Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
Where a manager hides the real reason for a dismissal behind an invented reason which the decision maker adopts, the court can look behind the invented reason to find the true reason for the dismissal.
Facts
Ms Jhuti worked for Royal Mail. She told her line manager that she believed a colleague had breached regulatory guidance, which was a protected disclosure. Her line manager then pressured her to withdraw her allegations, and created a false picture that she was performing poorly. Another manager, who did not know about the disclosure and believed the false picture, dismissed her for poor performance. She claimed that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed. Lord Wilson said that, in searching for the reason for a dismissal, the court generally need look no further than the reasons given by the appointed decision maker. However, if a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that she should be dismissed for one reason but hides it behind an invented reason which the decision maker adopts, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason rather than the invented reason. The real reason for Ms Jhuti's dismissal was her protected disclosure.
Related cases on unfair dismissal
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344
- Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588, [2003] ICR 111
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 702, [2006] ICR 1602
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
