Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

Pod 6, The Engine Rooms, Station Road
Chepstow
Monmouthshire

01633 730907

For more than 10 years we have provided companies of all sizes and in a variety of sectors with uncomplicated, innovative and affordable human resources advice and on-site support ensuring that your people are an asset to your company and not a liability.

News

With the National Minimum Wage (NMW) now almost fifteen years old, and with another increase pending on 1st April 2017 HMRC have issued a list of the most elaborate excuses they've been given by employers for not paying the appropriate rates:

COVID 19 Dismissal Was Fair

Alan Kitto

In a previous article we’ve discussed the fact that where an employee is dismissed for refusing to attend work or carry out duties because they believe their health and safety is at serious and imminent risk, the dismissal would be automatically unfair.

This sections of the Employment Rights Act (S44 and S100) came to the forefront during COVID-19 lockdowns with many employees believing that they would be protected were they to refuse their employers’ requests to attend work.

The first of what are likely to be a number of cases has now been heard by the Employment Tribunal; in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd, Mr Rodgers refused to attend work during the first national lockdown because he had vulnerable children who could become very ill if they caught Covid-19.

He was dismissed and claimed that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed because he had exercised his right not to return to the workplace to protect himself from circumstances of danger, which he had reasonably believed were serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avoid.

A tribunal dismissed the claim. Mr Rodgers had general concerns about Covid-19, but these were not directly attributable to the workplace. Further, his actions (e.g. not wearing a facemask, leaving his home during self-isolation, and working in a pub during lockdown) did not support his argument that there were circumstances of danger which he believed were serious and imminent.

Mr Rodgers appealed. The EAT accepted that, in principle, an employee could reasonably believe that there were serious and imminent circumstances of danger arising outside the workplace that prevented him from returning to the workplace. However, on the facts of this case, the tribunal had found that Mr Rodgers did not reasonably believe that there were circumstances of danger which were serious and imminent, either at work or at large.

Employment Tribunal claims in themselves do not create a legal precedent, but Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions are, although the facts in other cases may be sufficient different to warrant a different outcome.

Employees only have three months from the date of dismissal to file for unfair dismissal and as such this ruling won’t see an influx of new claims from employees dismissed although there will be a number of cases already in the system awaiting a hearing.