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.
This first-instance tribunal decision shows that a series of incidents in which an employee is warned for verbally abusing colleagues can combine to lead to a fair dismissal, even if taken individually the incidents do not justify dismissal.
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.
An employer's veto on a trade union representative accompanying its employees to disciplinary or grievance hearings led to breaches of the right to be accompanied, an employment tribunal has found.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a dismissal will be unfair if the decision to dismiss an employee is improperly influenced by the HR department. The EAT explained the role of HR in disciplinary proceedings.
The High Court has held that an employer breached its implied duty of trust and confidence towards an employee who was not allowed to be accompanied at a disciplinary investigation by his choice of companion.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to discipline.