The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered the case of Alexis v Westminster Drug Project.
The Claimant’s role was the subject of a restructuring process where three posts were reduced to two. All three post-holders were invited to apply for the two roles and were subject to a competitive interview process. The Claimant was unsuccessful in her interview.
She subsequently raised a grievance about the interview process saying that, because she had dyslexia, she should have been provided with the questions 24 hours in advance. Her grievance was not upheld, and she appealed.
She also rejected the outcome of the appeal and wrote numerous emails to the decision maker and the chairman of the Respondent. As a result, she was called to a meeting to consider whether her ongoing employment was tenable. The decision maker decided that, on review, the relationship had irretrievably broken down. The Claimant was dismissed with notice for ‘some other substantial reason’. She later brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
The Claimant was not successful with her claims in the Employment Tribunal and appealed to the EAT, contending that the tribunal had not given sufficient consideration to her length of service or alternatives to dismissal.
The EAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the Respondent had reasonable grounds for concluding that the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent had irretrievably broken down.
The EAT confirmed that once trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down, the Respondent was not required to consider alternatives as dismissal was the only option available to it. The EAT also held that an employer can only be obliged to consider length of service if it is relevant to the decision to dismiss.
The decision to dismiss in this case was based on an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship. As such, the Claimant’s length of service was irrelevant.
