Anne-Marie Alexis v Westminster Drug Project

Where an employer has reasonably concluded, after a fair process, that mutual trust and confidence have irretrievably broken down, dismissal for some other substantial reason may fall within the range of reasonable responses. In that situation, an employee’s length of service need not be considered as mitigation unless it is relevant to the dismissal decision. Nor is an employer required to impose a warning or another lesser sanction where the breakdown means that no alternative to dismissal is viable.

The appellant, a receptionist/administrator with dyslexia, was unsuccessful in a competitive interview during a restructuring exercise. Following a grievance and grievance appeal concerning adjustments to the interview process, the respondent offered a fresh interview with adjustments.

The appellant continued to challenge the proposed arrangements. The respondent convened a meeting to consider whether her employment remained tenable and dismissed her, with notice, for some other substantial reason. It considered that mutual trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down.

The Employment Tribunal rejected her unfair-dismissal claim. She appealed only against that aspect of the decision, contending that insufficient weight had been given to her length of service and to a warning as an alternative to dismissal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had been entitled to find that the dismissal was fair.

2. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed that the appellant’s response to the grievance appeal showed that she would not accept an outcome short of her demands, would continue to challenge management decisions, and would obstruct the restructuring process. That finding supported its conclusion that mutual trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down and that there was some other substantial reason for dismissal.

3. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the appellant’s length of service was irrelevant on the facts. An employer is obliged to consider length of service only where it is relevant to the decision whether to dismiss. Once the decision-maker had reasonably concluded that the employment relationship had already irretrievably broken down, prior service could not affect that decision.

4. The alternative sanctions had been considered in detail. A warning or other lesser outcome was not appropriate because the breakdown of trust and confidence meant that dismissal was the only viable option, particularly given the need to complete the restructuring process.

5. The appellant’s further complaints fell outside the permitted grounds of appeal. In any event, the matters challenged were either contextual only or findings of fact which the Employment Appeal Tribunal could not revisit on an appeal limited to questions of law.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal and upheld the Employment Tribunal’s rejection of the unfair-dismissal claim.
• Employment Tribunal, London Central: after a five-day hearing in May 2022, rejected the appellant’s claims, including unfair dismissal.