Abraham Goldstein v Marie-Pierre Herve
[2024] EAT 35
Francesco Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Limited
29 February 2024
[2024] EAT 25
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee was fired during COVID-19 after asking to work from home or be furloughed. A higher court said the first court didn't properly consider if his requests were a good reason to protect himself and if those requests were the main reason he was fired. The case will be re-examined.
Key Facts
- •Francesco Accattatis (Claimant/Appellant) was employed by Fortuna Group (London) Limited (Respondent) as a sales and project marketing coordinator.
- •He did not have two years' service, precluding an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- •During the COVID-19 pandemic, he requested to work from home or be furloughed due to health concerns.
- •His employer refused, and subsequently dismissed him, citing a general failure to comply with company policies and guidelines.
- •The Claimant argued automatically unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) on health and safety grounds.
Legal Principles
An employee is unfairly dismissed if the principal reason for dismissal is taking appropriate steps to protect themselves from a reasonably believed serious and imminent danger.
Section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996
The appropriateness of steps taken is judged objectively, considering the employee's knowledge, available facilities, and advice.
Section 100(2) ERA 1996
If dismissal reasons include both protected (section 100) and unprotected conduct, the tribunal must determine if the protected conduct was the principal reason.
Case Law (implied from discussion and analysis)
The tribunal must provide sufficient reasons for its decisions, including why certain actions were or were not considered appropriate steps.
Implied from the grounds of appeal and the judge's response
Outcomes
The appeal was partially allowed.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) failed to sufficiently apply section 100(2) ERA 1996 when assessing the appropriateness of the claimant's actions and failed to clearly determine whether the claimant's requests were the principal reason for dismissal.
Remittal to the ET.
The case was remitted to the original ET judge to reconsider (a) whether the claimant's demand to be furloughed or work from home was an appropriate step under section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996, applying section 100(2), and (b) whether that demand was the principal reason for the dismissal.