When Re-engagement Is Impractical

The claimant was employed by PGA as a Marketing Director in 1989, over time becoming a Group Marketing Director.  In 2015 a new Chief Executive was appointed and within two months he decided (when exit terms could not be agreed) to dismiss the claimant due to concerns about the claimant's performance.  When the claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal, PGA conceded that the dismissal had been unfair.  He sought reinstatement, which the Employment Tribunal refused, or re-engagement.  The Tribunal concluded that re-engagement was practicable and ordered the claimant to be re-engaged in the role of Commercial Director, China.  Although the ability to speak Mandarin was a requirement of the role, and the claimant did not speak it, the Tribunal found