The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.
In Khan v Stripestar Ltd EAT/0022/15, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that a dismissal was fair despite a wholly defective and unfair initial disciplinary hearing, because the subsequent internal appeal cured the defects earlier in the process.
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.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures does not apply to dismissals on the ground of ill health where there is no element of culpability on the part of the employee.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there are no limitations on the nature and extent of the deficiencies in a first stage disciplinary procedure that can be cured by a thorough and effective appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" does not apply to dismissals for some other substantial reason (SOSR) due to a breakdown in working relationships.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" does not extend to dismissals on the ground of ill health.
In MBNA Ltd v Jones EAT/0120/15, the EAT held that the employee was fairly dismissed despite the fact that a colleague involved in the same incident received a final written warning.
In Ramphal v Department for Transport  IRLR 985 EAT, the EAT held that a disciplinary process was potentially unfair on the basis that the manager who conducted it was improperly influenced in his conclusions by representatives of HR who had not been directly involved in or present at the disciplinary hearing.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to discipline.
Liveflo Beta is available for you now to test and explore. It brings you greater functionality, ease of use and mobile optimisation. Try it now