Employers often fail to give guidelines to staff on what to include in an oral or written disciplinary warning. Bar Huberman sets out the basic ingredients for a misconduct warning letter.
Latest IRS research investigates the procedures employers use to handle discipline, and the training they have in place to help managers deal with individual disputes. The report also includes exclusive comments from Acas, BIS and the TUC.
In Tim Arrow & Sons v Onley EAT/0527/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in applying a 50% uplift pursuant to s.31 of the Employment Act 2002 in respect of sums that had already been paid by the employer shortly before the tribunal hearing.
The Court of Appeal has upheld an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision that employees who identified that their grievance related to equal pay complied with step one of the statutory grievance procedure. It was not necessary for the employees to identify comparators when raising their grievance.
A model letter to use in Northern Ireland when you contemplate making an employee redundant and the redundancy situation involves fewer than 20 employees, as step one of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure.
A model letter to use in Northern Ireland after you have held a meeting with an employee to discuss the possibility of his or her job being made redundant where the redundancy situation involves fewer than 20 employees, as step two of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure.
A model letter to use in Northern Ireland to invite an employee to an appeal meeting when he or she has indicated an intention to appeal against dismissal by reason of redundancy, where the redundancy situation involves fewer than 20 employees.
A model letter to use in Northern Ireland to inform an employee that, following an appeal meeting, a decision to dismiss him or her by reason of redundancy is to stand, where the redundancy situation involves fewer than 20 employees.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal finding that a dismissal was automatically unfair because the risk of dismissal was not made clear in the step one letter.
The Court of Appeal has held that a delay of four months between a dismissal and appeal did not render dismissals automatically unfair because the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure had been completed.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures.