Francesco Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Limited
[2024] EAT 25
JT Edwards Ltd v Isaac Seopane
9 November 2022
[2023] EAT 54
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee was unfairly fired for wanting to take time off during the COVID lockdown. A judge said the company lied about the reason. The employee will get money, but another judge will decide exactly how much.
Key Facts
- •Isaac Seopane (Claimant) was unfairly dismissed by J T Edwards Ltd (Respondent) in May 2020 during the first Covid lockdown.
- •The dismissal followed Seopane's request to be furloughed due to health concerns and Covid-19 risks.
- •The Tribunal found the Respondent's stated reason for dismissal (redundancy) was a pretext for the true reason: Seopane's furlough request.
- •The Tribunal awarded compensation for unfair dismissal and unlawful wage deductions, but dismissed the race discrimination claim.
- •The Respondent appealed the Tribunal's remedy decision.
- •Seopane suffered from asthma and eczema; the latter's onset and impact on his ability to work were disputed.
Legal Principles
Unfair Dismissal
Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA)
Unlawful Deduction from Wages
Not specified in document but implied
ACAS uplift for unfair dismissal
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA)
Polkey deduction
Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142
Mitigation of loss
Not specified in document but implied
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal's reasoning on remedy was unclear and insufficiently Meek compliant regarding the calculation of compensation (furlough vs. full pay), the impact of Seopane's eczema, and the award for loss of company car.
Tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal upheld.
The Respondent's reason for dismissal (redundancy) was a pretext for the true reason (Seopane's furlough request, which the Tribunal deemed an act of misconduct or poor performance).
25% ACAS uplift for unfair dismissal upheld.
The Tribunal was entitled to apply the uplift due to the Respondent's failure to follow fair procedure, despite not providing detailed reasoning.
Remitted to a new Tribunal.
To clarify the issues regarding calculation of compensation (pay rate, eczema impact), and the company car compensation.