Mr J Smith v Imperial Corporate Events Limited — 2020

Mr Smith was employed by Imperial Corporate Events Limited as a Sales Accounts Manager from 13 August 2002. In 2018 ICE changed its sales operation by introducing monthly targets set at 10% above the same month in the previous year, a formal capability procedure, and a tiered sales structure. Computer access was restricted to the premier tier, while other sales staff worked from shared computers and printed client cards. The tribunal found this was a genuine reorganisation aimed at improving sales performance and that Mr Smith still had access to the same client information in paper form.

The tribunal found that concerns about Mr Smith’s motivation and performance pre-dated the formal performance process. It accepted evidence of earlier discussions and appraisals recording concerns about motivation and attitude. Mr Smith did not achieve the reduced £40,000 monthly target set for August to October 2018 to qualify for the premier tier, and was moved to tier 1 with computer access removed. The tribunal accepted that the client data he requested was available to him by mid-January 2019 and that all of his active clients were within the 2 years’ data already provided, later expanded to 6 years at his request.

ICE then applied its new performance management process. Mr Smith failed the February 2019 target of £67,780, achieving £18,592; failed the March 2019 informal target of £50,000, achieving £44,986; and received a first written warning after the April stage 1 process, which was reduced on appeal from 6 months to 3 months. He then failed the May 2019 target, making about £3,500, received a final written warning after the June stage 2 process, and failed the July 2019 target of £72,558, making £24,323. The tribunal accepted ICE’s evidence that the performance process was applied across the sales team and was not a sham.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Alidair Ltd v Taylor, Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods, Foley v Post Office and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the tribunal held that ICE had a genuine and reasonable belief that Mr Smith was not meeting the required standard. It rejected his arguments that the targets, removal of computer access, lack of training or support, limited client data, long service, or insufficient time to improve made the dismissal unfair. The tribunal also held that the dismissal and appeal process were clear, transparent, and within the range of reasonable responses, and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.