In the recent case of Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Ltd an employment tribunal held that it was not an automatic unfair dismissal where the employer dismissed an employee who insisted on furlough leave  claiming to have safety concerns about attending the workplace work during lockdown.

What was the case about?

Mr Accattatis begun working for the Respondent (a seller and distributor of PPE) in 2018. The Tribunal heard he had a difficult working relationship with his line manager.

Fortuna’s workload increased significantly at the start of the pandemic, but they had allowed employees to take holiday or unpaid leave if desired.

Mr Accattatis made a request to work from home, which was refused, as it was found to not be possible in his role. What then followed was a period of sickness, which resulted in Mr Accattatis making a request to be placed on furlough. This was declined by the Respondent, as the Company was still very busy. There had been let-off in Mr Accattatis’ workload and he continued to request that he put on furlough, which the Respondent continued to decline.

On 23 April 2020, Mr Accattatis was dismissed with one months’ notice. He brought a claim to the employment tribunal for automatically unfair dismissal, on the grounds that his workplace posed a serious and imminent danger to him.

Although the tribunal found that Mr Accattatis did reasonably believe that there was a serious and imminent danger of Covid-19 in the workplace, he had not taken appropriate steps to protect himself from the danger. There was the option of taking holiday, or unpaid leave, but instead he insisted on being furloughed or working from home, neither which were appropriate in the circumstances.

Employment Judge Alliott found that the reason for dismissal, is because Mr Accattatis was ‘challenging’, and the Respondent wanted to terminate his employment before he obtained his two years’ service and became eligible to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal. It was not, as Mr Accattatis has pleaded, because his workplace posed an imminent and serious danger and he had raised concerns about it.

What should employers do?

What the case demonstrates, is it is not enough for an employee to show that they believed there was a serious and imminent danger, they are required to take steps to protect themselves and be prepared to explain their reasoning to their employer.

You can read the full judgement of Mr F Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Ltd here.

FREE first advice

Have you ever wanted to just ask an expert employment law solicitor if they can help you, without worrying about what it may cost to contact them?

Get in touch

We’d like to talk to you to see what we can do to help, so please either call us anytime for free on 08000 614 631, email us or use the form below.

      Together we can work out what your next steps might be...in confidence, at no cost and with no obligation.

      SIGN UP TO RECEIVE UP TO THE MINUTE EMPLOYMENT LAW AND HR NEWS STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

      * indicates required
      McCabe and Co Solicitors will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us:
      You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at philip@mccabeandco.com. We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.
      We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.