Tribunal Finds Against Worker’s Coronavirus ‘automatic Unfair Dismissal’ Claim - London Registrar
by Liz Seyi Digital marketing managerAn employment tribunal has found that an employee who claimed to
have felt uncomfortable commuting to and attending the office during lockdown
and requested to be furloughed was not automatically unfairly dismissed under
the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 100(1)(e).
Dismissed by email after repeatedly asking for furlough
Mr Accattatis was employed by Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
seller and distributor Fortuna Group (London) Ltd. On multiple occasions during
March and April 2020, he asked to be permitted to work from home or be placed
on furlough, reasoning that he wasn’t comfortable using public transport and
working in the office.
He was told by Fortuna that it was not possible for his job to be
done from home, and that the business was too busy to be able to furlough him.
The company instead gave him the option of taking holiday or unpaid leave.
After turning down this offer, Mr Accattatis made three more
requests to be furloughed. After he asked for the final time on 21 April
2020, he was dismissed by email later that day.
An instructive case for employers and employees during the
COVID-19 crisis
As Mr Accattatis did not have enough service to claim ordinary
unfair dismissal, he instead alleged that he had been subject to automatic
unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(e) of the aforementioned Act for having
taken steps to protect himself from danger.
The tribunal noted the government’s statement on 14 February
2020 that COVID-19 represented a serious and imminent threat to public health.
This, along with emails from Mr Accattatis voicing concern about commuting to
and attending the office, showed his reasonable belief that there were
circumstances of serious and imminent danger.
However, the referenced section of the Act also included a
requirement for Mr Accattatis to have taken appropriate steps to shield himself
from danger or to have communicated the circumstances of danger to his
employer. Fortuna had reached the reasonable conclusion that Mr Accattatis’s
job could not be done from home and that he did not qualify for furlough, but
had instead proposed the option to him of taking holiday or unpaid leave.
In response, Mr Accattatis not only requested that he be able to
stay at home – which was agreed – but also demanded to be permitted to work
from home on full pay or be furloughed on 80% of pay. As these demands were not
appropriate steps to shield himself from danger, his claim was unsuccessful.
The tribunal outcome was not binding, but nonetheless serves as a
reminder that the pandemic, in isolation, may not be sufficient to warrant a
refusal to work under section 100(1)(e) of the 1996 Act, if employers have
reasonably attempted to accommodate the concerns of their workers and lower the
risk of transmission.
Contact us now about our company secretarial solutions
London Registrars’ services to help
organisations through the effects of the pandemic – and beyond – are extensive,
encompassing such solutions as registered office addresses, directors’ service
addresses, register of shareholder maintenance, minute book
maintenance, and much
more.
To learn more about what we can offer to your business to aid its
corporate governance, risk and compliance efforts, please don’t wait to get in touch with our
friendly and responsive team.
Sponsor Ads
Created on Jul 29th 2021 06:57. Viewed 200 times.