Mr C Sinclair v Trackwork Ltd UKEAT/0129/20/OO (V)
This case considered whether the Claimant, a Track Maintenance Supervisor, could rely on the automatic unfair dismissal provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 because his dismissal had been linked to his carrying out health and safety activities.
Unbeknownst to his colleagues, the Claimant had been tasked with implementing a new safety procedure which changed the way in which his colleagues were accustomed to working. His colleagues raised concerns with management which ultimately led to the Claimant's dismissal.
The Claimant alleged that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed as the principal reason for his dismissal was because he had carried out health and safety activities. The employment tribunal at first instance dismissed his claim, finding that he had been dismissed not because he had carried out health and safety activities but because of how he had managed these and the effect this had on the wider workforce.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the Tribunal's decision, finding that health and safety activities may often be resisted by colleagues and that it would undermine the protection given to employees if an employer "could rely upon the upset caused by legitimate health and safety activities as being a reason for dismissal that was unrelated to the activity itself". The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there was no proper distinction between the workers' reaction to the protected activity and the protected activity itself and therefore held that the Claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.