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.
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 Jinadu v Docklands Buses Ltd EAT/0434/14, the EAT held that an employee was not entitled to have her disciplinary proceedings suspended while the employer considered a grievance that she had raised about her treatment. However, the case was remitted because the tribunal had failed to make clear findings as to whether she was dismissed for gross misconduct or for poor performance.
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.
In McMillan v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust  IRLR 803 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the NHS had no contractual right to increase a disciplinary sanction on a doctor's internal appeal against that sanction.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.