Employment Tribunal Roundup: Appeal Fairness, Dismissal Reasoning, Discrimination Tests and Religious Belief Clarified

Why It Matters

These rulings raise the legal stakes for HR teams, forcing precise procedures and evidence to avoid costly unfair‑dismissal or discrimination claims. They signal that courts will scrutinize both process and the substance of employer decisions.

Key Takeaways

• Employers must manage appeal processes actively; informal handling risks unfair dismissal
• Dismissal reasons must reflect the actual rationale at the time of termination
• Discrimination claims need causal link to protected characteristic, not merely poor treatment
• Belief objections unlawful; manifestation objections must meet proportionality test per decision

Pulse Analysis

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent batch of judgments sends a clear warning to human‑resources professionals: procedural rigor is no longer optional. In the Milrine v DHL case, a collapsed appeal process transformed an otherwise fair dismissal into an unfair one, underscoring that the right to appeal under s.98(4) ERA 1996 is a substantive element of fairness. Employers must therefore document appeal timelines, provide written confirmations, and ensure a qualified manager actually hears the employee, or risk exposure to costly tribunal awards.

Equally pivotal is the Chand decision, which confirms that the stated reason for dismissal must be the genuine rationale held at the moment of termination. Courts will not accept composite or hypothetical justifications; each allegation, especially those involving fraud or dishonesty, must be individually substantiated. This reinforces the Burchell test’s focus on the employer’s actual belief, meaning that vague or post‑hoc rationales cannot shield a company from unfair‑dismissal liability. For discrimination claims, the Nowak ruling clarifies that poor treatment alone does not satisfy the causation threshold—there must be a direct link to a protected characteristic, and credibility assessments are rarely overturned on appeal.

The Ngole judgment adds nuance to religious‑belief protection, drawing a line between unlawful objection to belief and potentially lawful objection to its manifestation. Employers must apply the Bank Mellat proportionality test for each decision after learning of a protected belief, identifying the specific risk, exploring less intrusive alternatives, and documenting the justification. By separating belief from manifestation, organizations can better navigate the delicate balance between safeguarding employee rights and managing legitimate business concerns, reducing the risk of discrimination claims while maintaining operational integrity.