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 McMillan v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust [2014] 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.
In Thomson v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust EAT/0218/14, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal's ruling that a conduct dismissal was unfair because the chair of the disciplinary panel had no training or experience in the role, and he impermissibly dismissed for what amounted to serious but not gross misconduct. The employee had, however, failed to establish that there was any failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employer was not obliged to put the disciplinary process on hold until the employee's grievance had been investigated.
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.