Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Latest NewsDiscipline and grievancesDismissalEmployment tribunals

Dismissal of toilet firm’s former CEO was not unfair, EAT rules

by Ashleigh Webber 23 Aug 2021
by Ashleigh Webber 23 Aug 2021 Shutterstock
Shutterstock

A director who claimed he was unfairly dismissed by the company he founded because he was not offered an opportunity to appeal against the decision has lost his legal claim.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that an appeal process would have been “futile” after Mr Moore was dismissed by water-efficient toilet manufacturer Phoenix Product Development, because there had been an “irreparable” breakdown in his relationship with the organisation.

Moore, who invented the product the firm sold, was CEO at Phoenix Product Development between 2001 and 2017, when he was replaced by Dylan Jones. Moore remained as an employee and a director.

Moore had difficulty accepting that the firm was no longer his company and that he was not in charge of it.

His attitude and conduct within the organisation caused a deterioration in his relationship with fellow directors, and an HR and organisational development consultant contracted by the firm found that Moore would “attempt to sabotage any CEO coming into the business”.

Moore was said to have described the firm’s investors as “leeches” and had been critical of the company’s and CEO’s performance during a meeting with an investor in South Africa. He had also had an “intemperate” email exchange with the newly appointed director of operations in May 2018.

In view of these and other matters, the board considered that Moore’s behaviour was not in the best interests of the company and a formal board meeting to consider his future was arranged. Moore responded to this news in a “combative” way.

The appeal process

How should the employer respond if an employee appeals a disciplinary decision but does not set out the grounds for the appeal?

How to handle appeals against disciplinary decisions

During the meeting in May 2018 the claimant faced six allegations, including his conduct during the meeting in South Africa which the company viewed as the most serious. Other allegations included the failure to observe key company values; a lack of engagement with product development regarding the quality of ceramic pans from Thailand; allowing industry accreditations to lapse; and a delay in obtaining product approval from South Africa.  There was also an issue about effecting a director’s loan of £60,000 without authorisation from the board.

The tribunal found Moore had entered the meeting in a “thoroughly confrontational manner” showing no insight, no regrets, no contrition and blaming others, particularly Jones.

Four of the five directors voted to terminate the claimant’s employment, with only Moore himself dissenting. They felt he had fallen out irreparably with the board and that his presence threatened to destroy the company.

He was given six months’ notice of termination and placed on garden leave. His dismissal letter did not mention any right of appeal.

In August 2018 Moore received another letter that said the board had decided to end his contract early and paid the balance of his notice in lieu.

At an employment tribunal at the East London Hearing Centre in 2019, Moore argued that he had been unfairly dismissed by the organisation because he had not been offered an opportunity to appeal against the board’s decision.

The tribunal found that although it was usual for a termination letter to expressly offer a right of appeal, this was not mandatory under the Acas code. It also noted that Moore did not ask to appeal the decision.

Employment judge Guy Pritchard ruled in 2019 that Moore’s dismissal had been fair.

Moore launched an appeal at the EAT, stating that the tribunal had failed to address the alleged grounds of unfairness; had failed to give adequate reasons for its findings; and had erred in applying case law in its decision.

However, the EAT dismissed all grounds of appeal, stating that Moore had an “intransigent and unrepentant approach to the allegations against him”.

Justice Choudhury said: “No doubt this will come as a bitter disappointment to the claimant, who has invested a large part of his working life to this product and, latterly, to the company.

“The tribunal made a clear finding about the claimant’s unrepentant stance and the lack of likelihood of change on his part. That does not bode well for the claimant’s continued employment, given the reasons for the breakdown in relations.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“This is not a case that involves analysis of complex or subtle issues of fact which might have a bearing on the likely outcome had a different procedure been followed. The situation here is one of an irreparable breakdown in relations and an unrepentant employee.”

Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more Employee Relations jobs

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is a former editor of OHW+ and former HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support.

previous post
HM Courts and Tribunals Service pays £12.5m bill for IR35 failings
next post
Prisoners may fill vacancies in UK food processing sector

You may also like

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Apprentice with ADHD was fairly dismissed after lunch...

10 Apr 2025

Ben & Jerry’s accuses Unilever for sacking boss...

20 Mar 2025

Top 10 HR questions February 2025: Supporting employees...

4 Mar 2025

Up to 74,000 women forced out of work...

27 Feb 2025

Countess of Chester NHS chair resigns after damning...

17 Feb 2025

Officer fairly dismissed for not disclosing previous sacking...

11 Feb 2025

Balloon worker’s sex discrimination claim falls flat

7 Feb 2025

Met Police inspector sacked over WhatsApp messages

13 Jan 2025

Post Office fired and rehired IT staff on...

23 Dec 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+