Hello again, Renee here and welcome back to our case of the week. If you missed November’s newsletter you can click here to read it. Workplace disputes often carry complex narratives, and the case of Anne-Marie Alexis v the Westminster Drug Project (WDP) is no exception. This case highlights the challenges of balancing restructuring needs, disability accommodations, and maintaining trust between employers and employees.

The Claimant had been a dedicated receptionist/administrator since 2010, with her role transferring to WDP in 2015. In 2018, she informed her employer of her dyslexia, prompting a professional assessment. The recommendations included extended time (25%) for exams or interviews. While the report offered clear guidelines for supporting her, these recommendations became a focal point during a restructuring effort two years later.

In 2020, WDP initiated a process to streamline operations by reducing three receptionist/administrator roles into two new positions, a receptionist and an administrator. The selection process required competitive interviews among the three candidates, where standard questions would be posed to all candidates. Though aware of the Claimant’s dyslexia, the panel chair opted to send the interview questions 15 minutes in advance of the first interview. However, the Claimant claimed she only saw questions for the second interview and not the first, and her performance ranked poorly compared to the other candidates. She was informed on 9 October 2020 that she had not been selected for either role.

Feeling that the process had been unfair, the Claimant raised a formal grievance, arguing she should have received the questions 24 hours in advance. WDP’s grievance panel reviewed her complaint and concluded that the adjustment provided was reasonable but admitted to not properly notifying her that the questions had been sent to her. Her grievance was upheld in part, and she was offered a second interview with new adjustments that included an extended interview time, question summaries provided a day prior, and a chance to start afresh. The Claimant was dissatisfied with this resolution and appealed, taking her concerns to senior management.

The appeals process added further strain to the employer-employee relationship. While her appeal resulted in reaffirmed adjustments, such as receiving question summaries or topics in advance, her dissatisfaction persisted. The Claimant expressed her discontent in multiple emails to decision-makers, including the organisation’s chairperson, which heightened the tension between the parties. WDP management began to view her actions as a refusal to accept reasonable outcomes and a challenge to their efforts to conclude the restructuring process.

On 18 February 2021, the Claimant attended a meeting with an HR consultant, to discuss whether her continued employment was viable. Citing her perceived unmanageability, repeated challenges to resolved grievances, and the unsustainable demands her actions placed on WDP’s resources, the HR consultant concluded that the working relationship had broken down. He explained that no alternative actions, such as warnings or continued employment under modified terms, would address the absence of trust and confidence. The Claimant’s dismissal was finalised on 23 February 2021.

In response, the Claimant filed claims with the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, disability-related harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal rejected most claims, finding that the dismissal was fair. It determined that the decision was based on “some other substantial reason” under employment law. Specifically, the employer’s reasonable belief that trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down. The Tribunal also found that WDP had conducted a fair process.

The Claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision on two grounds. First, that her length of service had not been given sufficient weight in the dismissal decision. Second, that alternative sanctions such as a warning, had not been carefully considered.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the original ruling. It found that length of service, while valuable, but was not relevant when trust had already broken down.

The EAT concluded that the employer acted reasonably, lawfully, and within its rights. Additional concerns raised during the appeal, such as inadequate support during meetings and alleged inaccuracies in decision letters were dismissed as outside the scope of the original appeal grounds.

Takeaway Points

This case emphasises critical points for both employers and employees. For employers, it is important to follow a fair and transparent processes, especially when handling grievances and accommodating disabilities. For employees, the case is a clear reminder of understanding procedural boundaries and recognising how workplace relationships can influence outcomes. Once trust is broken in a professional relationship, it can be hard to rebuild.

If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.