Dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown'? Tribunal finds true reason was performance
An IT Business Partner with 10 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Transport for London after the tribunal found the real reason was poor performance, not a breakdown in relationships. Compensation will be reduced by 35% due to her own conduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Transport for London from 1 May 2013 as an IT Business Partner.
- She had a heart attack in 2015 and subsequently had various medical conditions, with reasonable adjustments in place.
- She raised multiple grievances alleging disability discrimination and victimisation between 2018 and 2020.
- The respondent dismissed her on 30 June 2021, citing an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships.
- The tribunal found the true reason for dismissal was poor performance, not SOSR, and the dismissal was unfair.
- The claimant's own conduct contributed to the dismissal, leading to a 35% reduction in compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work at Transport for London as an IT Business Partner.
-
Heart attack
Claimant suffered a heart attack and subsequently had an underlying medical condition.
-
Transferred to new team
Claimant moved into the Technology and Data Surface Team, reporting to Ms Gupta.
-
First grievance
Claimant raised a formal grievance about performance rating and bullying by Mr Reed and Mr Spence.
-
Third grievance
Claimant raised a grievance about wage deductions and sickness policy, which was upheld.
-
Fourth grievance
Claimant raised a grievance about failure to carry out a stress risk assessment and transfer back to original managers.
-
Review meeting invited
Mr Reed invited the claimant to a review meeting to discuss future working arrangements.
-
Dismissal
Mr Reed dismissed the claimant for SOSR, citing irretrievable breakdown in working relationships.
-
Appeal against dismissal
Claimant appealed the dismissal, arguing unfair treatment and failure to consider alternatives.
-
Appeal dismissed
Ms Sager-Weinstein upheld the dismissal, finding the relationship had irretrievably broken down.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether she was victimised for raising grievances about disability discrimination. It found the dismissal unfair but rejected the victimisation claim.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The true reason for dismissal was poor performance, not an irretrievable breakdown in relationships as claimed by Transport for London. The process was flawed, and the respondent failed to follow a fair capability procedure.
However, the claimant's own conduct contributed to the dismissal, leading to a 35% reduction in any compensation. A remedy hearing will determine the final award.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should be honest about the real reason for dismissal – dressing up a performance dismissal as 'some other substantial reason' can backfire at tribunal.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, including proper warnings and support, before being dismissed for capability issues.
- Raising multiple grievances does not automatically protect you from dismissal if your own conduct contributes to the breakdown.
- If you have health conditions, ensure your employer carries out a proper stress risk assessment – failure to do so can weaken their case.
A case of mislabelled dismissal
This case shows what can happen when an employer tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. Transport for London dismissed an IT Business Partner with 10 years' service, citing an 'irretrievable breakdown in working relationships'. But the tribunal saw through this, finding that the real reason was poor performance – a reason the employer had not properly followed through a fair capability process.
The claimant had a history of health issues, including a heart attack, and had raised several grievances about disability discrimination and victimisation. While the employer may have found the relationship difficult, the tribunal concluded that the breakdown was largely due to the performance issues, not a separate 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR). By using SOSR as a label, the employer avoided the procedural steps required for a capability dismissal – and that made the dismissal unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
Transport for London could have avoided this outcome by being transparent about the reason for dismissal and following a proper capability procedure. That would have included setting clear performance standards, providing support and reasonable adjustments, and giving the employee a chance to improve. Instead, by framing the dismissal as a relationship breakdown, they short-circuited the process and left themselves vulnerable to a finding of unfairness.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant's own conduct contributed to the situation, reducing any compensation by 35%. This is a reminder that employees cannot ignore their own role in a breakdown, even if the employer's process is flawed.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case highlights the importance of challenging the reason given for dismissal. If an employer says 'irretrievable breakdown' but the real issue is performance, the dismissal may be unfair. For employers, it is a warning not to use SOSR as a shortcut to avoid a proper capability process. Getting the reason right – and following a fair procedure – is essential to defending a dismissal at tribunal.
Similar cases
Legal executive unfairly dismissed after flawed disciplinary process
A legal executive was unfairly dismissed by ODT Professional Services Limited after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair. She was awarded £2,621.57 after reductions for contributory fault and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.