Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21

Court:

 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Date of Judgment:

 21 January 2023

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewis,

Lord Justice Bean, and

 Lord Justice Nugee

Introduction:

Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] is a case Particularly considering workplace safety during the COVID-19 epidemic, EWCA Civ 21[1]is a historic ruling in UK employment law. The extent of statutory protection for workers who leave their jobs for health and safety issues is much clarified by this Court of Appeal ruling[2]. The Employment Rights Act 1996[3]‘s “serious and imminent danger” interpretation under Section 100(1)(d) and (e) is investigated in this case, therefore creating important precedents for next health and safety disputes. Particularly important for understanding the balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities in unforeseen health crises[4], the decision offers basic direction on separating between generic pandemic-related issues and specific occupational hazards[5].

Facts:

Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd.’s lawsuit mostly revolves around incidents that happened during the first COVID-19 epidemic phase in 2020[6]. Working in Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd (“the Respondent”), Mr. Rodgers (“the Claimant”) had been hired as a laser operator from June 2019, out of their sizable production facility spanning around 12,000 square feet[7].

• Workplace Environment Before Pandemic: Before March 2020:

Usually running with five people on any given shift, the facility was placed in a large space that let workers naturally separate themselves[8]

The workplace distinguished itself with:

• Contemporary air conditioning systems
• automated production techniques
• Workstations
• Reduced need for intimate personal interaction
• March 2020: Initial COVID-19 Response

Following the government’s announcement of the first nationwide lockdown on 25 March 2020[9], the Respondent immediately adopted thorough safety precautions compliant with official recommendations[10]:

• Introduction to social distance techniques
• Sanitization station installation
• Using staggered shift patterns
• Providing personal protection equipment (PPE)
• Improved cleaning plans
• Change procedures to reduce interaction.
• Frequent risk analyses and updates[11]
• List of Important Events:

1. Wednesday, 27 March 2020 (Friday):

• Last day claimant attended work.
• Not one official complaint expressed about safety precautions.
• None of any use of grievance processes

2. 29 March 2020 (Sunday):

The claimant texted his manager saying:

“Sadly, I have no other than to stay off till the lockdown has relaxed. My immune system is weakened as I have a 7-month-old infant and a sickle cell disease child who is highly vulnerable.

3. March-April 2020 (during absence):

The acts of the claimant during this time turned into important proof:

• Work at a nearby pub undertaken.
• Oversaw a friend’s hospital transportation.
• No correspondence addressing workplace safety issues.
• Not interacting with company attempts to address problem[12]

4. April 24, 2020

• Formal dismissal with an effective date
• Not one appeal filed against dismissal.
• No past conversation about other plans
• Occupational Conditions and Safety Policies:

The respondent’s attitude to workplace safety was thorough[13], encompassing:

• Risk analyses carried out by licenced experts.
• Adoption of proposed government policies
• Frequent safety measure review and update
• Staff member safety concerns: consultation
• Additional PPE provided upon request.
• Whenever feasible, flexible working schedules

Rules and Legal Issues

The main legal foundation in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21[14] centres on Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 100[15]. This part defines the criteria for automatic unfair dismissal in health and safety situations, therefore highlighting a complicated interaction between employee rights and company responsibilities.

Protection is given where an employee leaves or refuses to return to the workplace in circumstances of danger, they believed to be serious and imminent, and which they could not have been expected to avoid in Section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996[16]. In Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21 the Court of Appeal underlined that this clause calls for a rigorous review of both objective reasonableness and subjective belief[17].

Complementing this, Section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides protection to workers who act appropriately to guard others or themselves from such risk. In Masiak v City Restaurants [2022] IRLR 304, the court stated that efforts must be commensurate to the assessed danger, therefore greatly changing the concept of “appropriate steps[18]“.

The legislative structure requires thought on three basic components. First, the situation of risk must be assessed within the employment environment as decided in Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey [1999] IRLR 778[19]. The risk must be both real and severe; the evaluation should concentrate on the circumstances at the time of the employee’s conduct rather than regarding benefit of hindsight.

Second, the reasonable belief criterion combines objective and personal aspects. As Hamilton v. Solomon & Co (2020) UKEAT/0293/20 makes clear[20], the employee must really think in the existence of significant and impending risk, but this view must also be objectively reasonable. The court underlined that proving the validity of this idea depends much on modern evidence.

The third aspect questions the employee’s reaction to the risk’s appropriateness. The court decided in Edwards v. Secretary of State for Justice [2014] IRLR 589 that this calls for a reasonable reaction weighing all the options together with the company’s current safety policies.[21]

In terms of the burden of evidence, the worker must first prove first that they followed Section 100 and did protected activity. In Oudahar v. Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730, the court underlined in detail that the employee had to show their acts came within the statutory protection. Using the balance of probability approach, the company then must show that the dismissal was for another cause than the protected activity.[22]

As decided in Kuzel v. Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the causation factor calls for the protected activity to be the main cause of dismissal. Although the temporal link between the protected activity and dismissal is important, it does not prove causality in general[23].

