Technical manager dismissed after formal performance process: capability dismissal upheld
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a technical manager with 11 years' service, finding that the employer's formal performance process was fair and that the dismissal was for capability, not race discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-performance-issues
- #formal-performance-process
- #accompanying-rights
- #direct-race-discrimination
- #indirect-race-discrimination
- #dismissal-without-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Technical Manager from 13 June 2011 until dismissal on 28 January 2022.
- The respondent commenced a formal performance capability process in February 2021 due to concerns about timeliness, accuracy, and self-management.
- The claimant received a first written warning (April 2021), final written warning (May 2021), and the process was paused in July 2021 due to some improvement.
- The process was restarted in November 2021 after further performance issues, and the claimant was dismissed on 28 January 2022.
- The claimant did not appeal any of the warnings or his dismissal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for capability and was fair, and rejected the race discrimination claims.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for James Finlay Limited in the UK as Technical Manager.
-
New line manager appointed
Dr Frieda Dehrmann became the claimant's line manager.
-
Informal concerns raised
Dr Dehrmann emailed the claimant to raise concerns about his performance.
-
Formal performance process started
Claimant informed that formal performance capability and disciplinary processes would commence.
-
First written warning for performance
Claimant given a first written warning for performance, valid for 6 months.
-
Final written warning for performance
Claimant given a final written warning, valid for 12 months.
-
Process paused
Performance process paused due to some improvement; claimant entered sustained recovery period.
-
Process restarted
Respondent decided to restart the performance process at Stage Three.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with payment in lieu of notice; he did not appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the technical manager was unfairly dismissed for capability reasons, and whether the employer's actions amounted to direct or indirect race discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the dismissal was fair and not discriminatory.
Key reasons:
- The employer had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance, including timeliness, accuracy, and self-management.
- A formal performance process was followed, with warnings and opportunities to improve.
- The process was paused when improvement was shown, but restarted after further issues.
- The claimant did not appeal any of the warnings or the dismissal.
- The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the decision-making.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should follow their formal performance or capability procedures consistently, including giving warnings and allowing time for improvement.
- Employees should consider appealing warnings or dismissal if they believe the process is unfair, as failure to appeal can weaken a later claim.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, but a fair process can still lead to dismissal if performance does not improve.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence that race was a factor; a fair process applied equally to all employees will not support such a claim.
A fair process, not a perfect one
This case shows that even an employee with 11 years' service can be fairly dismissed for capability if the employer follows a proper process. The technical manager had been given formal warnings and a chance to improve, but when performance issues continued, the employer was entitled to dismiss.
The tribunal noted that the claimant did not appeal any of the warnings or the dismissal itself. While not fatal to a claim, a failure to appeal can make it harder to argue that the process was unfair.
What the employer did right
James Finlay Limited had a clear performance capability policy and followed it. They started with informal concerns, moved to formal warnings, paused the process when there was some improvement, and only restarted it when problems persisted. This step-by-step approach was key to the tribunal's finding that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the discrimination claim failed
The claimant, who is black and speaks with a Kenyan accent, alleged direct and indirect race discrimination. However, the tribunal found no evidence that race influenced any decision. The employer's workforce is diverse, and the managers involved had treated the claimant no differently than they would any other employee. The performance concerns were documented and objective.
What this means for similar cases
For employees, this case is a reminder that a fair process can lead to dismissal even after long service. For employers, it shows the importance of following your own procedures, documenting concerns, and giving employees a genuine chance to improve. A well-managed capability process can withstand scrutiny at tribunal.
Similar cases
NHS employee unfairly dismissed for conduct: 50% reduction for contributory fault
An NHS employee was unfairly dismissed but had her compensation cut by 50% for contributory conduct. Her race discrimination claims were dismissed.
Race discrimination claim dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A Branch Care Manager's claim for direct race discrimination and victimisation was dismissed because she presented it 28 days late. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding no just and equitable reason.
Beauty consultant on zero-hours contract fails to prove race discrimination after customer incident
A Chinese beauty consultant who claimed she was dismissed because of her race after an argument with Arabic customers has had her claim struck out. The tribunal found no link between her treatment and her race.
Analyst with 10 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim over pay and promotion disputes
A level 7 analyst who resigned claiming constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment or breach of trust.