This case involved a claim for unfair dismissal by the complainant, a qualified pharmacist. The respondent company claimed that the complainant had been fairly dismissed for reasons of underperformance/ incompetence as at the time of the dismissal a final written warning of this nature was active on the complainant's file. The respondent also claimed that the complainant had received poor performance ratings in 6 of the 7 years preceding the termination, that he been placed on a formal performance improvement plan prior to his dismissal and that the dismissal had been carried out in accordance with the company's disciplinary policy. 

The complainant claimed that there were no real performance issues and described his personal performance as close to perfect.  He also alleged that there was insufficient time and inadequate support to complete tasks and achieve objectives, and that his dismissal was pre-determined and rushed. He placed great emphasis on the respondent’s overly strict standards and expectations which he described in his written submissions as ‘impossible’, ‘not practical’ and ‘nit-picking’.

The Court found that the respondent was entitled to be concerned about the complainant's performance deficiencies and that an employer is entitled to determine their own standards and to attach their own importance to them. Accordingly, they held that the decision to dismiss the complainant for underperformance was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.