In Ramphal v Department for Transport (EAT – 2015), the EAT has provided guidance on the appropriate level of HR involvement in disciplinary proceedings.
The case concerns an employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his expenses and use of hire cars. It was clear from evidence given at the employment tribunal that the disciplinary officer had initially decided that the claimant was guilty of misconduct and to give a final warning but, having received advice from HR, had changed his mind and dismissed for gross misconduct. The employment judge concluded that the disciplinary officer was entitled to change his mind having received HR advice, but went on to find that the dismissal was unfair for other procedural reasons. The employment judge awarded no compensation on the basis that there was a 100 per cent chance that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway, and because the claimant was 100 per cent to blame for his own dismissal.
Continue Reading HR Influence in Disciplinary Proceedings Can Render Dismissals Unfair