Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawDiscipline and grievances

William Hicks & Partners v Nadal

by Personnel Today 8 Nov 2005
by Personnel Today 8 Nov 2005

William Hicks & Partners v Nadal,
Employment Appeal Tribunal, 16 August 2005

To be procedurally fair, a disciplinary process will almost always require an employee faced with serious allegations to be given the chance to put their side of the case across before a decision is reached. This still applies even if the employer believes the employee is attempting to evade a disciplinary hearing by saying they are too stressed to attend.

Facts

Miss Nadal was subject to disciplinary proceedings after a colleague made a written complaint about bullying behaviour. Following the complaint, Nadal was absent from work and sent in GP sicknotes citing stress/anxiety.

Over the following weeks, the employer corresponded with Nadal in an attempt to set up a disciplinary hearing. Initially, she indicated that she would be well enough to attend a hearing after a few weeks, but dates arranged for a hearing were followed by sicknotes from Nadal’s GP stating that she would be too ill to attend. As an alternative, the employer invited her to make written representations.

While this process was ongoing, Nadal and her employer continued to negotiate the terms of a compromise agreement, which related to a separate issue predating the complaint. The employer also received information that although Nadal was signed off with stress/anxiety, she had, in the intervening period, been offered a position with another employer, and was due to start there very shortly. The employer notified Nadal that it would only postpone the disciplinary hearing by one more day. It concluded that despite the GP’s sicknotes, she was well enough to attend.

Nadal requested another postponement, pointing out that she was due to see her GP the following day. The employer refused and the hearing went ahead in her absence. She was subsequently dismissed for conduct reasons.

Complaint

The tribunal upheld Nadal’s unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the employer had not followed a fair procedure before reaching the decision to dismiss. The employer appealed.

Decision on appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal’s decision. For a dismissal to be procedurally fair, and in the interests of natural justice, the employee must be given a chance to state their case. This is particularly so where they face serious accusations and the GP has said they are unfit to attend – even if the employer receives information which causes it to doubt that the employee is genuinely too ill to attend.

Comment

The EAT said there were only likely to be two exceptions to the rule that the employee be given an opportunity to state their case where serious allegations have been made:

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Where information is received from the police that an employee has stolen goods from their employer and the employee fails to protest their innocence or implement the grievance procedure

When an employee has been advised to say nothing until the trial in criminal proceedings, and also fails to give a statement to the employer, it may reach a decision without that statement.


Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Employer group chiefs voice their fears over pension policy
next post
Cadbury Schweppes sees sweet success with online tests

You may also like

‘Be direct’ to avoid escalating conflict, advises Acas

30 Jun 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Workplace disputes: ‘Most employment tribunals could be avoided’

12 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+