Andras Szucs v Greensquare Group Ltd
[2024] EAT 160
Guy Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
25 March 2024
[2024] EAT 38
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee was fired without a warning or chance to appeal. The court said this was okay because the relationship between the employee and employer was so broken that further steps would have been pointless. Other claims by the employee were also rejected.
Key Facts
- •Guy Matthews (Claimant) was dismissed by CGI IT UK Ltd (Respondent) without a written warning or appeal.
- •The dismissal followed a prolonged redundancy process and a breakdown in the relationship between the Claimant and his manager.
- •The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed all claims.
- •The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Unfair dismissal - fairness of procedure; Polkey exception.
Polkey v A.E.Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344
Reasonableness of employer's actions in dismissal; range of reasonable responses.
Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones [1982] IRLR 439
Breakdown of trust and confidence as a reason for dismissal; reasonable steps to improve the relationship.
Turner v Vestric Ltd [1980] ICR 528
Employer's contribution to the breakdown of the relationship.
Royal Bank of Scotland v McAdie [2008] ICR 1087
Victimisation - burden of proof; Hewage principle.
Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37
Victimisation - burden of proof; Igen v Wong guidance.
Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931, CA
Extension of time for claims - just and equitable.
EqA section 123
Appellate review of ET decisions; reading the judgment as a whole.
DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg 2021 IRLR 1016
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET was entitled to find that this was one of the rare cases where dismissal without procedure was fair, given the irretrievable breakdown in the relationship and the claimant's uncooperative stance. The ET correctly applied the relevant legal principles.
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed.
The ET found the respondent reasonably believed the relationship had irretrievably broken down and that offering a warning or appeal would have been futile. The respondent had made genuine efforts to resolve the situation.
Victimisation claim dismissed.
The ET found no evidence that protected acts materially influenced the dismissal decision. The ET's approach to the burden of proof was not in error.
Application to extend time for reasonable adjustments claim dismissed.
The ET considered the prejudice to the respondent and the lack of significant prejudice to the claimant. The ET's assessment of the claimant's disability evidence was also upheld.