Mr Peter Sabourin v BT Group plc — 2024

Mr Peter Sabourin was employed by BT Group PLC from 1 July 2009 and moved into a project manager role in the DCA team in or around November 2021. BT dismissed him with effect from 1 May 2023 after an informal performance stage, an informal Performance Improvement Plan, two formal review meetings, a final written warning and a decision meeting. The claimant argued that performance was not the real reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was in truth redundancy.

The tribunal accepted BT's evidence that concerns about underperformance began in early 2022 and were dealt with first through coaching and positive affirmation. It found that the June 2022 'Good Work' rating did not undermine those concerns, because it reflected the previous line manager's assessment after restructuring and a short period of line management change. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that his role had changed into a PMO role or that he needed further formal training; it found that his project manager job description captured the governance and administrative aspects being asked of him and that his PRINCE2 qualification was sufficient.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the range of reasonable responses test, including the requirement that BT honestly believed the claimant lacked capability on reasonable grounds, the tribunal held that capability was the principal reason for dismissal and that BT acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient. It found that the performance process was fair and in line with BT's Improving Performance Policy and Procedure, that the goals were realistic and measurable, that the claimant was given time and support to improve, and that BT considered alternatives to dismissal and appeal opportunities. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that the later restructure chart showed the dismissal had been fabricated to avoid redundancy costs, finding no evidence of a genuine reduction in workforce or significant role change. It noted that the grievance and appeal processes were conducted fairly by managers with no prior involvement in the claimant's line management or business area.