Capability or qualifications dismissals

New and updated

• Type:

  FAQs

  If an employer chooses not to provide any training can an employee dismissed for unsatisfactory job performance succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Is it unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee for incompetence?

• Type:

  FAQs

  When can an employer dismiss an employee on the grounds of ill health?

• Date:

  31 December 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Steelprint Ltd v Haynes

  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.

• Date:

  22 May 1981

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Capability: Alidair gross incompetence test limited

  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.

• Date:

  7 October 1980

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Capability: Dismissal for intermittent sickness absence

  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.

• Date:

  1 November 1978

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall

  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.

• Date:

  15 August 1977

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Failure to follow a correct procedure

  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.

• Date:

  1 May 1977

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  The Post Office v PA Mughal

  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.

• Date:

  1 May 1977

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  East Lindsey District Council v G E Daubney

  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.