In Kubilius v Kent Foods Ltd, the Employment Tribunal found that a delivery driver had been fairly dismissed, following his refusal to wear a facemask.
Delivery driver, Mr Kubilius, worked for Kent Foods Ltd, a distribution company which transports food products. Sugar company Tate & Lyle is one of its major clients. Mr Kubilius was based at Kent Food’s Basildon depot, where around 90% of the driving work entails journeys to and from Tate & Lyle’s Thames Refinery site.
Kent Foods’s Employee Handbook stressed the importance of maintaining good relationships with clients and suppliers, informing employees that they should be “courteous and pleasant…at all times”. The Employee Handbook also required staff to safeguard the health and safety of themselves and others, and the Driver’s Handbook required drivers to follow “customer instruction regarding PPE”.
On 21 May 2020, Mr Kubilius visited Tate & Lyle’s Thames Refinery site, where he was asked to wear a facemask. He refused, arguing that he was staying in his cab and legally did not need to. Tate & Lyle banned him from site for non-compliance with health and safety rules.
Mr Kubilius was summarily dismissed by Kent Foods. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
Kent Foods argued that they had fairly dismissed Mr Kubilius on the grounds of his misconduct, or alternatively ‘some other substantial reason’ (that he had been banned from Tate & Lyle’s Thames Refinery site).
The Tribunal found that Mr Kubilius had been fairly dismissed. Kent Foods was found to have carried out a reasonable investigation, and to have genuinely believed that Mr Kubilius was guilty of misconduct. There were also reasonable grounds to conclude that misconduct had been committed: Kent Foods’ Driver’s Handbook imposes an obligation to comply with PPE instructions at a client site, and Mr Kubilius had admittedly refused to. While another employer may have simply issued Mr Kubilius with a warning, Kent Foods’ decision to dismiss Mr Kubilius fell within the range of reasonable responses.
