Editor's message: After completing a disciplinary investigation and implementing disciplinary proceedings, you have to make a decision on whether or not it is appropriate to take any disciplinary action against the employee. If you decide that disciplinary action is required, you must decide on the appropriate penalty.
When deciding on an appropriate disciplinary penalty, there may be a difficult balance to strike between acting consistently with previous cases within your organisation and taking proper account of any mitigating factors.
Susie Munro, senior employment law editor
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where an employee is dismissed for misconduct following an earlier warning that the tribunal has found to be manifestly inappropriate, the tribunal must examine the weight the employer attached to that warning in deciding whether or not the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
In this week's feature-length podcast, we are joined by special guests Nicky Stibbs and Max Winthrop to discuss some common areas of concern around the termination of employment.
Former Chelsea FC team doctor Eva Carneiro has settled her employment tribunal claim against the club and José Mourinho for an undisclosed sum.
In Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Derwich EAT/0043/15, the EAT remitted an unfair dismissal case for consideration of whether or not an internal appeal had cured all or any of the defects earlier in the disciplinary proceedings.
In Adeshina v St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust  IRLR 704 EAT, the EAT held that flaws in disciplinary proceedings leading to a dismissal were remedied by the appeal process, and that the dismissal was fair.
On this week's XpertHR Weekly, we discuss misconduct dismissals and the process that employers should follow.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that procedural defects in an employee's dismissal for allegedly bullying a colleague who "unfriended" her on Facebook could be cured during the appeal stage.
In Way v Spectrum Property Care Ltd  IRLR 657 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer cannot rely on a warning on an employee's file that was given in bad faith, alongside later misconduct, when deciding that there is sufficient reason to dismiss. To do so would be outside the range of reasonable responses, and not in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a dismissal was fair despite flaws in the first stage of the disciplinary process and in the composition of an appeal panel.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to disciplinary penalties.