Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti

For the purpose of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 103A, the reason for dismissal is not confined to the conscious reasoning of the person who signed the dismissal letter. Where a manager who knows the true facts deliberately manipulates an otherwise innocent decision-maker, the manager’s reason may be attributed to the employer. This applies where the manipulation causes the decision-maker to act in ignorance of the protected disclosures. The tribunal must examine the manager’s conduct, knowledge and motivation together with the decision-maker’s state of mind. The dismissal will be automatically unfair if the protected disclosure was the principal reason attributable to the employer.

The claimant, a probationary employee, made disclosures concerning the alleged misuse of Tailor Made Incentives. The Employment Tribunal found that her line manager subjected her to detriments because of those disclosures and created a performance record which led to her dismissal. The dismissing manager, Ms Vickers, genuinely believed that the claimant was a poor performer and did not know of the protected disclosures. The Tribunal therefore rejected the claim under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 103A, applying CLFIS (UK) v Reynolds. The claimant cross-appealed. The central issue was whether the motivation of a manager who manipulated an innocent decision-maker could be attributed to the employer when determining the reason for dismissal.

1. Cross-appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was not automatically unfair was erroneous in law. The employer’s appeal was formally dismissed, and the remaining grounds fell away.
2. Section 103A requires identification of the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal. This ordinarily involves examining the facts known to, or beliefs held by, the person or persons who made the decision. The relevant reasoning is the set of facts operating on the decision-maker’s mind.
3. That approach does not require the employer’s reason always to be equated exclusively with the conscious mind of the formal decision-maker. A person in a managerial position who possesses the true facts may manipulate an uninformed decision-maker. The manipulator’s reason can then be attributed to the employer, just as the manipulator’s motivation may affect the fairness of the decision.
4. The principle applied on the Tribunal’s findings. The line manager received the protected disclosures, understood their significance, subjected the claimant to detriments, created a paper trail designed to make her fail, and gave the dismissing manager a misleading account while withholding relevant material. In those circumstances the line manager’s motivation had to be taken into account. The dismissal was inevitable on the findings and occurred principally because the claimant had made protected disclosures.
5. The Tribunal’s suggested approach to compensation for consequences of dismissal under section 47B was also considered erroneous. Section 47B(2) excludes dismissal from the detriment claim, so the financial and other consequences of dismissal cannot be recovered under that route merely by proving causation.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the claimant’s cross-appeal on the section 103A issue, formally dismissed the employer’s appeal, and invited submissions on consequential procedure.
• Employment Tribunal: found protected disclosures and detriments, but held that the dismissal was not automatically unfair because the dismissing manager was not herself motivated by the disclosures.