In Uddin v London Borough of Ealing  the investigator withheld information from the disciplinary panel, leading to a finding of unfair dismissal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)…Read more
Your employer must be procedurally fair during a disciplinary investigation. The case of Retirement Security Ltd v Miss A. Wilson illustrates the impact of a flawed disciplinary investigation on an unfair dismissal claim. Here, the procedural defects in an investigatory meeting were so bad that the Employment Tribunal concluded that there had been a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, which entitled Miss Wilson to resign and claim constructive dismissal…Read more
Where a misconduct allegation has been made against you at work, the disciplinary investigation is the process used to find out whether you have actually done the misconduct you have been accused of. The disciplinary investigation is a fact-finding mission. No more and no less. The purpose is to find out on the balance of probabilities whether you have a case to answer. It is not, and should not be an exercise to find out whether you are guilty. For more detailed guidance and resources on the disciplinary investigation see Surviving a disciplinary investigation at work
Disciplinary investigations can be carried out in a variety of situations, and not just in disciplinary action. Investigations happen for example where there are;
You continue to have employment rights during the investigation. The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures applies to any matters relating to discipline. Your employer has a legal duty to act reasonably and use a fair procedure. The ACAS Guide gives directions on what it is to act reasonably and fairly, and the duties are further developed by the Courts and Tribunals in case law.
The duty to act reasonably is also known as the band of reasonable responses. It is a legal duty laid out in Section 98 (4) (a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996. S.98 (4) (b) says that the duty to be reasonable should be decided in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. Equity means natural justice, procedural fairness, an employee’s personal circumstances, common sense and common fairness. Substantial merits means “whether an employee’s behaviour or performance warranted dismissal”.
The Burchell Test
The Balance of Probabilities
This means that it is up to your employer to prove that you have a case to answer. This task of proving or disproving is commonly described as “the burden of proof”. The Burden of proof is decided on “the balance of probabilities” The balance of probabilities means that something is more likely than not to have occurred, or it is more likely than not that the incident did not occur. If the probabilities are equally balanced then your employer has not satisfied the burden of proof.
The Employment Tribunal will not consider whether you were actually guilty of the misconduct, but whether your employer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that you were guilty of the misconduct at the time the decision was made. The only way that your employer can prove that they believed and had reasonable grounds for this belief is by proving that they acted within S98(4) ERA 1996.
A fair procedure is determined by reference to rules of natural justice and the following;
The famous case of Polkey v. A. E. Dayton Services Ltd  is sometimes called the “no difference” rule. In this case the House of Lords said that an employer’s failure to follow a proper procedure (including investigation) is almost guaranteed to make any dismissal unfair. The Employment Tribunal may reduce the level of compensation if a fair procedure would still have led to a dismissal (The Polkey Reduction).
The Polkey Reduction
If your employer was reasonable under S98 (4) ERA 1996 but did not use a fair procedure, the Employment Tribunal will reduce your compensation because you would have been dismissed if fair procedures had been followed.
In every investigation the Band of Reasonable Responses (Burchell Test) AND a Fair Procedure must be applied. If they are BOTH not present, a dismissal will be unfair.
An employer who has failed to conduct a proper investigation into an employee’s misconduct was not able to successfully argue in subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings that the outcome (dismissal) would have been the same even if the investigation had been properly conducted. In A v B , The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the employer’s investigation into an employee’s alleged misconduct was not reasonable in all the circumstances and, accordingly, his dismissal was unfair. It was no answer to the defects in the investigation to say that even if it had been reasonable, the decision to dismiss would still have been taken.
The information and content on this website is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice. Legal information or content on this website relates only to the laws of England and Wales. You should not take any actions based on information found on this website without first seeking appropriate legal advice with respect to your specific matter. No representations or warranties are made about the suitability, currentness, comprehensiveness and/or accuracy of the information and other content contained on this website. It should be noted that legal information and content can rapidly become out of date and we give no undertaking to keep this website up to date. All liability for any loss or damage of any kind which may be suffered as a result of accessing and using the information and/or content of this website is hereby excluded to the full extent permitted by law.