In person For the v Mr Ellison (Employment adviser) — 2022

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability, and the claimant accepted that his dismissal arose from performance/capability concerns. It accepted that after a long period of employment, the claimant moved from a manufacturing supervisor role to warehouse manager and then to project manager, and that he struggled in the later roles. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not forced him into the warehouse manager role as a take-it-or-leave-it threat, but had presented it as a promotion which he accepted with a pay rise. It further found that, on the evidence, he willingly agreed to the later project manager role as well.

On procedure and support, the tribunal found that the claimant had been put through an informal PIP and then a formal PIP, with the respondent giving coaching and structured feedback from Ms Arnaud. It did not accept that Ms Arnaud was a bully, and found that her criticism was not shown to be rude or aimed at undermining him. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been given formal training and had not been reminded about the Coty Academy portal, it found that he had also not taken responsibility for pursuing further training or asking for alternative help. It concluded that the support and coaching provided were not unreasonable and were not intended to be unsupportive.

The tribunal also rejected the main procedural criticisms about the phased return after sickness absence, the wording of the emails about pay during the phased return, and the appeal process. It found that the claimant knew he could work fewer hours if he wished, although with reduced pay, and that he chose to return full time. On appeal, it found that Mr Tomsa questioned the claimant closely and did not let him speak uninterrupted, but that the claimant was still able to put forward his case and no specific material point was shown to have been missed. Applying the statutory capability framework and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for capability, and the unfair dismissal claim failed.