Tribunal Tales: solo worker sacked for not wearing a face mask

A lorry driver who worked alone in his cab was sacked for not wearing a face mask. Even though he posed no risk, a tribunal ruled that this was fair. Why did it side with the employer?

Kubilius v Kent Foods Ltd (Employment Tribunal, 10 February 2021) 3201960/2020

Chapter Headings
0:00 - Intro
0:45 - Facts of the case
1:56 - The Tribunal's decision

📚 MY BOOKS

🎁 FREE STUFF

💎 PRODUCTS, MEMBERSHIPS AND COURSES:

🌞 WHO AM I:

☎️ CONTACT ME:
If you’d like to talk, I’d love to hear from you.
Subscribe to this channel - click ‘SUBSCRIBE’ above

Tweeting @daniel_barnett directly is the quickest way to get a response. Sadly there aren’t enough hours in the day to respond to everyone 😭, but I promise I read all messages.

♨️ IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
This video is published by Employment Law Services Limited. The information in this video is for general guidance only and, although the presenters and publisher believe it was correct at the time it was recorded (June 2022), the law may have changed since then. You should always seek your own independent legal advice. Please note that for employment law, the law explained applies to England, Scotland and Wales. For all other areas of law, it applies to England only.

PS: Some of the links in this description are to my own products or are affiliate links that I get a commission from.

[naila]

Strange the government guidelines don’t protect those who have to choose between heating or eating.

But this man not wearing a mask is at the top of the priority list.

What absolutely nonsense from a bunch of liars

[mrlover]

My personal opinion it's unfair to dismiss him. Anyway as there is lorry shortages in the whole of Europe he will find a job very easily.

[feliksj.kwiatkowski]

How delicious to watch a society earnestly and diligently seeking out its own destruction.

[Spike-ruus]

This is mad! UK health and safety executive (HSE) don't see masks as PPE, in fact they're considered medical devices which means a risk assessment needs to be done under section 3 of 'managing health and safety regs', was this done? If not the employer is violating health and safety and masks, especially surgical maks since they dont meet requirements under UK PPE legislation. They're forcing a medical intervention on someone which is in breach of various case law and human rights. This decision is wrong and is proven via case law. I'm assuming that the person in question had no good union backing him up, this decision should never have happened in this way.

[crayzmarc]

Because the judges are bent! What a joke!

[krzysztoftryka]

In my opinion, the main problem with the UK's law is the lack of Constitution as the highest set of basic rules to which ALL other laws must adhere. If such Constitution existed in the UK it would most likely prohibited companies from seting policies forcing their visitors/employees to wear face masks. And would also prohibited the government from mandating face masks, lockdowns and vaccines.

In Poland - the government has forced the police to fine anyone not wearing face masks in public. All of those cases has been dismissed in courts - because we have The Constitution prohibiting such use of power. The police has acted unlawfuly. Same was with the vaccines - impossible to enforce due to constitutional laws of the citizens.

[susanalderson]

UK Justice is pay to win, always has been.

[SteveW-rrvh]

No written policy from tate and lyle regarding mask wearing. Driver must remain in his cab. Driver has no reason to show remorse. A reasonable response from the employer may have been to send another Driver to tate and lyle. Of course, a working man has little chance of winning in our corrupt courts.

[davidhawk]

The only great reset I agree to is to begin with the so called justice system. I remember a case where a sikh successfully won an unfair dismissal case for not wearing ppe gear (helmet) on a building site. So how does this figure in the case Daniels talking about?

[dog-jkhn]

Employee refused to work amicably with client. Employer does most of its business wirh client. Employer dismisses employee that can no longer fulfill the role. The result seems not only fair but obvious to anyone pating attention.

[kennethatkins]

Its all in the detail. Wonder if the employer explained the "detail" to the worker before getting into formal action. ?

[jimg]

There are lots of questions about the exact circumstances that could tip this ruling either way. I suspect that overall this was a fair outcome. If rather harsh.

[mmtot]

In Scotland the government clearly stated that people who would were exempt did not have to prove exemption. They also clearly stated that employers could not force employees to wear a mask. The legislation actually said that if you could not wear a mask safely you were exempt from doing so. I'm still waiting to see proof that masks cause no physiological or psychological harm whatsoever.

[youtubeuser]

Also, regarding Tate&Lyle,

“personal protective equipment” means all equipment designed to be worn or held by an employee for protection against one or more hazards likely to endanger the employee's safety and health at work...."

A mask is NOT PPE.

[silviafarfan]

Unfair and stupid, but I understand the legal argument. It is not the remit of an employment tribunal to make justice. Thanks for the explanation.

[thomasdalton]

Would the outcome be different if it had been his own employer's rules rather than a client's rules? I think it is reasonable to expect employees to do as a client asks even if the request is a bit silly as long as it doesn't do any harm, since failure to do so can harm the business. It would not be reasonable for an employer to enforce completely unnecessary policies on its own employees, since no harm is done.

[markwalder]

can you please look in to the state of Clarion housing since their cyber attack, thousands being affected and no end in sight :)

[mmtot]

Mandatory face muzzling is an abomination.

[ChrisMinusHumour]

This is entirely correct. The employee potentially compromised a company client relationship in order to make a petty point about masks. You cannot be surprised when the obvious rules you are breaking bite you back. Regardless of your feelings about masks, if you value your job, you respect the wishes of your client.