Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Case lawDisciplineDiscipline and grievancesUnfair dismissal

Case on role of HR in disciplinary proceedings settles

by Personnel Today 15 Jan 2016
by Personnel Today 15 Jan 2016 The case could have provided guidance on when HR advice can improperly influencing the outcome. Stock photo
The case could have provided guidance on when HR advice can improperly influencing the outcome. Stock photo

A key case for HR, which was expected to go to the Court of Appeal in 2016, has settled. The Court of Appeal was expected to consider when improper influence by the HR department in disciplinary proceedings makes a dismissal unfair.

The case – Ramphal v Department for Transport – concerns the dismissal of an employee following allegations that he had misused the credit card issued to him to pay for travel expenses. It settled on 2 December 2015.

Update – 15 January 2016

This article originally stated that this case would be going to the Court of Appeal in 2016. While an appeal against the EAT decision was planned, the case settled. The story was updated once we learnt that the case settled.

The employer was suspicious of the employee’s “excessive petrol consumption and possible use of hire cars for personal reasons, which would constitute misuse”.

The manager who was appointed to handle disciplinary proceedings had not been involved in disciplinaries before, and was given guidance from the HR department.

The disciplinary proceedings ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the employee, who claimed unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal.

While the employment tribunal dismissed the claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the claimant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the tribunal.

The EAT was concerned that the disciplinary manager’s decision to dismiss could have been improperly influenced by the HR department. The EAT analysed notes of the meetings between the disciplinary manager and HR, and was struck by the differences between disciplinary manager’s first and final draft reports.

The EAT highlighted that the disciplinary manager’s stance over the employee’s guilt or innocence had changed during his interactions with HR. He appeared to move from:

EAT on improper HR influence in disciplinary proceedings

“An employee facing disciplinary charges and a dismissal procedure is entitled to assume that the decision will be taken by the appropriate officer, without having been lobbied by other parties as to the findings he should make as to culpability… An investigating officer is entitled to call for advice from human resources; but human resources must be very careful to limit advice essentially to questions of law and procedure.”

  • a belief that the credit card misuse was not deliberate and the employee had given plausible reasons for the volume of fuel purchased (a “partly critical” view that would have resulted in a final written warning); to
  • a belief that the employee had misused the employer’s credit card (a view that resulted in his dismissal for gross misconduct).

The EAT concluded that the differences were so striking that it inferred that HR had gone beyond discussing and advising on issues of procedure and law, and the level of appropriate sanctions with a view to achieving consistency, which were the proper limits of HR’s involvement.

The EAT sent the case back to the employment tribunal to “give clear and cogent reasons for accepting that there was no such influence”.

XpertHR principal employment law editor Stephen Simpson says the case had the potential to be a massive one for HR professionals: “The EAT decision in this case, back in September 2015, generated a lot of interest among our subscribers. This is not surprising really, as handling disciplinary investigations and hearings is one of the most common tasks for this profession.

“It can be tempting for an HR person acting in an advisory role to start prompting the disciplinary panel as what decision to come to. HR should limit its advice to legal issues, the correct procedure, and the level of sanction to ensure consistency with previous decisions.”

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Recruitment technology: can the human in HR ever be replaced?
next post
Employment law in Mexico: six striking facts

You may also like

Sue Gray findings: Party culture during lockdowns approved...

25 May 2022

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

BNP Paribas banker accused of ’emotional terrorism’ wins...

19 May 2022

Employment tribunal: use of word ‘bald’ can amount...

13 May 2022

Solicitor unfairly dismissed during cancer recovery awarded £17k

6 May 2022

School discriminated against Christian caretaker who tweeted against...

3 May 2022

Who doesn’t use emojis now?

29 Apr 2022

Philosophical belief: barrister’s tribunal claim against Stonewall begins

26 Apr 2022

EHRC’s legal fund for tackling race discrimination: what...

21 Apr 2022

Boris Johnson’s partygate fixed penalty notice: any lessons...

14 Apr 2022
  • Strathclyde Business School expands its Degree Apprenticeship offer in England PROMOTED | The University of Strathclyde is expanding its programmes...Read more
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+