Automatic Unfair Dismissal Ruling For Employee Designated With Health And Safety Work

Facts of The Case - Sinclair v Trackwork Ltd

Mr Sinclair was employed as a Track Maintenance Supervisor by Trackwork Ltd (the Company) and was tasked with implementing a new safety procedure. His colleagues, who had not been informed that Mr Sinclair had been asked to carry out such a brief, complained to management about his 'overcautious and somewhat zealous' approach. Mr Sinclair was subsequently dismissed because of the 'upset' and 'friction' his activities had caused among the staff.

Mr Sinclair brought an employment tribunal claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), which provides employees with protection from dismissal for carrying out health and safety activities after being designated to carry out such activities by an employer.

The tribunal rejected Mr Sinclair's claim. It found that the principal reason for his dismissal was because his approach to the new safety procedure had caused upset among the Company's employees, rather than because he carried out the health and safety duties. The Tribunal determined that it was the way in which Mr Sinclair went about implementing the new safety procedure which caused his dismissal. Mr Sinclair appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Automatic Unfair Dismissal

The EAT allowed the appeal. It found that the Tribunal erred in law in concluding the principal reason for Mr Sinclair's dismissal. In particular, it found that there remained a clear and unbroken causal link between Mr Sinclair's carrying out of the health and safety activities and his dismissal. It was Mr Sinclair's 'diligently carrying out his duties' that had caused relations to sour and he was also merely carrying out what he had been instructed to do.

After reviewing relevant case law, the EAT also held that section 100(1)(a) ERA 1996 affords broad protection to an employee carrying out health and safety activities. The reasons the Company dismissed Mr Sinclair were inextricably linked to the carrying out of the health and safety activities, which he had been tasked to do, and so the EAT ruled that his dismissal was for an automatically unfair reason.

What Does This Mean For Employers?

Employers should bear in mind that employees who are dismissed for creating upset in the workplace after being designated to carry out health and safety activities will be afforded protection under section 100(1)(a) ERA 1996. Protection could only potentially be lost if the employee's conduct was completely unreasonable, malicious or irrelevant to the task in hand. If issues are created in the workplace by employees carrying out designated health and safety activities, employers should carefully investigate why the activities are causing problems among staff. This will help to identify whether the employee's conduct is unreasonable and whether dismissal could be justified on legitimate grounds.

For further information on automatic unfair dismissal or advice on workplace disputes in general, please contact Mark Stevens in our Employment Law team on 07909 681036,or complete the form below.