How can we help?


Dismissing employee for not wearing face mask was fair

The employment tribunal in Kubilius v Kent Food Ltd ET 3201960/2020 has given judgment on whether dismissing an employee on the grounds of gross misconduct, for not wearing a face mask, was fair.  

Facts of the case 

Mr Kubilius had been employed by Kent Food Ltd since 25 July 2016 as a Class 1 driver. He was based in Basildon and 90% of his role was driving to and from the Tate & Lyle’s (T&L) Thames refinery site. Kent Food Ltd’s handbook requires its employees to:  

  • Maintain good relations with its clients/suppliers 
  • Take reasonable steps to safeguard their health and safety and of any other person who may be affected by their actions at work. 
  • Customer interaction regarding PPE requirement must be followed.  

T&L implemented a requirement that all staff should wear face masks at their Thames Refinery site. This was only a temporary requirement caused by COVID-19 and therefore T&L did not update their written site rules. However, all visitors were issued with face masks on arrival to the site.  

On 21 May 2020 Mr Kubilius attended the T&L site. He was provided with a face mask and given a copy of the site rules. Whilst waiting in his vehicle for his paperwork, with his window down, Mr Kubilius was seen not wearing his face mask. A T&L employee gestured to Mr Kubilius to wear his face mask, but Mr Kubilius did not acknowledge the gesture. The T&L employee approached the vehicle and requested he put the mask on.  

Mr Kubilius refused on the grounds that he was in his vehicle. The T&L employee explained the importance of wearing a face mask and the site rules require him to wear one. Mr Kubilius refused again. A manager of T&L approached the vehicle and explained he was required to wear the face mask as per the site rules and that they were in place to protect people on the site. Mr Kubilius refused again 

He was told that if he does not wear the face mask then he will be banned from the T&L Site. Mr Kubilius said there is no legal requirement for him to do so and refused. He left the site as his paperwork had been provided to him.  

T&L sent an email to Kent Food Ltd informing them that their driver had been banned from the site on the grounds of non-compliance with health and safety rules. Mr Kubilius told Kent Food ltd that he had done nothing wrong, there is nothing in the site rules on wearing maskshe was only not wearing the mask when he was in his vehicle and it is not against the law to not wear a face mask.  

An investigation was performed by Kent Food LtdMr Kubilius was interviewed and provided a written statementHe admitted the T&L employees came up to him and request he wear his mask. However, he continued to maintain he did nothing wrong. T&L provided statements; their version of events did not change either. The investigating officer thought there was a disciplinary case to answer and was referred ondisciplinary hearing invite was subsequently sent and there was one single allegation of misconduct. 

Failure to follow a Health and Safety Instruction from staff on a suppliers premises, regarding the current requirement to wear a face mask when on site. 

A senior member of Kent Food Ltd believed it would be best for everyone if T&L rescinded the decision to ban Mr KubiliusHe approached T&L and asked them to rescind the decision. T&L refused and maintained their decision was the correct one to take and was justified. 

The disciplinary hearing officer interviewed Mr Kubilius and his version of events did not change. He continued to believe he had done nothing wrong. The disciplinary hearing officer adjourned and considered the outcome. The disciplinary hearing officer thought the allegation of misconduct was established and it was a serious breach requiring dismissal with notice pay.  

The law on dismissing an employee

Employees, with qualifying service, have the right to not be unfairly dismissed. A potential fair reason for dismissal is conduct. For the employer to rely on this ground they will need to demonstrate that:  

  • The employer has a genuine belief that the employee had committed an act of serious misconduct. 
  • They carried out a reasonable investigation. 
  • There were reasonable grounds for the employer to conclude that the employee committed the act of misconduct.   

Once an employer proves there is a fair reason for dismissal, they will need to show that there was procedural fairness; and that the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses.  

If employers follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, then the procedure will likely always be fair. The uncertainty for unfair dismissal is whether the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses 

The decision  

In Kubilius v Kent Food Ltd the tribunal found that the reason to dismiss the employee was because of misconduct. They found there was procedural fairness. The employment judge held that the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses as: – 

  • The employer was entitled to consider the key relationship it had with T&L. Mr Kubilius continued insistence that he had done nothing wrong made the disciplinary hearing officer lose faith in him; and 
  • Due to the site ban it was not feasible for Mr Kubilius to continue in his contractual role. The ban arose solely because of Mr Kubilius’ s conduct.  

Once an employer proves there is a fair reason for dismissal, they will need to show that there was procedural fairness; and that the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses.  

This is a first instance decision which means that the decision is not binding on other tribunals. However, this case does show what will be within the reasonable band of responses available to an employer.  It is important to note that it was the combination of key relationship, loss of faith and site ban which meant the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses. Had it not been for the site ban then dismissal may not have been within the band of reasonable responses.  

It is likely there will be further tribunal decisions on whether dismissing an employee for not wearing a face mask is fair. This is because the Government has not made it mandatory for employees to wear face masks in all workplaces. Face masks are not considered PPE eitherFor advice on masks in the workplace, including exemptions and discrimination issues, contact our employment team. 

About this article

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 01 June 2023
  • Employment

Facts employees should know about their personal data

We previously published an article on facts an employer should know about holding personal data, so it is only fair that we also write about the other side of the coin – facts employees should know as individuals whose personal data is held by their employer.

  • 01 June 2023
  • Immigration

What is the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) and how much do you have to pay?

The Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) is a levy on companies who sponsor migrant workers. This levy was imposed on 6 April 2017. The Government states that the charge has been levied to contribute towards addressing the skills gap in the local economy.

  • 26 May 2023
  • Employment

Avoiding discrimination in flexible working requests

The right to request flexible working is currently available to employees with at least 26 weeks’ service and is set to be extended further under new Government reforms.

  • 25 May 2023
  • Corporate and M&A

Management Buyout – Top 5 things to consider

A management buyout is a financial transaction in which a member of the management team purchases the company from its registered owner. MBO’s usually occur in private companies in an effort to enhance profitability and simplify strategies.

  • 25 May 2023
  • Employment

Carer’s Leave Bill set to become law

On 19 May 2023, the Carer’s Leave Bill had its third reading in the House of Lords, and upon receiving Royal Assent, will become law. There is not yet a date for the implementation of this bill, however it is likely that this will happen relatively quickly upon receiving Royal Assent, so is definitely one to keep an eye on.

  • 18 May 2023
  • Immigration

Navigating SOC Codes

When it comes to UK immigration, understanding the intricacies of the system is vital. One significant aspect of the process revolves around Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. SOC codes play a crucial role in determining the eligibility for an individual to apply for a work visa, assessing skill levels, and matching individuals to appropriate job roles.