Diabetic shopworker awarded £7,000 after being sacked for self-isolating!
In March 2020, diabetic Mrs Jackie Reid was dismissed by her employers, the Good Health Store in the Isle of Man, after she took her doctor’s advice and self-isolated at home because her diabetes categorised her as vulnerable. This was right at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
Mrs Reid had told her employer that she had been advised to self-isolate by her doctor for 14 days due to her diabetes, but this might need to be extended for up to 12 weeks.
Mrs Reid had self-isolated at the start of the pandemic as she was Type 1 diabetic after the government advised vulnerable groups to stay at home.
-
On 31st March, Mrs Reid contacted her employer and offered to return to work immediately and that she would only be limited by the restrictions which impacted others in the community.
-
This was hard news for her employer who considered that she had 'abandoned her job without notice, without regard to the other employees or to the business' and that Reid had breached her contract of employment.
-
Reid told the tribunal her employer 'reacted negatively’, saying she had ‘no other choice' but to dismiss her.
A tribunal unanimously agreed that she was unfairly dismissed and suffered unlawful deductions from her pay.
Tribunal chairman Douglas Stewart rejected the notion of breach of employment contract, saying that ‘had she [the employer] read the law, she would have saved herself 'considerable time, worry and expense'. Mr Stewart and the panel awarded Mrs Reid a total of £7,161.
In his ruling, Mr Stewart was clear that the employer was at fault to have considered themselves the victim.
He added: 'In her opinion [the employer]…..she could have sued the complainant for breach of contract because the complainant had abandoned her by walking out with no indication of when she would return.’ 'That approach is wrong in law. Had [the employer] not been so confident of her opinion on the law and had she checked with MIRS, she might have saved herself considerable time, worry and expense.'
Even after the Tribunal judgment, the employer intends to appeal against the decision.
Solicitor and Head of Employment, Vaishali Thakerar summarises the outcome of this Tribunal:
"When someone self-isolates due to health reasons at the request of their doctor and later, under pandemic government legislation to protect vulnerable people in society - in this case Mrs Reid’s diabetes - it is up to the employer to support their need to self-isolate. What this employer did was to think they ‘knew the law’ where, in fact, their actions as an employer had been unreasonable and unlawful. The employer chose not to prioritise the health concerns of their employee in the pandemic and instead saw their defence as the contractual commitment of the existing employment contract between them. In this case the employer believed the words of an employment contract carried more weight than an employee’s health and welfare.
The implications of the coronavirus pandemic make us all take stock of our working patterns and this tribunal ruling clearly shows that employers can't rely on the employment contract wording alone, they can’t sit back from doing the right thing when they know an employee needs to self-isolate due to health reasons. They must not come into work and the employer needs to ensure they don't.
Read the story in the press here.
View all
