REWARD
P oor performance, p ost-surgery contact, p rotected disclosures
Dan Carder, Human Resources Content Consultant for Peninsula, provides a summary of three recent employment law cases and the outcomes of each
“The Employment Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to follow its own performance policy by not issuing any formal warnings throughout the process”
Respondent’s failure to issue warnings for poor performance resulted in unfair dismissal In the case of Ms Anita Briggs v The Trustees of the National Museums, the Employment Tribunal (ET) had to consider whether a suitable capability process was followed in the dismissal of the claimant. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Digital Media Content Producer, responsible for creating new content for the organisation’s social media platforms. Over the course of two years, the claimant regularly missed deadlines and made spelling errors, the ET heard. The claimant was initially put on an informal performance improvement plan, which then concluded six months later. The respondent felt there hadn’t been any satisfactory improvement and so the claimant was subsequently placed on another informal performance improvement plan. For the second plan, another manager had taken over and set the objectives, later concluding that these hadn’t been met either. During a two-month period following this, the claimant only produced two pieces of content, one of which required amending before release. The respondent
claimed this was “substantially below what was expected of her”. Following this, the claimant took a period off sick with stress, where during a welfare meeting, they cited workplace anxiety as a reason. Upon return, the claimant was placed on a formal performance improvement plan, alongside a phased return to work plan and guidelines for areas of improvement were issued. The claimant was informed at this point that at the end of the process, there could be a formal meeting which may result in dismissal. Shortly after the performance improvement plan commenced, the claimant didn’t produce a single piece of content for an entire month, and in the following month only produced six posts, in comparison to a colleague who produced 73 in the same period. Subsequently, a formal hearing was held, and the claimant was dismissed by reason of lack of capability to perform the role.
The claimant appealed the decision, but this was dismissed so they brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The ET found that the respondent had failed to follow its own performance policy by not issuing any formal warnings throughout the process. The tribunal stated that the claimant “has a legitimate expectation that the respondent will follow the terms of the performance policy, and it would be reasonable to expect at least one level of warning prior to dismissal.” By failing to do so, the respondent lost the claim on a procedural error, with the ET finding that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarding a total of £22,210.75 in compensation. Contact during recovery from surgery was harassment In the case of Miss C Berry v Anglian Water Services Ltd, the ET had to consider whether the respondent acted reasonably
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | April 2025 | Issue 109 32
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker