Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawUnfair dismissal

Unfair dismissal for war zone journalist

by Personnel Today 24 Jan 2006
by Personnel Today 24 Jan 2006

A tribunal has decided in Gizbert v ABC News Intercontinental Inc that a foreign correspondent who did not want to cover war zones was unfairly dismissed for making a health and safety complaint.

Richard Gizbert was an ABC reporter who had often worked in dangerous places. However, as his family grew, he began to decline such assignments. Gizbert was eventually dismissed by ABC in the context of a business reorganisation.

Tribunal decision

The tribunal held that ABC’s decision was partly motivated by Gizbert’s refusal to travel to and work in war zones, and that this was enough for the dismissal to fall within s.100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act.

The legislation provides that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee “brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety”. There does not have to be actual harm, the employee just has to reasonably believe that there could be harm.

The remedies hearing at which Gizbert’s compensation award will be decided has not yet taken place. Compensation for health and safety-related dismissals is not capped, and in this case is likely to be substantial. ABC may find it difficult to appeal against the decision as it is largely based on the tribunal’s assessment of the facts.

The case is interesting for HR professionals because it highlights the risks associated with requiring employees to do dangerous work and because it is a timely reminder of the need to make sure that reasons for dismissal are consistent and clearly communicated.

Avoiding the claims

The best approach to avoiding Gizbert-type claims is usually to minimise health and safety risks before concerns are raised by employees and deal with any complaints promptly. This might include:



  • obtaining information about risks (eg from the foreign office or local sources)

  • providing security (accompanying employees to and from the airport, insisting they stay in protected areas, providing guards etc)

  • ensuring appropriate insurance cover is in place (medical, life, employer’s liability etc).

It may not be possible to remove all risks and, if this is the case and the employee reasonably refuses to do the work, the employer should not treat the employee adversely as a consequence.

If the employer wants to argue that a subsequent dismissal is not related to a health and safety complaint, it should make sure there is clear evidence of the real reason(s).

In the Gizbert case there was some dispute about the facts – and the case was lost by ABC largely because the tribunal preferred Richard Gizbert’s evidence.

Employers can limit the risk of disputes about the reasons for dismissal by communicating to employees consistently and making sure decisions are well documented in meeting notes and letters.

The statutory dismissal procedures (and any company-specific procedures) give employers an opportunity to clarify and document decisions. This is important even if the employee does not have enough service to make an ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal complaint, given the range of claims which can now be made and the incentive for highly paid employees to make ‘special’ claims that attract uncapped compensation.

Evidence of an appropriate business reason for the dismissal will be helpful regardless of the nature of the claim.

Juliet Carp, solicitor, Speechly Bircham

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.

Practical steps to reduce risks



  • Give employees the opportunity to refuse dangerous assignments, even if dangerous work is thought to be ‘part of the job’.

  • Take steps to minimise health and safety risks.

  • Follow dismissal procedures even if the employee does not have enough service to make an ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal complaint.

  • Give full reasons for dismissal in writing.

For an article about how to keep your employees safe, go to personneltoday.com/30717.article


Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Public sector pensions cost UK households £250 a year
next post
Pensions changes prompt strikes by a million workers

You may also like

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

1 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Man who used company credit card for himself...

23 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

Date set for X’s appeal against unfair dismissal...

18 Jun 2025

WFH employee who falsified timesheets loses unfair dismissal...

16 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+