The risk of £ 22,000 not to follow your internal process
Although there is a code of practice for disciplinary dismissals that employers must follow, layoffs for performance reasons do not follow the same code or their own code.
Thus, you might be fooled to think that you do not have to follow any structured procedure for a performance dismissal.
But you would be wrong.
It is always necessary to follow a fair and reasonable process, and a recent case has judged that despite clear performance problems, a dismissal was unfair because the internal procedures, namely the supply of official warnings, had not been followed.
Anita Briggs began to work as a producer of digital media content at the National Scotland Museums in June 2009.
Its role was to plan and maintain the content of social media and the museum website.
Initially, things went well and until 2020 Briggs received fairly positive performance reviews.
In 2021, Briggs obtained a new line director, Russell Dornan.
Dornan had concerns about Briggs' performance and, after meeting Briggs in May 2022, an informal performance improvement plan (PIP) was set up to respond to his concerns about the following procedures and attention to detail.
However, Dornan did not see sufficient improvement.
Briggs was dealing with personal circumstances, and the two parties therefore accepted a second PIP in November 2022, as well as an assessment of the risk of stress.
Dornan noted that, if the second PIP does not prove success, Briggs would be invited to an official meeting.
The performances have not improved and between June and August 2023, Briggs published only two content elements, and one had undergone significant amendments before the problem.
Briggs was then on leave with stress in September and part of October, leading other members of the team to take their work, including the chief of the digital media, Hannah Barton.
Dornan left the company and Barton took over the management of Briggs.
When returning to Briggs, Barton confirmed that Briggs had not met the second PIP requirements because there were still mistakes, missed deadlines and failures to follow the processes.
Barton informed Briggs of a third formal PIP process and, in the event of failure, this could lead to a dismissal.
During the third PIP, Briggs continued to provide minimal content; In December, she produced six publications on social networks and a content plan, against 73 publications published by a colleague.
A meeting also took place on December 12, 2023 with Briggs, Barton, HR member and union representative.
Briggs said that she had no problem with the requirements of the role and agreed that she was not working if necessary.
She admitted that the main stress for her was the PIP, which was confirmed by another assessment of the risk of stress.
While Briggs failed in the third PIP, Barton invited her to attend an official hearing on February 12, 2024, chaired by the director of external relations, Helen Ireland.
The next day, Briggs was terminated according to the lack of capacity.
Briggs appealed the decision for several reasons, however, the director of national museums of Scotland, Chris Breward, confirmed the decision to end.
In court, it was found that the museum did not follow their own internal policy which was to provide official written warnings to Briggs before the dismissal.
As a result, Briggs obtained £ 22,210.75 in compensation.
The main point to remember for employers is that a fair and reasonable process must be followed, even in the case of performance layoffs and where you have your own performance management procedures, these must be followed to the letter.
