Senior IT analyst dismissed without chance to respond: procedural unfairness in a performance improvement plan
A senior IT analyst with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after being handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter at a meeting described as a PIP review. The tribunal found the employer had already made up its mind.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 23 July 2012 until 3 January 2019 as a Senior IT Service Desk Analyst.
- He was placed on a 6-month Performance Improvement Plan from June 2018 due to concerns about communication, attendance, and task completion.
- After a final breach on 12 December 2018, the decision to dismiss was made on 17 December 2018 without further input from the claimant.
- The claimant was invited to a meeting on 3 January 2019 described as a PIP review but was handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the claimant was not given an opportunity to respond before the decision was made.
- The compensatory award was reduced by 85% under Polkey reflecting the high chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Swiss Re Management Ltd as an IT Service Desk Analyst, later becoming Senior IT Service Desk Analyst.
-
Verbal warning
Claimant received a verbal warning from line manager Andreas Kopinits for lack of communication and unreliability.
-
PIP started
Claimant was placed on a 6-month Performance Improvement Plan with monthly review meetings.
-
First improvement warning
Claimant received a first improvement warning for failing to follow absence notification procedure on 26 July 2018.
-
Final improvement warning
Claimant received a final improvement warning for failing to communicate absence on 1 November 2018.
-
Final PIP review missed
Claimant failed to attend the final PIP review meeting and did not notify his line manager in advance.
-
Dismissal decision made
Mr Kopinits decided to dismiss the claimant without further consultation.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant attended a meeting described as a PIP review but was handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter.
-
Appeal meeting
Claimant attended an appeal meeting with a companion; dismissal was upheld on 8 February 2019.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair due to procedural defects; Polkey reduction of 85% applied.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for poor performance under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and if not, what reduction should apply to compensation because the claimant would likely have been fairly dismissed anyway.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Swiss Re Management Ltd unfairly dismissed the Senior IT Service Desk Analyst. The key reason was procedural: the decision to dismiss was made on 17 December 2018, before the claimant was invited to a meeting on 3 January 2019 that was described as a PIP review. At that meeting, the claimant was handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter, so he had no real opportunity to respond.
Compensation was reduced by 85% under the Polkey principle because the tribunal concluded that even with a fair process, there was an 85% chance the claimant would have been dismissed for poor performance. No contributory fault reduction was applied. The exact compensation figure was not specified in the judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not finalise a dismissal decision before giving the employee a chance to respond, even if the employee's performance has been poor.
- A meeting labelled as a 'PIP review' should not be used to hand over a pre-written dismissal letter – the employee must be given a genuine opportunity to make representations.
- Even where a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be substantially reduced if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway under a fair process.
- Employees on performance improvement plans should ensure they attend all review meetings and communicate any absences in advance, as failure to do so can be used as evidence of poor performance.
A dismissal decided before the meeting
This case illustrates how a performance improvement plan (PIP) can become a trap for employees if the employer loses patience and cuts corners. The Senior IT Service Desk Analyst had been on a six-month PIP since June 2018, following concerns about his communication, attendance and task completion. He received a verbal warning, a first improvement warning and a final improvement warning before the final breach on 12 December 2018 – failing to attend the final PIP review meeting without notifying his line manager.
What turned a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one was the employer's haste. The line manager decided to dismiss on 17 December 2018, but the claimant was not told until 3 January 2019, when he was invited to what he thought was a PIP review. Instead, he was handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter. The tribunal found that this denied him any opportunity to respond to the allegations before the decision was made – a fundamental breach of procedural fairness.
What the employer could have done differently
Swiss Re Management Ltd could have avoided this outcome by holding a proper capability hearing after the final breach, giving the claimant a chance to explain his absence and any mitigating circumstances. Even if the outcome would have been the same, the process would have been fair. The tribunal acknowledged that the claimant's performance record was poor and that he had been given multiple warnings, which is why it applied an 85% Polkey reduction – meaning the claimant received only 15% of the compensatory award he would otherwise have got.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees on PIPs, this case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters even when performance is genuinely poor. Employers cannot pre-judge the outcome and must allow the employee a genuine opportunity to be heard. For employers, it shows that cutting procedural corners can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one, albeit with reduced compensation if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway. The case also highlights the importance of keeping proper records of warnings and meetings, as these can support a Polkey reduction even where the dismissal is procedurally flawed.
Similar cases
HGV driver dismissed for tachograph offences: unfair but no compensation due to contributory fault
A tribunal found that Port Traction Limited unfairly dismissed an HGV driver for exceeding driving hours, but reduced compensation to zero because the driver would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Yard controller with 30 years' service unfairly dismissed after radio failure caused collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-second delay in stopping a train due to a radio failure. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate and the procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Dental receptionist dismissed after prolonged performance improvement plan: dismissal fair
A dental receptionist with over seven years' service was fairly dismissed after a lengthy performance improvement process. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.