This prompted the claimant to send their manager an email which included links to information regarding face masks. Within that email, the claimant stated that they believed that wearing a face mask would not stop the spread of the virus, and it would decrease their oxygen levels which could lead to hypoxia or severe hypoxia and cardiac arrest. They also claimed that requiring workers to wear a mask unless they could provide a doctor’s exemption letter was a “…massive breach of the Nolan principles, human rights, employment rights, constitutional rights and the common law”. Based on these beliefs, the claimant refused to wear their mask over both their nose and mouth as instructed and continued to attend work, despite being repeatedly told to wear the mask properly.  

Eventually and after a number of months of this behaviour, the claimant was suspended from work. This, the claimant was told, was to de-escalate the situation in the kitchen (as the claimant’s colleagues regularly complained about the claimant and their failure to wear their mask properly), because the claimant posed a threat to themselves and others, and to protect the organisation from risk. The claimant was told they could return to work if they agreed to comply with the face mask rules.

An investigation took place into the claimant’s behaviour. They refused to attend any investigation meetings, and informed the respondent that until they provided supporting evidence as to the lawfulness of the mask wearing policy they would not comply. As a result, the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing. This found that the claimant had failed to wear a mask whilst at work as instructed and had not provided mitigation beyond not being provided with scientific evidence of the validity of mask wearing. Their refusal to wear the mask properly was deemed to be gross misconduct, and they were summarily dismissed.

The claimant appealed this dismissal. However, this did not proceed as the respondent instructed ACAS that they were not interested in further attempts to settle the dispute and the claimant deemed it no longer necessary to have the meeting as the respondent continued to fail to provide scientific evidence as to the lawfulness of its mask wearing policy.

Claims were brought for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.