In Alexis v Westminster Drug Project the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held the employer had reasonable grounds for dismissing the employee for some other substantial reason (SOSR) after the relationship between the two of them had irretrievably broken down.
What was the background?
The employer decided to restructure the department in which Ms Alexis worked, with three existing roles being replaced by two new ones. The three individuals in the existing roles, including Ms Alexis, were offered the opportunity to apply for the new roles and a competitive interview process was undertaken. Ms Alexis was unsuccessful.
Why did Ms Alexis complain?
Ms Alexis has dyslexia and she raised a grievance about the interview process, saying a reasonable adjustment would have been to have provided her with the questions for the interview 24 hours in advance. A grievance procedure was followed, but Ms Alexis’ grievance was not upheld and she was also unsuccessful with an appeal.
What led to the dismissal?
When Ms Alexis’ appeal failed she wrote several emails to both the chair of the grievance process and the chairman of the company. The relationship between the two parties rapidly deteriorated and Ms Alexis was called to a meeting to discuss whether her continued employment was untenable. The employer decided it was and Ms Alexis was dismissed with notice. She brought a claim of unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
What did the original ET decide?
The employment tribunal dismissed Ms Alexis’ claim, deciding that the employer had reasonable grounds for dismissing her. It was not her dyslexia or the restructuring process that was the reason for her dismissal, but her emails that led to the relationship irretrievably breaking down. Ms Alexis appealed the decision, arguing that the tribunal had not given sufficient weight to her long length of service or considering other alternatives to dismissal.
Why did the EAT dismiss Ms Alexis’ appeal?
The EAT held that, once trust and confidence had broken down between the parties to such an extent, the employer had no other option other than to dismiss. The employer was not required to consider alternatives to dismissal. On the length of service point, the EAT said it was not relevant, in this case, to the decision to dismiss. When there has been an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship, length of service was not relevant.
Why is this case important for employers?
SOSR dismissals are relatively unusual, although we have seen an increase in them in recent months. This case will be of use for employers when asserting the employment relationship has irretrievably broken down. It confirms that length of service does not have to be considered in such circumstances, it does not matter how long someone has been employed if the relationship is completely broken. Also, in such circumstances, the employer does not have to consider alternatives to dismissal.
The employer succeeded in this case as they went through a proper grievance procedure with Ms Alexi and then followed it up with a full and reasonable dismissal procedure. Employers will still need to ensure they do this to avoid a successful claim.
Navigating complex dismissals requires a thorough understanding of employment law and meticulous handling to avoid potential claims. At View HR, our expert team of employment solicitors and HR consultants provide tailored advice to help businesses confidently manage challenging situations.
Whether you need support with dismissal procedures, grievance handling, or creating robust policies, we’re here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact us to learn more about how we can support your organisation with practical, compliant, and proactive HR solutions.
