The claimant worked as a sales assistant with the respondent store on the Isle of Man.   The issue with the claimant’s employment arose when she sought to take steps to protect herself from the effects of Coronavirus.   On 16th March 2020, the Government announced that due to the escalating situation that vulnerable groups were to be careful and avoid contact with others where possible.    The claimant is a type one diabetic and for that reason she spoke to the respondent, stating that she may have to self-isolate.    To confirm this, the claimant spoke to her GP via telephone and was advised that she could self-certificate for two weeks and to stay at home. 

The claimant informed the respondent of this outlining that she would be willing to undertake any duty that she could whilst she was at home.  The respondent never took advantage of that offer.   After two weeks, the claimant had an appointment with her boss, Ms Bennett, who asked when she could return to work.  The claimant responded that this could be immediate and that she would only be subject to the restrictions that applied to everyone in the community.   Ms Bennett responded negatively to this stating that she had ‘no other choice’. 

Ms Bennett later suggested that the claimant had actually resigned from her employment by virtue of not being available for the two weeks where she was ‘self-isolating’.  The approach from Ms Bennett was that the information in relation to the period of ‘self-isolating’ had been made on a purely social basis and that she did not feel it was a formal indication that she was to be taking two weeks leave.  There was never any discussion of furlough.  Furthermore, Ms Bennett stated that there was no logic in the claimant’s position considering that she decided to ‘walk out’ of her job at a time when there were in fact no Covid-19 cases on the island yet she wanted to return to her job when there were 49 cases.  

The Tribunal acknowledged that the position in March 2020 was one of a ‘confused new and strange world of an emerging pandemic’ and that there was ‘mounting concern, if not panic, among wide swathes of the population’. In taking into account this and the situation faced by the claimant, it was held that she was blameless in losing her employment.  There was no substantive reason why the claimant would have lost her job and there was never any fair hearing into the decision that had been made.  For this reason, she was successful in her unfair dismissal case as well as claims relating to notice pay.

Practical Lessons

This provides the first snapshot of how Tribunals may deal with cases arising from the effect of Covid-19.   The Tribunal in the Isle of Man is to be commended at the speed and efficiency of its system of justice.  The fact they have been able to bring a case to hearing (through remote means) and then deliver a judgment from a factual situation arising in March is very impressive.  In terms of the decision, it demonstrates that the Tribunal will be taking into account the real world ‘panic’ that had arisen at the time and that it cannot be used by employers as a method to avoid their obligations.
https://www.judgments.im/content/ET%2020-44%20Reid%20V%20The%20Good%20Health%20Store%20Ltd.pdf