In the case of Mr J Priest v Car Perfection Carcare Ltd the Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2016 as a Car Body Repairer. He initially did so as an apprentice and whilst attending college. There was no contract of employment. The Respondent is in business as a vehicle accident repair company employing 4 people. The Respondent’s toilet facilities are one unisex toilet with a small handbasin situated in a separate block from the main premises. There is no hot water.
Since January 2020 there had been intermittent issues with the toilet which on occasion meant it was unusable. The Respondent’s position was that because the toilets was outside it was prone to freezing in cold weather and had to be unblocked.
In January 2021, the Claimant reported problems with the toilet namely that it would not flush and there was no water. The Claimant then went on sick leave for a 3-week period with a shoulder issue. On his return to work on 17 February 2021, the Claimant needed to use the toilet and found it was still not working. It is common ground that the Claimant had a discussion with Mr Edge about the state of the toilet and Mr Edge said he would get if fixed by the end of the week. Mr Edge said a pipe had burst on 15 February 2021 and he was awaiting a plumber coming to fix it. The Claimant was dissatisfied and informed the Health and Safety Executive and Wolverhampton City Council about matters.
On 18 February 2021, the Council visited the Respondent regarding the complaint. The inspector explained they had received a complaint about the toilet and there being no hand sanitizer at work. The inspector firstly spoke with Mrs Edge who showed him hand sanitizer and face masks and then he spoke with Mr Edge who showed him the toilet and explained a plumber was awaited.
Mr Edge then called the Claimant and Mr Kielczewski into a meeting in the office. Mrs Edge was also present. This was at about 12:30pm which is around the time the Claimant would usually take his lunch break. It is common ground that Mr Edge told the Claimant and Mr Kielczewski that they should switch off their phones. He told them there had been a complaint made, the Council had visited, and an issue had been raised. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant admitted that it was he who had contacted the Council, and that Mr Edge asked why he had done so.
It is the Claimant’s case that Mr and Mrs Edge were aggressive towards him. He said he was going to take his lunch and as he was collecting his lunchbox Mr Edge told him not to bother coming back as he was sacked.
The provision of working toilet and washing facilities is clearly a matter of health and safety in the workplace. The Claimant was right to complain when the facilities were not in good working order, firstly to his employer and then, when dissatisfied with the response, to the relevant authorities.
Employment Judge Hindmarch found that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant had raised genuine health and safety concerns with both his employer and the relevant authorities. It was because of doing so that he was dismissed. The claim therefore succeeded, and the Claimant was awarded £32,738.17.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
