Mr J Ross v Argos Ltd t/a Sainsbury’s Argos — 2020

Mr Ross worked as a Warehouse Operator for Argos from 18 January 1995 until his dismissal on 18 October 2018, which the respondent said was for capability. The tribunal recorded that he had signed a new contract in June 2014 when the respondent introduced a performance indicator system, and that he later raised concerns about the application of that system and about the conduct of team manager Ian Bartram. In the earlier grievance process, James Cutler found that some scoring errors had occurred, discontinued the stage 3 performance process, and the respondent retrained team managers.

The tribunal found that the respondent had in fact dismissed Mr Ross for capability, not for some other substantial reason. It considered the case as a long-term absence dismissal: Mr Ross had been off work from 15 November 2017 to the date of dismissal, and his sick notes referred to stress at work. Applying the approach in the authorities it cited, including Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers, East Lindsey District Council v Daubney, and Royal Bank of Scotland v McAdie, the tribunal looked at consultation, medical investigation, and whether the employer had reasonably considered alternatives before dismissal.

The tribunal rejected Mr Ross’s challenge to the grievance investigation, finding that Andy Coogan’s investigation was adequate and that Tim Clubb’s appeal process was also carried out in good faith. It found that the respondent had an occupational health report, had continued to consult with the claimant during sickness absence, and was not required to obtain further up-to-date medical evidence on the facts of this case. The tribunal also rejected the contention that Mr Ross should have been returned to work without PI scores or without management by Ian Bartram, finding that it was reasonable to refuse an exception to the respondent’s PI policy.

On redeployment, the tribunal considered proposed alternatives including cross-docking work and possible roles at other Argos stores in the Bridgewater area. It found that Mr Ross would probably not have accepted the alternative employment offered, even if the service position had been made clear, and noted that when a similar offer was discussed at the final capability meeting he was recorded as saying he was not interested. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore held not well founded and no monetary award was made.