Thomson v. London Borough of Haringey

Step 1 of the statutory dismissal procedure requires written notice of the circumstances leading the employer to contemplate dismissal and an invitation to attend a meeting. The communication must enable the employee to understand that dismissal is contemplated and why, so that a considered response can be prepared. A communication which is inadequate when read alone may comply when read with earlier correspondence or accompanying documents. The tribunal may consider the whole context, including whether the employee was genuinely left in doubt. Express wording is unnecessary if the risk of dismissal is conveyed implicitly. The appeal was dismissed because the earlier warnings, read with the later email, made the risk of redundancy sufficiently clear.

The claimant brought discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after her substantive post was deleted during a restructuring. She was placed in redeployment and repeatedly warned that, if no suitable permanent post was found, her employment would end by reason of redundancy.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims. It accepted that an email inviting her to a review meeting satisfied Step 1 of the statutory dismissal procedure and that a subsequent meeting satisfied Step 2. The appeal concerned whether the email was defective when read in isolation and whether the earlier communications could be taken into account.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had correctly concluded that the statutory procedure was satisfied.
2. Step 1 under Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002 requires the employer to set out in writing the circumstances leading it to contemplate dismissal and to invite the employee to a meeting. The information must be sufficient to enable the employee to give a considered and informed response.
3. The court must look beyond labels and determine whether the substantive statutory requirements were met. The communication need not expressly state that the employee is at risk of redundancy if that meaning is conveyed implicitly.
4. Where the communication is ambiguous or creates doubt, the tribunal may consider the whole context, including the employee’s prior knowledge. Separate communications may be read together where the later communication clearly refers to the earlier one.
5. Read alone, the email of 7 July 2006 did not fulfil Step 1. Read with the warnings of August 2005 and April 2006, however, it clearly informed the claimant that the review meeting included consideration of dismissal for redundancy. The two purposes of the meeting did not create sufficient ambiguity, particularly as no clarification was sought and the claimant was not taken by surprise at the meeting.
6. The Tribunal’s finding that the meeting on 19 July 2006 complied with Step 2 was also accepted. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was upheld on the facts.
• Employment Tribunal: The claimant’s discrimination and unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. The Tribunal found compliance with Steps 1 and 2 of the statutory procedure.