Tribunal on ‘principal reason’ for dismissal, redundancy & due process

Isle of Man EET considers unfair dismissal, ‘genuine redundancy’ & investigation fairness

In Lambah v Arragon Jaguars Ltd (2026-015) (17.06.26), the EET recently dealt with a gardener’s unfair dismissal claim.

The Complainant (C)’s employment had been terminated, by letter giving one month’s notice. Such notice was permitted under his contract. However, this notice was said to be “non-appealable and non-negotiable”. C had been absent on various occasions (absences found to be authorised and due to work-related injuries). Two days before the notice, C had indicated that he would be seeking 2 weeks’ paternity leave the following month. When C asked for a reason for the dismissal in writing, reasons were given amounting to redundancy (relating to an increase in the minimum wage and the UK budget). C was not entitled to protection against redundancy, under the Redundancy Payments Act 1990, not having completed two years’ continuous service.

C filed an unfair dismissal claim, also alleging discrimination, on the ground of denial of paternity leave.

The Tribunal (Chairman Douglas Stewart) asked the following:

a. What was the principal reason for the dismissal?
b. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds for dismissing [C]?
c. Was or were the reasons justifiable pursuant to s113 of the Employment Act [2006]?*
d. Was it reasonable to dismiss [C] for the reason(s)?
e. Were those beliefs formed after a reasonable/sufficient investigation?
f. Was a fair investigation procedure followed?
g. Was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses?
h. If the procedure were flawed, then what are the implications – (the Polkey principle).
i. If the reason for dismissal was redundancy, can [C] still proceed despite having under 2 years’ continuous employment?
j. Reinstatement / Re-Engagement under section 134 et seq.
k. Compensation.

Summarised, the Tribunal replied as follows:

• a. the Respondent (R): “chose to terminate… without investigation and simply gave [C]… notice under … the … contract…” (§ 69)
• b. “[R] did not have reasonable grounds for dismissal on the principal reason of unauthorised absences treated as being capability / conduct” (§ 74)
• c. “Redundancy and capability / conduct involving absenteeism can… justify a dismissal. However… with the principal reason being… unauthorised absences (thus … conduct), that was not justifiable” (§ 76)
• d. “… it was not reasonable to dismiss [C] for apparent unauthorised absenteeism. … a consistent and coherent case based on redundancy as the principal reason… might have been justifiable but it was not the principal reason, and the procedural process was unfair having been non-existent” (§ 77)
• e. “The short and simple answer is no. There was no investigation…” (§ 78)
• f. “No. There was no investigation at all whether of redundancy or competence / conduct” (§ 79)
• g. “On the principal reason for dismissal, the answer must be no. As to the secondary reason of redundancy, dismissal may have been justified had there been due process by investigation and consultation. No finding is made on that” (§ 82)
• h. “Besides the defects in due process…, the Tribunal took serious exception to the terminology of the letter to [C]… This was contrary to his contractual rights and manifestly unfair” (§ 83)… “The Tribunal considered… Polkey… Its implications are that if a dismissal is fair in principle but was unfairly implemented and thus rendering the dismissal unfair, the Tribunal must look at the overall factual situation and could… decide that the employment would have been ended anyway… In this case, the decision to dismiss on the principal reason of capability / conduct was unfair but it was also unfairly carried out” (§§ 86-87)
• i. “No. [C] is precluded from proceeding for redundancy having not been continuously employed for two years. His request for Paternity Leave was not a reason for dismissal and so he cannot contend that his dismissal was automatically unfair as a breach of a discrimination right” (§ 89)
• j./k. “If, on or before the expiration of 14 days… [C] confirms he does not wish to … seek reinstatement or re-engagement, then his entitlement to compensation… becomes final because he was unfairly dismissed and is awarded the total sum of £1977.76” (§ 111)

___________________________________________________________________________________

* “113 (1) In determining… whether the dismissal of an employee was fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show — (a) the reason (or, if there was more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and (b) that it was a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal… (2) A reason falls within this subsection if — (a) it related to… capability or qualifications.., or (b) … conduct…, or (c) … the employee was redundant, or (d)… the employee could not continue to work in the position… without contravention … of a duty or restriction … by or under a statutory provision. (3) Where the employer has fulfilled … subsection (1), then…  the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown…, depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing ..; and that question shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”

Note for practitioners: Lambah illustrates in particular the importance of undertaking a fair investigation process when considering dismissal.

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man employment and equality law, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.

Photo credit: Ron Lach