In Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd  IRLR 399 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's investigation into an employee's inflated mileage claims was reasonable, even though it had not investigated in detail every implausible explanation offered by the employee.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a dismissal was procedurally unfair because the chair of the disciplinary panel had no experience or training in conducting disciplinary hearings. This led to the disciplinary panel misapplying the disciplinary procedure, and in these circumstances, the EAT found the dismissal was also substantively unfair.
A model letter inviting an employee to attend a final disciplinary appeal hearing where the employer offers more than one level of appeal.
A model order of proceedings for a disciplinary appeal hearing.
A model letter inviting an employee to attend a disciplinary hearing.
A model letter inviting an employee to attend a disciplinary appeal hearing.
A model order of proceedings for a disciplinary hearing.
The Court of Appeal has held that it was reasonable for the employer not to carry out a detailed investigation into an employee's explanations for unusually high travel expense claims as the employer had obtained sufficient evidence to decide that the employee's explanations were implausible.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where an internal appeal is successful, the contract of employment is automatically revived with retrospective effect.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, a Court of Appeal decision highlights the need for employers to invest time and resources into investigating disciplinary allegations.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to discipline.