Mrs G Buxton, Lay Representative. For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed by the respondent from June 2013 and had a senior IT role until 2016. The tribunal found that after Mr Edwards became his line manager, the IT department was recalibrated against higher performance expectations and the claimant’s reviews fell below his previous ratings. In early 2018 Mr Edwards placed him on a performance improvement plan, identifying innovation, motivation, accountability and organisation as the areas for improvement; the claimant objected in writing, the start of the plan was delayed, and the parties then worked through a series of review meetings and an extension period.

The tribunal accepted that the scoring system was confusing, but found that the PIP was not based on invented concerns or a scheme designed to make the claimant fail. It found that Mr Edwards genuinely believed the claimant was falling short in the relevant areas, that the plan and its extension were applied consistently, that the claimant was not singled out compared with colleagues, and that he had been given support, including review meetings, coaching from HR, and some training opportunities. The tribunal also found that the comment made by Mr Edwards during the final PIP period was not inappropriate or calculated to damage trust and confidence, but reflected a genuine concern about whether the claimant’s improvements would be sustained without the structure of the plan.

Applying Western Excavating and the implied term of trust and confidence considered in Mahmood v BCCI, the tribunal held that none of the matters complained of amounted to a fundamental or repudiatory breach, whether individually or cumulatively. It also held that moving the claimant to formal stage 1 of the performance procedure was in accordance with the respondent’s policy and was a reasonable course in light of the claimant’s performance during and after the PIP. Because there was no repudiatory breach and no constructive dismissal, the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. The tribunal noted sympathy for the claimant and observed that the later grievance handling did not affect the dismissal question because it occurred after his resignation.