REWARD
Coronavirus pandemic: contract changes, dismissal, pregnancy
NicolaMullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, reviews the decisions in three cases
Khatun v Winn Solicitors Ltd An employment tribunal (ET) has held that an employer unfairly dismissed their employee who refused to agree to proposed employment contract changes due to coronavirus. At the start of the pandemic, Winn Solicitors Ltd, the respondent, decided to place half of its staff on furlough after the business began to experience a downturn. The claimant was told in person that she could continue to work, but on 23 March 2020 the respondent notified her that all employees needed to agree to a variation to their contract terms or face dismissal. The variations meant that the respondent could place employees on furlough, or reduce their hours and pay by up to 20%, on five days’ notice until 1 October 2020. The variations also allowed the respondent to extend the terms by a further three months if the business so required it. These new terms were sent to the claimant via email on 24 March 2020 with instructions that she sign the document and return it within 24 hours. It was again explained to her that she would face dismissal otherwise. On 25 March 2020, the claimant sent her response stating that she was not willing to agree to the new
variations because she was still performing the role she was contracted to do, but she would be willing to consider them if she were to be furloughed. ...failure to agree to the variations to her contract terms and conditions could have been a fair reason for dismissal... The respondent encouraged her to agree to the new terms, emphasising that dismissal was the alternative, but the claimant remained steadfast in her refusal. On 26 March 2020, the respondent’s chief operating officer (COO) instructed that the claimant’s employment be terminated without notice, pay in lieu, and accrued holiday payment. This action was justified by the COO as a suitable reaction to the claimant’s inflexibility which showed that she was “clearly not someone interested in the firm or her colleagues”.
The claimant’s IT access was terminated that afternoon and she was only informed of her dismissal after she queried this action. Later, the respondent paid the claimant notice and holiday pay after accepting that they had breached her employment contract terms. The claimant nonetheless brought a claim to the ET for unfair dismissal. The ET decided that the dismissal was unfair due to the employer’s failure to undertake a proper dismissal procedure. They did not enter into any consultation with the employee over the contractual change and did not give the employee the opportunity to talk through her reasons for refusal. In addition, they did not offer an appeal to the dismissal. The assessment of whether a dismissal was fair or not looks at both the reason for dismissal, and how it was carried out. The ET noted that failure to agree to the variations to her contract terms and conditions could have been a fair reason for dismissal, falling within the some other substantial reason definition. However, the dismissal was deemed to be unfair on the grounds of the lack of procedure. This case does not indicate that this particular reason for dismissal will always be fair, even where a thorough procedure
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | September 2021 | Issue 73 34
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker