Capability or qualifications dismissals
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
In Wilding v British Telecommunications plc, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision by an employment tribunal that, by refusing an offer of part-time re-employment, an employee who had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the ground of his disability had thereby failed to mitigate his loss.
In Steelprint Ltd v Haynes EAT/467/95, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee after the employer had restructured her job but failed to provide training in the new skills required was unfair.
The Court of Appeal's decision in Alidair Ltd v Taylor is authority for the proposition that there are circumstances in which an employee's incompetence can be so great that it is unnecessary to give him an opportunity to improve. The effect of the Court of Appeal's more recent decision in Inner London Education Authority v Lloyd, however, is to limit the application of the Alidair case. Rejecting an analogy of the case of Mr Lloyd, a probationary teacher, to that of Mr Taylor, an airline pilot, the Appeal Court points out that in Alidair the safety of a large number of people was involved.
Where an employee is absent from work for a substantial period of time through illness it is well established that employers must take proper steps to ascertain the true medical position and, once this has been done, to consult with the employee before deciding whether or not to dismiss. However, as the EAT has recently emphasised in International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson and Rolls-Royce Ltd v Walpole, these principles are inappropriate where the employee is frequently absent as a result of unconnected minor ailments.
In Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the respondent employee's dismissal on grounds of lack of capability was unfair because he had not been given an opportunity to offer an explanation for his poor performance.
In Mansfield Hosiery Mills Lid v Bromley, the EAT emphasises that it is only in exceptional cases that a failure to follow a correct procedure will not result in a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Post Office v PA Mughal [1977] IRLR 178 EAT, the EAT established that the general test of fairness in dismissing a probationary employee is whether the employer took reasonable steps to maintain appraisal of the probationer throughout the probationary period, giving guidance by advice or warning, and whether an honest effort was made to determine whether he or she came up to the required standard.
In East Lindsey District Council v G E Daubney [1977] IRLR 181 EAT, the EAT held that a failure to investigate an employee's medical condition and prognosis prior to dismissal for capability would normally result in unfair dismissal.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to capability or qualifications dismissals.