When re-engagement is impractical


Share

The Court of Appeal has held in Kelly v PGA European Tour that an employer's genuine and rational belief that a dismissed employee would not be capable of fulfilling the role can make re-engagement impracticable.

The claimant was employed by PGA as a Marketing Director in 1989, over time becoming a Group Marketing Director.  In 2015 a new Chief Executive was appointed and within two months he decided (when exit terms could not be agreed) to dismiss the claimant due to concerns about the claimant's performance.  When the claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal, PGA conceded that the dismissal had been unfair.  He sought reinstatement, which the Employment Tribunal refused, or re-engagement.  The Tribunal concluded that re-engagement was practicable and ordered the claimant to be re-engaged in the role of Commercial Director, China.  Although the ability to speak Mandarin was a requirement of the role, and the claimant did not speak it, the Tribunal found that his stated willingness to learn and his proficiency with foreign languages meant that it was practicable.  PGA appealed arguing that the Tribunal had impermissibly considered for itself whether trust and confidence in the claimant had been damaged (he had covertly recorded some meetings) instead of asking whether PGA had a rational basis for believing that it had.

On appeal the EAT held that it is the employer's view of trust and confidence (provided that it is tested by the Tribunal as to whether it is genuine and founded on a rational basis) that matters and not the Tribunal's.  It also found that where the employer has genuinely distinguished between essential or preferential elements of a job specification and the employee does not meet an essential requirement, it will generally be an error to require the employer to re-engage the employee in that post.

The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that an employer's genuine and rational lack of belief in an unfairly dismissed employee's capability to perform the required role can mean that it is not practicable for the employee to be re-engaged.

Take note: The fact that the Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT in Kelly is good news for employers.  It will not be possible for a tribunal to conclude that re-engagement is practicable if the employer's trust and confidence in the ex-employee has been damaged.  If re-engagement is possible then the employee will have to meet all the essential requirements for the new role.

Insight

HR Law – February 2023

Explore
Insight

Being a successful Employer of the Future: A Trowers Tuesday series

Explore
Insight

Don’t be Slack when it comes to embargoed judgments 

Explore
Insight

Webinar – Trowers Tuesday: Successful changes and restructures

Explore
Insight

Dismissal of employee on long-term sickness absence was not discrimination arising from disability

Explore
Insight

Strikes (Minimum Services) Bill introduced in the House of Commons 

Explore