wins claim

The tribunal’s judgment says: “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.”

In April 2020 a colleague made a complaint about Best, which started that she would “boss” other staff around and treated colleagues “as kids” about the alleged failures to wear masks and socially distance. The complainant said that she and other colleagues were considering leaving the company because of Best.

The following day, one of the company owners phoned Best and told her that she had “created a bit of a divide in the business” and accused her of having “ranted off” about Covid measures. She was worried that Best would expose her business as the source of any illness she might contract.

The claimant was given a verbal warning, but this was not formally logged despite the warning being given as part of the reason for her dismissal a few weeks later.

The judgment says: “Without further investigation of the employee complaints and/or previous actions of the other employees the respondent imposed detriment and eventually dismissed the claimant as a direct result of her protected disclosures and the consequences of those complaints in terms of working relationships.

“No independent intervention such as mediation was attempted. The co-workers were believed and the claimant was identified as the source of all the relevant ‘alienation’ at work.”

One director told the tribunal that after hearing about the complaint against Best, he told his wife that “it’s time to let her go now…they can’t work with her and I can’t work with her, we have to let her go”. He said that he was faced with a situation where either Best was dismissed or he would lose all or a substantial number of his other employees, which would threaten the future of the business.

The tribunal found that the meeting in which Best was dismissed did not comply with the Acas code on disciplinary and grievance procedures as she had been given no notice of the disciplinary allegations against her and therefore no opportunity to prepare a defence or explanation for her actions.

“We find that the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal on 11 May 2020 was that she made protected disclosures,” the judgment says.

“One of the consequences of those disclosures was the complaint or complaints by her colleagues. The respondent accepted those complaints without intervention, with no proper investigation and sought to preserve its residual workforce by taking the step of dismissing the claimant. The nexus between the making of the disclosures and the dismissal is clearly established.”

Although Best had not been employed at the company for the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that her claim could succeed because the company had not followed Acas guidance.

A compensation order has not yet been made, but the tribunal found Best would be entitled to a 20% uplift because of the firm’s failure to follow correct disciplinary procedures.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Her claims for harassment and victimisation also succeeded.

Health and Safety opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more health and safety jobs

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is a former editor of OHW+ and former HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support.

previous post
Universities vow to end use of NDAs in abuse and bullying cases
next post
Guidance outlines role of health professionals in addressing self-harm

You may also like

Employers ‘worryingly’ ignorant about stress risk assessments

20 May 2025

Warning of diabetes risk for workplace drivers

11 Apr 2025

Calls growing for UK national asbestos register

4 Apr 2025

Sexual harassment: Employees have the right to protection...

18 Mar 2025

One in seven NHS staff physically attacked last...

14 Mar 2025

HSE new guidance to protect against hospital nitrous...

10 Feb 2025

Two-step testing enabling more train drivers to work...

24 Jan 2025

HSE updates guidance on silicosis risk from installing...

10 Jan 2025

Workplaces urged to revisit and refresh first aid...

6 Jan 2025

Warning of ‘catastrophic’ rise in alcohol deaths in...

20 Dec 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today