This case is a useful example for employers of how to carry out a disciplinary investigation and hearing into a violent incident, when the alleged victim or witnesses might feel intimidated.
The interesting issue for the employment tribunal to decide in this case was whether an employee who got into an argument with her employer resigned or was dismissed.
A 62-year-old worker who was made redundant was awarded over £27,000 for age discrimination and unfair dismissal, in a stark warning for employers that allow their redundancy selection procedure to be tainted by age bias.
In Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield EAT/0539/09, the EAT held that the postponement of disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in respect of the employee's alleged misconduct did not render his eventual dismissal unfair.
In Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find a dismissal unfair where the reason for the dismissal included an allegation about a secondary incident that had not been particularised, and where there had been a failure to investigate a key dispute of fact between the accuser and accused.
The employment tribunal in this case increased the amount of compensation awarded to an unfairly dismissed employee because of his employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment or to dismiss him in accordance with the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.