An expert helping hand to fix the career damage caused by poor workmanship

The mistakes Nathan made at work posed a risk to the safety of the general public - so the outcome he got when he challenged the decision to dismiss him came as a shock.

He had been working as an auto mechanic for just over three years when he was sacked for what was said to be poor quality work and repeated customer complaints during an eight-week period.

At a disciplinary hearing, Nathan admitted he had made errors and was dismissed.

He was convinced, however, the decision to dismiss him was unfair and too severe. He submitted his own disciplinary appeal.

In wanting to challenge the decision, Nathan knew exactly where to turn for the right help. He contacted our Employee Support Centre.

He had first done so some years earlier when employed by a different employer for support after raising a grievance, which was upheld.

Nathan was honest enough in telling our trade union representative that he accepted he may have done some things wrong  - but believed that his explanations for his actions had not been listened to and fairly considered.

In discussing the case with Nathan, our trade union representative believed there were significant mitigating factors – lack of support, poor mental health and lack of training and evidence to support complaints - which meant the sanction of dismissal was in fact unduly harsh.

Prior to the appeal hearing our trade union representative requested a range of information from the employer, which he believed may help Nathan’s case.

Ahead of the hearing, he also asked Nathan what his desired appeal outcome was. He did not want to be reinstated and wanted a settlement agreement.

Our trade union representative took the stress away from Nathan by producing a comprehensive written appeal statement of case detailing his appeal and in presenting his case at the hearing.

He told the hearing on Nathan’s behalf that when concerns were first raised about the quality of his work, the employer did not offer any meaningful help or guidance. He was essentially denied a reasonable chance to improve or correct his mistakes, which is an opportunity he should have been given before making the decision to dismiss.

Our trade union representative had requested Nathan’s absence record in the information asked for ahead of the hearing. It showed that he had a number of anxiety-related absences.  

It was explained that his anxiety disorder had lasted over 12 months, so therefore could be considered a disability in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. It was added that the death of a very close friend aggravated the symptoms and it was notable the performance concerns arose for the first time shortly after this, which supported that any performance issues could be considered to have direct links to his disability.

Our trade union representative asserted dismissing Nathan without considering how his health affected his work could, therefore, be seen as discrimination.

In addition, he also focused on Nathan’s training record and fact he had not been fully trained for the role. Our trade union representative told the hearing it is a basic premise of employment law that Nathan should have been given reasonable opportunity to be taught the skills and given the knowledge needed to carry out the job. The failure to provide such training meant it was unfair to blame him alone.

Notably, our representative had requested full and specific details of all of the complaints about Nathan’s work. The employer refused to provide it bizarrely citing ‘data protection’, which our trade union representative rubbished and explained it denied Nathan the opportunity to properly and fully defend himself.

The employer was surprisingly robust in defence of the decision it had taken. It was why the phone call the employer made to our trade union representative a week later to discuss a settlement came as a shock to both him and Nathan.

A settlement was discussed, negotiated and eventually agreed on terms Nathan was delighted with.