It may be safer to show an employee is not capable than to hide it

A recent case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal http://bit.ly/WSGVe1  demonstrates the serious risk of using redundancy as a cover for a capability dismissal.  I suggest that this happens often. Lack of capability can be hard to prove and, if proven, leaves the employee with no more than notice pay and with a stain on their career. Redundancy provides some financial compensation and is less of a barrier to future employment than “incapability”.

However this case confirms that if a redundancy is not a true redundancy then the employee can claim that the dismissal is unfair. If the employee succeeds then the compensation may be substantially greater than would be the case with redundancy – and the lack of capability is, of course, not proven. Whether a successful unfair dismissal claim against a former employer is more damaging to a career than being deemed “incapable” may depend on where in their career the employee might be.

On balance it is much safer if the employer follows a full capability procedure and is able to show that the employee lacks capability on the (preferably strong) balance of probability. Then capability, not redundancy will be the reason for dismissal – whatever the career or financial implications for the employee. Masking capability with redundancy is unsafe if the employee does not perceive that redundancy is in their best interests.

Training Courses

Click here to register for one of our Training Courses.