Termination of employment for breakdown of working relationship fair despite lack of process
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that an employer was justified in dismissing an employee due to a breakdown in working relationships, despite the fact the employer did not follow a process or offer a right of appeal.
The law on unfair dismissal
Employees with more than two years' service are entitled to claim ordinary unfair dismissal if their employment is terminated. In order to dismiss an employee fairly, the employer must have identified a fair reason for dismissal. In cases where the reason for dismissal is a breakdown in a working relationship, this can form the basis of termination for 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR). SOSR is one of the potentially fair statutory reasons for dismissal.
Once the potentially fair reason for dismissal has been identified, the employer must also act reasonably in dismissing the employee. Reasonableness is usually divided into two parts:
- a fair procedure
- whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal (this is called the 'range of reasonable responses' test)
Factual background
The case of Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd considered the reasonableness of a dismissal in a scenario where the employee was given no written warning prior to dismissal, and was not offered a right of appeal.
In this case, the claimant was put at risk of redundancy by his employer. He submitted a grievance which was partially upheld and the redundancy was abandoned. However, there was a breakdown of the claimant's working relationship with his line manager. This led to prolonged discussions about how the claimant could return to work after sick leave. During these discussions the claimant was confrontational and refused to make a choice between the various options presented to him. He threatened further grievances and legal action, and made unacceptable demands in respect of his return to work.
Ultimately, the claimant's senior line manager decided that the working relationship could not be salvaged. The claimant was dismissed without a prior warning or right of appeal. The claimant brought various claims including for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The Tribunal rejected his claims, finding that the employer had genuinely concluded that the working relationship was beyond repair. Given the claimant's approach to the discussions that had taken place, there was no real alternative to dismissal. In addition, given the seniority of the line manager who took the decision to dismiss, it was unlikely an appeal could have changed the ultimate outcome.
The claimant appealed to the EAT.
EAT decision
The EAT rejected the appeal. This was a rare case where the decision to dismiss without prior warning or offering a right of appeal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. Given the stance adopted by the claimant and the significant prior efforts to facilitate his return to work, it was reasonable for the employer to conclude that it would have been futile to follow a procedure or issue a warning before terminating the claimant's employment. The Tribunal's findings were not perverse and could stand.
Learning points
This is a rare example of a case where an employer acted reasonably in reaching the decision to dismiss an employee, despite not following a formal procedure. Had the employer not already gone to extensive efforts to accommodate the claimant before reaching the decision to dismiss, and had the claimant not adopted his rigid stance, the outcome might have been different.