Alexis v Westminster Drug Project 2024

Failure to consider length of service and alternatives to dismissal did not make a dismissal unfair - Alexis v Westminster Drug Project [2024] EAT 18

In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) case of Alexis v Westminster Drug Project [2024] EAT 188, the EAT held that an employer’s failure to consider a Claimant’s length of service and alternatives to dismissal did not render her dismissal unfair.

Anne-Marie Alexis, the Claimant, and two others were subject to a restructuring exercise. The Respondent was reducing the headcount from three people to two people, and selection for the two posts came down to a competitive interview process.

The Claimant suffered from dyslexia. She did not request any adjustments during the interview process because of her condition, but after going through the interview process, where she was unsuccessful, she raised a grievance in respect of adjustments she believed should have been made during the interview.

Whilst the grievance was largely upheld in her favour, she appealed that decision, and although the appeal also was largely upheld in her favour, she continued to send numerous, lengthy emails to the decision maker and others within the Respondent about the process, saying that she could not accept the decision that was made, she was unsure how to proceed, but in any event she felt that she was still being subject to discrimination.

Ultimately, it was believed that her post-grievance behaviour had been so damaging to the employment relationship, and it was believed this sort of behaviour would only continue, that the Respondent’s relationship with the Claimant had become untenable. As such, she was dismissed for ‘some other substantial reason’, namely due to the irretrievable breakdown in their relationship.

The Employment Tribunal at first instance rejected her claim of unfair dismissal, and she appealed to the EAT on the basis that the employer had failed to give consideration to her length of service with the Respondent, and that they had not considered alternatives to dismissal.

The EAT rejected both grounds of appeal. Although other sanctions were considered, the EAT nevertheless accepted that, once the trust and confidence had broken down, the only option was dismissal. This was particularly the case in this situation given the need to finalise the redundancy process which was in abeyance due to her grievance, and so the Claimant’s length of service was also irrelevant to the decision on dismissal.

It is not a totally surprising decision that the EAT accepted these factors were not fatal to the employer’s decision to dismiss, particularly where trust and confidence is an exceptionally important implied term inherent within every contract of employment.

Whilst this case should not be seen as permission to dismiss employees without considering mitigating factors, it may offer some comfort that, particularly in circumstances such as these where there has been an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship, it does mean just that, and alternatives may simply not be appropriate because the relationship has been destroyed.