Igbinake v Axis Security Ltd

An Employment Tribunal must give reasons sufficient to enable the parties and an appellate tribunal to understand why it decided every issue material to the result. The required detail depends on the issue’s nature and significance.

Where the genuineness of a decision-maker’s asserted belief is central, the Tribunal must address material evidence apparently inconsistent with that belief. An unexplained finding that a policy changed may be inadequate where the timing and relevance of the alleged change are unclear. Evidence given on oath as to the decision-maker’s reason will not ordinarily support a perversity finding unless exceptional circumstances make acceptance of it wholly impermissible.

The Claimant alleged direct religious discrimination after the Respondent’s Assistant Regional Manager refused, in August 2011, his request for leave on 9 to 11 December 2011 to attend Church Harvest. The Employment Tribunal at Manchester dismissed the complaint in reasons delivered on 8 May 2013.

The Tribunal found that the refusal arose from the manager’s belief that company policy prohibited December holidays for all employees, rather than from the Claimant’s Christian beliefs. The Claimant appealed, alleging perversity and inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had sufficiently explained its treatment of the apparent inconsistency between the manager’s asserted belief and the written holiday policy.

1. Appeal allowed on the reasons ground; remitted. The Tribunal’s conclusion on the reason for refusing leave could not safely stand because its reasoning on a central issue was insufficiently clear.
2. The perversity ground failed. Perversity requires a conclusion which is wholly impermissible. Where a decision-maker has given sworn evidence of the reason for acting, it will ordinarily not be perverse for a Tribunal to accept that evidence, save in exceptional circumstances.
3. The applicable reasons principle, drawn from Meek and restated in Co-operative Group Ltd v Baddeley, required reasons sufficient to show the parties and an appellate tribunal why the Tribunal decided an issue affecting the result.
4. The written policy indicated that leave would not normally be granted only from 15 December to 15 January. The Tribunal did not examine the apparent inconsistency between that policy, which the manager had signed as received shortly before the refusal, and his belief that leave was barred throughout December.
5. The Tribunal’s references to a later policy change left unclear what policy was in force in August, whether it was consistent with the manager’s view, and why a later change was relevant. The matter was remitted to the same Tribunal to reconsider its decision in light of that inconsistency and, if necessary, hear further evidence about the policy change.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal on inadequate reasons and remitted the matter to the same Tribunal for reconsideration.
• Employment Tribunal at Manchester: In reasons delivered on 8 May 2013, dismissed the Claimant’s complaint of direct religious discrimination.