Mr David Torrance v Represented by: Mr J Lee Solicitor PSSB Limited — 2017

The claimant, Mr David Torrance, alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by PSSB Ltd on 7 October 2016. The respondent accepted that it had dismissed him and said the reason was capability/performance. The tribunal identified the central question under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as whether the dismissal was fair, and heard evidence from the claimant, Mrs Quinn, Mr Quinn and Ms Moore.

The tribunal found that the respondent had progressively managed the claimant’s performance. In November 2015 Mrs Quinn reviewed his sales figures, told him that current sales were insufficient, and set out actions for the following months. In December 2015 and January 2016 she proposed a new business target of £5,000 per month and revised commission arrangements. The tribunal found that the claimant raised concerns about commission but did not challenge the new business target itself at the time.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant knew what was required of him and was given repeated opportunities to improve. It found that he was given the February to May review before the June 2016 meeting, was told at the June meeting that his performance would be formally reviewed again on 2 September 2016, and was warned that his employment was at risk if he did not achieve the target. It also found that the September 2016 meeting, the written confirmation, and the October 2016 meeting gave him further notice and an opportunity to respond. The tribunal accepted that Mrs Quinn genuinely tried to support him and that the respondent acted reasonably in treating his performance as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

On procedure, the tribunal noted that the respondent was a small business and that no disciplinary procedure was produced, but it found that the process followed was nonetheless reasonable in the circumstances. It held that the claimant knew the purpose of the meetings, was given figures in advance, was offered accompaniment at the October meeting, and had a right of appeal to Mr Quinn, which he did not exercise. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and did not consider remedy.