Rentplus v Coulson [2022] ICR 1313

Application of Acas Code: A dismissal can be subject to the Acas Code if an employer believes there are issues related to misconduct or poor performance. The employer's actual belief initiates the application of the code, regardless of whether the employee is genuinely at fault.

Engagement of Acas Code: The Acas Code cannot be bypassed by presenting a dismissal for another reason, like redundancy, when the real issue is believed misconduct or performance.

Bad Faith Procedures: If an employer falsely claims to comply with the Acas Code but acts in bad faith, there is a breach. Any sham procedures that do not genuinely consider the employee's stance violate the code.

Facts and Application of the Law

The claimant, a senior member of the appellant company, was covertly slated for dismissal in 2017. Later that year, after the arrival of a new CEO and subsequent company changes, the claimant faced increasing exclusion. Although termed a 'redundancy' procedure, the company intended to expand its workforce. Following a series of 'consultation' meetings and an unaddressed grievance, the claimant was dismissed.

The tribunal identified the dismissal and grievance processes as shams. It ascertained that the true reason behind the claimant's dismissal was not redundancy but the new CEO's preference to remove her. As such, her dismissal was ruled unfair, and claims of sex discrimination were validated.

The company appealed, primarily contesting the application of the Acas Code, which primarily concerns itself with "disciplinary and grievance situations." The EAT, however, underscored the importance of the code, especially when employers believe, rightly or wrongly, that issues of misconduct or poor performance exist.

Considering the sham procedures, predetermined dismissal, and bad faith exhibited by the company, the EAT deemed the 25% uplift in compensation apt. Furthermore, even if the dismissal wasn't strictly a 'disciplinary situation', the mishandling of the claimant's grievance also justified the uplift.

For individuals seeking to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal after an Employment Tribunal decision, this case serves as a notable precedent on the significance of the Acas Code and the consequences of its breach.