• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Yorkshire's Employment Law & Data Protection Specialists

  • Home
  • About
    • About us
    • Brian Harrington
    • Nathan Combes
  • Services
    • Employment Law & HR Advice
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Data Protection
    • Training
    • Price transparency
  • Legal updates, news & events
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Home
  • About
    • About us
    • Brian Harrington
    • Nathan Combes
  • Services
    • Employment Law & HR Advice
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Data Protection
    • Training
    • Price transparency
  • Legal updates, news & events
  • Contact us
  • Search

Employer Update | Handling Disciplinaries

You are here: Home / Employer Update | Handling Disciplinaries

21st February 2020 //  by curcom76

Overview: Employer’s failure to update disciplinary manager made dismissal unfair

Case: Mr J Uddin v London Borough of Ealing : UKEAT/0165/19/RN

The facts: The EAT has recently an earlier employment tribunal decision which held that an employee who had been accused of sexually assaulting a work-placement student was unfairly dismissed.

The investigating officer in this case had encouraged the student to make a complaint to the police regarding the alleged sexual assault and later relied on that a compliant to the police had been made when recommending disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. However, before the disciplinary hearing took place, the student withdrew her police complaint. The investigating officer became aware of the student’s decision to withdraw her complaint but decided against sharing this information with the manager tasked with conducting the disciplinary hearing. The employee accused of inappropriate workplace was subsequently dismissed. His appeal against his dismissal was also unsuccessful.

Outcome: In the earlier case of Royal Mail Group v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55, the Supreme Court the interesting question of whether a tribunal can impute to an employer a reason for dismissal which is different from the reason that had genuinely been in the mind of the person who took the decision to dismiss. The EAT noted that the strict ratio of Jhuti did not apply in this case. However, it found that:

  • The knowledge or conduct of a person other than the person who actually decided to dismiss can be relevant to the fairness of a dismissal, both in relation to the tribunal’s consideration of the reason for dismissal under section 98(1) and its consideration of fairness under section 98(4) of the ERA 1996.
  • Where someone responsible for the conduct of a pre-investigation fails to share a material fact with the decision-maker, that could be regarded as relevant to the tribunal’s decision in relation to fairness under section 98(4) of the ERA 1996.

Adopting the reasoning set out above, the EAT held that the tribunal should have concluded, at the liability stage, that fairness demanded that the dismissing manager should have been informed of, and taken into account, the fact that the police complaint had been withdrawn. This was a relevant and material fact that had not been disclosed. The EAT went on to state that as this had not happened, the tribunal should have held that the dismissal was unfair.

Our comments: This case serves as a useful reminder to anyone who is involved in the investigation of disciplinary offences that they must not ignore relevant information. Investigating officers have an ongoing duty to disclose relevant information whenever that information comes into their possession. Similarly, disciplinary managers should not decide to discount relevant information simply because that information was not available to the investigating officer at the time that their investigation was being carried out.

Please contact us if you’d like more information about the issues raised in this article and/or or to find out more about the various Employment Law & HR related products and services that we provide.

You May Also Be Interested In:

Employer Update | Furlough Leave & Pay

Employer Update | TUC demands employers produce coronavirus (COVID-19) risk assessments

Employer update | Homophobic statements & discrimination in employment

morrisons supermarket vicarious liability

Who’s legally responsible when an employee “goes rogue”

Employer Update | Government announces new statutory right to neonatal leave and pay

covid-19 coronavirus graphic

Employer Update | COVID-19 (Coronavirus) & Data Protection

Data Protection | Understanding Brexit and the GDPR

Employer Update | Handling Disciplinaries

Data Protection | ICO issues fresh guidance regarding time limits for dealing with Data Subject Access Requests

Previous Post: « Data Protection | ICO issues fresh guidance regarding time limits for dealing with Data Subject Access Requests
Next Post: Data Protection | Understanding Brexit and the GDPR »

Primary Sidebar

NEWS & EVENTS

Employer Update | Furlough Leave & Pay

Flexibility The Government has now confirmed that from 1 …

Employer Update | TUC demands employers produce coronavirus (COVID-19) risk assessments

The Trades Union Congress ("TUC") has demanded that all …

Employer update | Homophobic statements & discrimination in employment

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has confirmed that …

morrisons supermarket vicarious liability

Who’s legally responsible when an employee “goes rogue”

In a landmark decision the Supreme Court has confirmed that the …

Employer Update | Government announces new statutory right to neonatal leave and pay

The government has confirmed that a new statutory right to up to …

Footer

Our Lawyers

  • Brian Harrington
  • Nathan Combes

Our Offices

BRIGHOUSE
19 Bradford Road
Brighouse
HD6 1RW
Tel: 01484 240633

 

YORK
The Studio
30 Acomb Road
York YO24 4EW
Tel: 01904 238896

 

CLECKHEATON
27 Northgate
Cleckheaton
BD19 3HH
Tel: 01484 240633

Contact Us

Contact us today – find out how we can help you.

  • Privacy Notice
  • Website Terms & Conditions

Site Footer

Harrington Law is a trading name of Harrington Law Limited which is a limited company registered in England and Wales  with registered number 11651440 whose list of directors is available for inspection at its registered office which is 19 Bradford Road Brighouse West Yorkshire.  Harrington Law Limited are solicitors of England and Wales authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under SRA number 666091.  Details of the Solicitors Code of Conduct can be found at www.sra.org.uk.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

SAVE & ACCEPT