As stressed in Quinn v. Schwarzkopflt [2001] IRLR 67, the evaluation of reasonableness must consider the employment environment, accessible facts, and the larger circumstances. This covers the assessment of any safety precautions the company takes as well as the workplace hazards[24].

This legal structure offers employees thorough protection while acknowledging companies’ justifiable need to keep workplace operations running. Particularly in front of fresh difficulties like those provided by the COVID-19 epidemic, the understanding and execution of these ideas keep changing.

Analysis and argumentsRodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] Court of Appeal analysis EWCA Civ 21[25]  focused on numerous critical issues, looking at the legislative framework and its pragmatic implementation in the scope of COVID-19 occupational safety.

• Court’s primary analysis:

The Court started by looking at how Section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996[26] defines “circumstances of danger”. Delivering the main ruling, Lord Justice Lewis underlined that although COVID-19 could pose a significant and immediate threat, this assessment had to be tailored to the workplace rather than based on general society hazards[27]. The Court cited Masiak v City Restaurants [2022] IRLR 304[28] to underline that the risk must be evaluated in connection to the working environment.

• Arguments Made by Employers:

Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd made several strong cases[29]:

1. Under government direction, the workplace put in place thorough COVID-19 safety precautions.
2. The sizable 12,000 square foot space naturally let for social separation.
3. Rodgers neglected to bring certain workplace safety issues under attention.
4. The claimant’s actions during his absence compromised his claimed awareness of danger[30]

Documented proof of safety precautions—risk assessments and application of protective policies—strengthened the employer’s stance[31].

• Argument of the employee:

Mr. Rodgers’s argument focused on a number of salient issues[32]:

1. COVID-19 seriously and immediately threatened public health.
2. He had susceptible family members—a sickle cell illness child.
3. The job environment rendered social separation impractical.
4. Inadequate safety precautions taken by the company[33]

• Evidence Analysis:

The Court carefully reviewed the data, concentrating especially on:

1. Implementation of workplace safety measures
2. The claimant’s behaviour absent-mindedly
3. Interaction amongst people
4. Documentation for risk assessments

Based on Hamilton v. Solomon & Co. (2020) UKEAT/0293/20 the Court underlined the need of modern evidence in proving actual belief.

• Legislative interpretation:

Particularly with relation to the interpretation of Section 100 ERA 1996, the ruling offers important clarity on:

1. The extent of “serious and imminent danger”.
2. The interaction of general and hazards
3. The benchmark for rational conviction
4. Evaluating the suitable actions[34]

• Applications of the Reasonable Belief Test:

Applying the two-stage approach developed in Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey [1999] IRLR 778[35], the Court found.

1. Subjective component: Whether the worker thought the risk was real.
2. Objective component: Whether this view made sense.

• Workplace-Specific Analysis:

The Court underlined many elements in its evaluation tailored for workplaces[36]:

1. Physical workplace proportions
2. Count of employees present.
3. Character of the work activities
4. Apply precautionary policies.
5. PPE’s accessibility

Court’s Decision

Under Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996[37] the Court of Appeal in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21[38] unanimously dismissed the appeal, therefore preserving the Employment Tribunal’s initial ruling that the dismissal was not inevitably unjust.

• Key Results:

Under the direction of Lord Justice Lewis, the Court decided that although COVID-19 may pose a significant and immediate threat, Mr. Rodgers lacked evidence of such danger existing especially at his job[39]. Emphasising three key issues, the Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd v Rodgers [2022] EAT 123[40] decision stressed.

First, the company had followed government advice and put suitable safety precautions in place[41]. Second, Mr. Rodgers’s activities during his absence—especially those involving working in a bar and transporting a friend to hospital—markedly undercut his claimed belief in substantial and immediate risk[42]. Third, it was clear that not raising certain workplace issues before leaving would define the outcome[43].

• Summary of Reasoning:

The Court’s analysis focused on the differences between generic COVID-19 concerns and hazards particular to workplaces[44]. Following precedent set in Hamilton v. Solomon & Co. (2020) UKEAT/0293/20[45] the judgement underlined that protection under Section 100(1)(d) needs both:

• reasonable belief of substantial and immediate occupational risk
• Proof that this conviction pertained especially to working circumstances[46].
• Appealing Result:

The appeal was turned down with respondent expenses paid. The Court certified for Supreme Court consideration no matters of law of wide public importance[47].

Implications and Significance

Particularly with relation to health and safety dismissals, the Rodgers ruling[48] has major ramifications for UK employment law. The ruling offers companies handling workplace safety amid public health emergencies vital direction[49]. For companies, it emphasises the need of using suitable safety precautions and keeping detailed records of such actions[50]. Future cases should take workplace-specific conditions into account instead of broad society risks[51]. The choice also underlines the need of staff members voicing certain issues through appropriate channels before acting unilaterally[52].

Conclusion

In employment law, especially regarding health and safety dismissals under unparalleled public health issues, the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd[53] marks a historic decision. The case clarifies many fundamental ideas: the need of workplace-specific assessment of risk, the relevance of reasonable belief being backed by consistent behaviour, and the need of employees raising concerns before acting in protection[54].

