Avionics Engineer Wins Re-Hearing of Unfair Dismissal Claim
Dismissal of an employee for lack of capability to carry out the work he or she was employed to do can be fair if the employer acted reasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. Provided the employer has a genuine and reasonably held belief that the employee’s work is not meeting reasonably required standards, the Employment Tribunal (ET) must not substitute its own view for that of the employer.
In Masson v Meggitt Avionics Ltd., the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ordered a re-hearing of an unfair dismissal claim brought by an avionics engineer after finding that his case was not adequately dealt with by the ET at first instance.
Mr Masson began working for Meggitt Avionics Ltd. on 13 March 2000 as an electronic hardware design engineer specialising in designs for use in flight safety critical avionics equipment. On 4 February 2009, he was informed that he was being placed on the company’s formal capability procedure. He failed to make the performance improvements required at each stage of the procedure, however, and his contract was eventually terminated with effect from 25 August 2009. Mr Masson appealed against this decision, but his appeal was dismissed on 8 September 2009.
Mr Masson claimed that his dismissal was unfair, but the ET dismissed his claim on the ground that Meggitt Avionics genuinely believed in his lack of capability and had carried out a fair procedure to give him time to improve the standard of his work. The decision to dismiss him therefore fell within the band of reasonable responses available to the company in the circumstances.
Mr Masson challenged the ET’s decision on two grounds. Firstly, he claimed that he was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to Section 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). Secondly, he submitted that the ET had failed to consider whether Meggitt Avionics had reasonable grounds for its belief in his lack of capability.
The EAT upheld the appeal. Firstly, the rules on procedural unfair dismissal under Section 98A of the ERA were repealed with effect from 5 April 2009. The ET had failed to consider whether Meggitt Avionics had contemplated dismissing Mr Masson prior to that date and, therefore, whether the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedures applied to the case. The ET had failed to turn its mind to whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because of the employer’s alleged failure to comply with the standard procedural requirements of Section 98A.
The EAT also ruled that the ET had erred in failing to make a finding as to whether Meggitt Avionics had reasonable grounds for its belief in Mr Masson’s lack of capability.
The case was remitted to the ET for a fresh hearing.