Employment Law: Alexis v Westminster Drug Project Case Report | December 2024
This case looks at terminating due to the irretrievable breakdown of the employment relationship. The case further highlights that length of service and alternatives to dismissal are not relevant to a dismissal for some other substantial reason.
The claimant in this case worked as a receptionist/administrator. They disclosed to their employer that they were dyslexic. A report was prepared by Dyslexia Assessment and Consultancy (DAC) for the claimant, which made various recommendations, including that in any future exams or interviews they should receive additional time.
During a restructuring of the organisation, a competitive interview process was followed due to a reduction in roles. The interviews were ringfenced to a group of employees (including this claimant). The claimant did not request any adjustments as part of the interview process, however as the chair of the interview panel was aware of the reasonable adjustment need, they sent the interview questions shortly before the interview, but there wasn’t any communication alongside this to the claimant. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful in obtaining a new role.
The claimant raised a grievance about the interview process saying that they should have been provided with the questions 24 hours in advance. This was rejected, as it was considered that 15 minutes in advance was a reasonable adjustment.
The claimant subsequently appealed against this decision. As a result, they were offered another interview with a new set of questions, the interview would be extended, and the question headings and a summary of competencies would be provided 24 hours in advance.
This outcome was not accepted by the claimant which led to them raising further concerns including a claim of discrimination.
The claimant was called to a meeting to discuss whether their continued employment was tenable as the employer believed that relations, trust and confidence between the claimant and the employer had irretrievably broken down.
The claimant was informed that the meeting was to establish whether there was “some other substantial reason” for their dismissal.
The claimant was dismissed with notice for some other substantial reason. They brought various claims, including unfair dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal rejected the employee’s claim on the basis that the employer genuinely and reasonably believed in the irretrievable breakdown, a reasonable process had been followed and the claimant had been given an opportunity to put forward their arguments. The dismissal was therefore judged to be a fair one.
The claimant appealed on the grounds that no sufficient consideration had been given to their length of service or an alternative to dismissal.
The EAT judged that the dismissal was fair on the basis that consideration to their length of service or an alternative to dismissal was not relevant in this case.
What can we learn from this case:
The CIPD highlight that this is an interesting case ‘…as the employer faced a number of challenges from the employee to their process. Despite providing several options for the procedure to continue, the employee rejected them all and as a result, the employer was reasonable in terminating the employment due to the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship’. The employer was able to present evidence to the tribunal that they had taken all steps necessary and followed a fair and reasonable process.
Share This Post
Posted In
cHRysos HR Solutions are a UK wide HR training and consultancy company offering CIPD accredited qualifications, Apprenticeships, Training and HR Services to SMEs. For more information about how cHRysos HR can help you or your teams successfully achieve further qualifications, contact us on info@chrysos.org.uk or call 03300 562443.