There are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal: redundancy, capability, conduct, Illegality (where the employee cannot continue to work where for example they are a driver and they lose their driving licence) and the catch all of some other substantial reason.

It has been a long established principal that employers may dismiss employees where they are guilty of misconduct either where there is an act of gross misconduct or where their conduct has failed to improve following appropriate warnings. Conduct can cover a myriad of issues from persistent bad time keeping to theft, and is usually easy to categorise as a conduct issue.

Similarly, it is generally easy to identify where the employee is failing at work because of a capability issue, and ultimately to dismiss that employee if his performance does not improve following a performance management programme.

However, how do employers deal with an employee who is technically competent but whose personality is such that it makes it impossible for his employment to continue? Can the employer dismiss and if so on what grounds?

The recent case of Perkin –v- St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust has clarified this issue. In this case, Mr Perkin, a Finance Director, was described by his colleagues as "stubborn" and "intimidating" and did not constructively contribute to finding solutions to problems. He was dismissed on the basis that his relationship with his team had broken down and, because the personal attacks he had made on other members of staff during the process, meant he could not return to any senior position within the Trust.

The Court of Appeal held that whilst personality could not in itself be a fair reason for dismissal, Mr Perkin’s dismissal could be categorised as conduct in that his personality had resulted in conduct issues i.e. the way he treated his staff. The Court of Appeal further held that the breakdown in trust and confidence between Mr Perkin and his employer, which actually or potentially damaged the operation of the employer’s organisation, or meant that it was impossible for employees to work together, could amount to a some other substantial reason dismissal.

In this case, although the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds, Mr Perkin received no compensation because of the way he had conducted himself during the process and because, even if a fair procedure had been followed, he would have been dismissed in any event.

There is, therefore, hope for employers who have reached the end of the road with employees as a result of their personality, but where there is otherwise no issue with their work. Dismissal must however always be the last resort.

Should you require any further information about this issue or any other employment query, please contact a member of the employment law team.