Camelot Group plc v Hogg UKEATS/0019/10/BI
In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned an
Employment Tribunal's decision that the Claimant (Ms Hogg) had
been unfairly dismissed because the Respondent had taken the
decision to dismiss her prior to giving her the notes she had
requested from an interview she attended for an alternative role
during the redundancy selection process.
The EAT confirmed its view that the Respondent was under no duty to
provide the interview notes, as it was not put on notice that the
Claimant had any complaint or challenge that she wished to raise
under or by reference to them. The EAT found that the Claimant had
made vague, non-specific references to different treatment afforded
to other employees who were at risk and the Respondent was never
made aware of any specific challenge to the scoring or interview
process undertaken.
The EAT was clearly sympathetic to the efforts the Respondent had
taken to follow a fair and thorough large-scale redundancy process
in this case. It commented that "a flaw at one stage of the
dismissal process...does not of itself mean the dismissal is
unfair" and "accordingly, Tribunals should guard against
minute scrutiny of individual parts of the process" as this is
likely to divert them from the task set by statute in determining
whether a dismissal is fair.
Implications
This case is fact specific, but it provides employers with a useful
authority to defeat undue scrutiny of the details of a redundancy
exercise by requiring the employee to identify a specific complaint
before being entitled to see interview notes or, by analogy,
similar documents.
The EAT helpfully commented that "an employer cannot
reasonably be expected to respond [to an employee,] absent a
specific challenge".
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
