Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The dismissal was substantively unfair because it was based on performance assessed over a fixed period ending over a year before the decision, without any account of subsequent improvements or poor performance. The employer failed to conduct further performance reviews and the dismissal hearing improperly restricted consideration to the original probationary period despite the claimant having accrued unfair dismissal rights by the time of the hearing. The appeal failed to remedy these defects by relying on evidence not properly examined and denying the claimant a fair opportunity to respond.
Facts
Claimant was a National Counter Terrorism Security Officer who began employment in September 2021. He struggled during his probationary period and received poor performance ratings leading to a recommendation for dismissal in February 2023. However, due to a 15-month delay, the dismissal hearing did not occur until May 2024, by which time the claimant had accrued unfair dismissal rights. The dismissal hearing and subsequent appeal restricted consideration to his performance during the probationary period ending March 2023, disregarding any subsequent improvements or issues.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because it was based on outdated performance information from over a year before the decision, with no account taken of the claimant's subsequent performance. The employer failed to conduct any performance reviews after the probation period and improperly restricted the assessment to the probationary period despite the claimant having employment protection rights by the hearing date. The appeal failed to remedy these defects by relying on unexamined evidence without giving the claimant a fair opportunity to respond.
Practical note
Employers must assess performance as at the date of dismissal; a significant delay in holding a dismissal hearing after a probationary period ends may result in unfair dismissal if the employee has accrued protection rights and the employer fails to consider current performance.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016669/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- National Counter Terrorism Security Office Delivery Support officer
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister