Uche v Oxfordshire County Council (Unfair Dismissal)

An Employment Tribunal does not commit an error of law merely because its written reasons do not expressly follow every item in rule 30(6). The question is whether the reasons, read fairly and without undue technicality, substantially provide the required material and enable the parties to understand why they won or lost.

Where the Tribunal has made clear factual findings that the treatment complained of resulted from performance management rather than race or sex, it need not separately construct a comparator or recite every statutory provision. Tribunals should nevertheless use the rule 30(6) structure as a clear roadmap when giving reasons.

The claimant, a black African woman employed by the respondent council as a financial planning assistant, resigned after disputes about flexible working, performance management and allegations of race and sex discrimination. She claimed constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal at Reading, in a decision dated 26 July 2011, found that there had been no dismissal within section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act. It rejected the alleged contractual breaches and dismissed the discrimination claims. The claimant appealed, contending principally that evidence had been omitted or ignored, victimisation had not been addressed, and the reasons failed to comply with rule 30(6).

The central issue was whether the Tribunal's reasons and findings disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled on its findings to conclude that the claimant had resigned and had not been constructively dismissed. Its findings also entitled it to reject race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation allegations.

2. The alleged omissions of evidence and complaints about the weight given to evidence disclosed no error of law. The Tribunal had made clear findings that the respondent's actions, including the performance-improvement process and refusal of flexible working, were ordinary management responses to genuine performance concerns. It found no discriminatory or retaliatory motivation.

3. The Tribunal did not expressly identify every issue, set out all relevant law, or reproduce the structure required by rule 30(6) of the 2004 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations. That was a shortcoming, but it did not invalidate the decision. Applying Balfour Beatty Power Networks v Wilcox [2007] IRLR 63, the rule is a guide rather than a straitjacket. Substantial compliance is sufficient where the required matters can reasonably be spelled out from the determination.

4. The reasons adequately disclosed why the claimant lost. The Tribunal had rejected her evidence, preferred the respondent's evidence, and found that the treatment was unrelated to race or sex. Following the non-technical approach described in Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37, the reasons were not to be subjected to unduly critical analysis.

5. No separate comparator analysis or express citation of section 1 of the discrimination legislation was necessary on these facts. The Tribunal had answered the material question: whether the claimant had been treated as she was because of race or sex. Its answer, supported by its findings, was no.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed; the Reading Employment Tribunal's dismissal of the claims was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal, Reading: Decision dated 26 July 2011. The Tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal, race discrimination and sex discrimination claims.