Employer Pays Price for ‘Abject’ Failures in Disciplinary Process

Dismissing an employee for misconduct without first engaging in a transparent and fair disciplinary process is the legal equivalent of holding a gun to your head. In a case on point, an Employment Tribunal (ET) did not mince words in publicly exposing an employer’s abject procedural…

Nov 06, 2022

Team taking meeting notes 1024x683

Dismissing an employee for misconduct without first engaging in a transparent and fair disciplinary process is the legal equivalent of holding a gun to your head. In a case on point, an Employment Tribunal (ET) did not mince words in publicly exposing an employer’s abject procedural failures.

A gas engineer who had risen to a senior management role in the company for which he worked was summoned to a meeting on his return from a business trip. He was informed that a client had complained about allegedly non-compliant gas installation works and that he was being suspended with immediate effect.

When he subsequently attended what was described as a fact-finding meeting, he was told that he was only there to answer questions, not to ask them. He was given no advance notice of what would be discussed at the meeting or who would be in attendance, and was not informed of any of its findings.

He remained in the dark as to the allegations against him and potential outcomes when he was invited to a disciplinary meeting. The meeting consisted of a prepared statement being read to him confirming that he was being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. An appeal against that decision was later dismissed.

Upholding his unfair dismissal complaint, the ET found that it necessarily followed from the absence of a reasonable investigation that the company had no genuine or reasonable belief that he was guilty of misconduct. There was no evidence on which to base such a belief and his dismissal therefore fell outside the range of responses open to a reasonable employer.

The ET ruled that his compensation should be uplifted by 25 per cent to reflect the company’s abject failure to follow any fair process. It had consciously chosen not to provide him with details of the allegations or evidence against him and had reached conclusions without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The company was ordered to pay him a basic award of £2,284 and a compensatory award of £11,751. He was also awarded £501 in accrued but unpaid holiday pay. Had he not succeeded in finding alternative employment within a week of his dismissal, the compensatory award would have been substantially higher.

Health and Safety Fines Are Meant to Hurt – Court of Appeal Ruling

Financial penalties imposed on employers for health and safety breaches are meant to hurt and that is why the scale of their business is highly relevant when it comes to sentencing. In a case on point, a company with an annual turnover of about £1.6 billion was fined £640,000 following a factory floor accident. One of the company’s workers was monitoring the operation of a conveyor belt that kept slipping. That part of the belt was unguarded. He said that a cloth he was holding was dragged into…

Furlough Whistleblower Succeeds in Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim

Employees are entitled to insist that their employers abide by their legal obligations and should never be penalised for doing so. The point was made by the case of a woman who pointed out that a meeting with her boss had extended beyond her agreed working hours under the COVID-19 furlough scheme. The sales manager was on part-time flexible furlough during the pandemic and, on most days, her agreed working hours were between 10am and 4pm. During a performance review meeting with her boss, she…

You May Be Disabled in Common Parlance But Not in Law – Guideline Ruling

People have differing views as to what does or does not constitute a disability but, in employment law terms, the word has a very specific meaning. An Employment Tribunal (ET) succinctly made that point in finding that a workshop manager who suffered lower back pain and sciatica was not, in the legal sense, disabled. Following his dismissal by a design company, the man lodged proceedings with the ET complaining of, amongst other things, disability discrimination. The issue of whether his…