In Pinto v Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust EAT/0351/09, the EAT held that an employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee for gross misconduct after she agreed that a final written warning should be set aside, and the allegations that led to it considered in a fresh disciplinary hearing, together with a number of new allegations of misconduct.
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.
In R (on the application of Kirk) v Middlesbrough Council and another [2010] IRLR 699 HC, the High Court held that a social worker accused of withholding information about a child protection investigation, of which she was the subject, from her private sector employer was not entitled to legal representation at a disciplinary hearing.
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.