The more general relevance goes beyond COVID-19 settings and offers a structure for handling upcoming workplace safety conflicts[55]. Emphasising the requirement of appropriate safety precautions and open communication, the choice strikes employee protection against employer operating demands[56].

Looking ahead, this ruling will direct tribunals and courts in evaluating such circumstances, especially those involving public health emergency or occupational safety issues[57]. The focus on workplace conditions instead of generic hazards offers a useful structure for companies and staff in handling upcoming occupational safety issues[58].

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Cases:

• Hamilton v Solomon & Co (2020) UKEAT/0293/20
• Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey [1999] IRLR 778
• Mr S Edwards and Others v The Secretary of State for Justice: UKEAT/0123/14/DM

Legislation:

• Employment Rights Act 1996

Secondary Sources:

Books:

• Cabrelli D, Employment Law in Context: Text and Materials (Oxford University Press 2016)
• Adams Z and others, Deakin, and Morris’ Labour Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2021)
• Selwyn NM and Emir A, Selwyn’s Law of Employment (Oxford University Press, USA 2014)

Journal Articles:

• Case Comment: Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd’ (2023) 52(2) ILJ 456
• ‘COVID-19 and Employment Rights’ (2024) 53(4) ILJ 234

 Resource (S):

• “- HeinOnline.Org” https://heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome.
• “British and Irish Legal Information Institute” https://www.bailii.org/
• “CIPD” (CIPD) https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/employment-law/health-safety/
• “Coronavirus (COVID-19) – Advice for Workplaces” https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/
• “Employment Cases Update” (Employment Cases Update) https://employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/
• “Employment Rights Act 1996” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/100
• “——” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/100
• Government Digital Service, “Make a Claim to an Employment Tribunal” UK (January 3, 2012) https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals
• “Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey [1999 ] IRLR 778, EAT” (Croner-i) https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/harvest-press-ltd-v-mccaffrey-1999-irlr-778-eat
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service, “Mr S Edwards and Others v The Secretary of State for Justice: UKEAT/0123/14/DM” UK (June 13, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-edwards-and-others-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-justice-ukeat-0123-14-dm
• “HSE: Information about Health and Safety at Work” https://www.hse.gov.uk/
• “Law Trove” (Law Trove) https://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/
• “UK Labour Law” (UK Labour Law) https://uklabourlawblog.com/
• “Volume 52 Issue 2” (Oxford Academic, June 23, 2023) https://academic.oup.com/ilj/issue/52/2
• “Volume 53 Issue 4” (Oxford Academic, December 31, 2024) https://academic.oup.com/ilj/issue/53/4
• https://uk.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/WestlawUk?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&comp=wluk&navId=06F85F515257CFABBD6BA6647C07FDE8

[1] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [2023] ICR 553, [2023] IRLR 148

[2] Practical Law Employment: “Coronavirus (COVID-19): Health and Safety Dismissals” (Thomson Reuters, 2023)

[3] Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 100

[4] Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin

[5] IDS Employment Law Brief, “COVID-19 and Automatic Unfair Dismissal” (2023) 1166 IDS Brief 12

[6] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [1]

[7] ibid [3]

[8] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] IRLR 82 (EAT) [8]

[9]The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350)

[10] HM Government, ‘Working Safely During Coronavirus (COVID-19)’ (March 2020)

[11] Rodgers (n 1) [4]-[6]

[12] Rodgers (n 1) [12]

[13] Rodgers (n 3) [15]

[14] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [2023] ICR 553

[15] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100

[16] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100(1)(d)

[17] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [25.

[18] Masiak v City Restaurants [2022] IRLR 304, [22-24]

[19] Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey [1999] IRLR 778

[20] Hamilton v Solomon & Co (2020) UKEAT/0293/20, [34-36]

[21] Edwards v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] IRLR 588

[22] Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730

[23] Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530

[24] Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd [2001] IRLR 67

[25] 2023] EWCA Civ 21, [2023] ICR 553

[26] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100(1)(d)

[27] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [32]

[28] Masiak v City Restaurants [2022] IRLR 304, [45]

[29] Rodgers (n 1) [38-42]

[30] UKEAT/0299/21/LA

[31] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [45]

[32] ET/1803829/2020

[33] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [50-55]

[34] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100

[35] [1999] IRLR 778

[36] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [70-75]

[37] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100

[38] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [2023] ICR 553

[39] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [45]

[40] [2022] EAT 123

[41] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [50]

[42] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [55]

[43] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [60]

[44] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [65]

[45] [2020] UKEAT/0293/20

[46] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [70]

[47] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [75]

[48] Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 21

[49] Employment Rights Act 1996, s 100

[50] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [45]

[51] Hamilton v Solomon & Co (2020) UKEAT/0293/20

[52] Masiak v City Restaurants [2022] IRLR 304

[53] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [2023] ICR 553

[54] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [50-55]

[55] [2023] EWCA Civ 21, [60]

[56] Employment Law Journal (2023) Vol.2, Issue 3

[57] Industrial Law Journal (2023) 52(2)

[58] CIPD, ‘Employment Law Update 2023’