• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Was an employee unfairly dismissed for refusing to wear a face mask?

26 May 2021

Scales of Justice image

As more Employment Tribunal judgments are published for cases arising from events which occurred during the first lockdown in 2020, we found one where an employee was dismissed for refusing to wear a face mask and subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal. With increasing numbers of people returning to the workplace, employers will be interested to see how the Employment Tribunal decided the claim.

The case

In Kubilius v Kent Foods Limited, Mr Kubilius was employed as a lorry driver. His ex-employer is a distribution company and approximately 90% of the driving work done from where Mr Kubilius worked, involved driving to and from one of their major client’s sites.

In May 2020, Mr Kubilius attended the client’s site. The client had previously decided that face masks should always be worn at the site to reduce the risk of coronavirus infection.

Mr Kubilius was issued with a face mask when booking in. After loading his lorry, Mr Kubilius was sat in his cab waiting to be given some paperwork. An employee of the client approached him and told him to put his face mask on. Mr Kubilius refused to do so. He said that his cab was his own environment and he only needed to wear the face mask when outside of his lorry. The client reported the incident to the employer and stated that they were going to add Mr Kubilius to their banned drivers list.

The employer investigated the matter and Mr Kubilius maintained his position and pointed out that the Government guidance on face masks at the time was that they were optional. The investigator decided that a disciplinary hearing was appropriate, as Mr Kubilius had breached the requirements in the Employee Handbook to maintain good relationships with customers and to cooperate to ensure a safe working environment. He had also breached a requirement in the Driver’s Handbook to comply with an instruction regarding PPE at a customer’s site.

Before the hearing, the employer had asked the client if they would be willing to rescind the ban on Mr Kubilius attending their site, but they refused.

Gross misconduct?

At the disciplinary hearing Mr Kubilius stood firm in his belief that he had not done anything wrong.

Mr Kubilius was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employer’s view was that a deliberate refusal to comply with a health and safety instruction was serious. This was aggravated by Mr Kubilius’ lack of remorse. Even if the site ban had been lifted, the employer would not have trusted him not to act similarly in future. Mr Kubilius did not appeal the decision, but later submitted a claim for unfair dismissal.

Unfair dismissal?

The Employment Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Kubilius had been dismissed for a potentially fair reason, in this case misconduct. It was also satisfied that Kent Foods had followed a fair procedure in relation to the investigation and disciplinary hearing.

The final issue for the Tribunal, was whether the employer had acted reasonably in all the circumstances in treating the alleged misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal. As the Judge identified:

“…the question is not what another employer might have done but whether the Respondent’s decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.”

Therefore, whilst another employer might have decided that the misconduct merited a warning rather than dismissal, Kent Foods was entitled to consider the importance to their business of maintaining good relationships with its customers. Mr Kubilius’ continued insistence that he had done nothing wrong caused his employer to reasonably lose confidence in his future conduct. A further relevant factor was that it was not feasible for Mr Kubilius to continue in his contractual role due to the site ban, which arose as a consequence of his conduct. There were no vacancies for any alternative roles that Mr Kubilius could have been redeployed into at the relevant time. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and was therefore fair.

Conclusion

It should be borne in mind that cases decided at Employment Tribunal level are not binding and that each case needs to be decided on its own facts. However, this case will be of interest to employers wondering what to do if an employee refuses to wear a mask. Employers must follow a fair procedure from the investigation onwards and ensure that any decisions taken fall within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer in the circumstances might adopt. For example, the dismissal of an employee who is medically exempt from wearing a mask could be unfair and might also amount to disability discrimination. We can advise you on the best approach to take and help minimise the risk of any claims.

If you are an employer dealing with a disciplinary problem, then we can help. Please call us on 01243 836840 for a no obligation chat, or email us at [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Discrimination found in gender critical belief case 27th July 2022
  • Court of Appeal overturns Tesco fire and rehire injunction 27th July 2022
  • Changes to fit notes 27th July 2022
  • Where are we with the fire and rehire Code of Practice? 27th July 2022
  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only