Description
In this case the EAT considered whether an employee’s dismissal was unfair due to the fact that, among other things, two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note taker and an investigating officer. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Lamb and Teva UK Limited, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which a dismissed employee argued that, among other things, the fact that two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note-taker and an investigating officer meant that a fair procedure had not been followed and therefore, his dismissal was unfair. L, an engineering supervisor, worked for a global supplier of medicines. During the course of his work, L was told by a colleague that there was an issue with a forklift truck charger, which appeared to have a split cable causing an electrical fault. A few weeks later, work began to install new chargers and L signed a work permit to say that the area was safe, clean and tidy, although in fact the electrical fault which had been earlier identified had not been remedied. Five days after L signed the work permit, a worker in the warehouse suffered an electrical shock due to the split cable when attempting to use the forklift truck charger and the incident was categorised as a potential fatality. The employer appointed B to carry out an investigation into the incident and as part of that investigation, B also gave a witness statement confirming that he had overheard a colleague tell L about the electrical fault and that he had seen L go to investigate the issue immediately thereafter. C, who also had some limited involvement with the events in question, was appointed to take notes during the investigation and later gave a witness statement to say that she had been told by L prior to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings that he had not been aware of the electrical fault. CCTV evidence showed that L had inspected the faulty cable on the day his colleague told him about it and that he had not followed the employer's correct procedure for putting faulty equipment out of operation as he had not padlocked the equipment, nor had he tagged it as out of use. Following the conclusion of the disciplinary process, L was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal found that L's dismissal had not been procedurally unfair. It did not consider it fatal that B and C had been involved in the investigation and had acted as witnesses, nor was it fatal that CCTV evidence had only been provided to L 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing and that it was possible B or C or another manager, CT, had been overheard saying that they did not think L was going to be back at the business. L appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Agreeing with the tribunal that the procedure followed, when considered as a whole, had been fair. It noted that neither B nor C were decision makers in the process and that while it may be desirable to have someone who is not required to provide statements in relation to the disciplinary matter carry out the investigation, and in some circumstances a failure to do so would mean the dismissal was unfair, there is no absolute rule that someone who has been involved in such a capacity cannot fairly conduct an investigation. It also noted that the tribunal had been entitled to take into account the fact that L did not expressly challenge the evidence of B nor did he raise any issue with his earlier involvement at the time he received the disciplinary pack containing B's statement. With regard to C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that she had less involvement than B, although it did go slightly beyond that of note-taker, as she had asked a couple of questions during the investigation, but she was not in charge of the investigation in any way. Regarding the late disclosure of CCTV evidence, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal had been entitled to take into consideration the fact that L had not objected to its late provision at the time and to find that it did not impact the fairness of his dismissal. The final matter raised by L related to a comment to the effect that L would not be returning to the business. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that, as none of the managers who may have made the comment were involved in the decision to dismiss L, again the Tribunal was entitled to find that the making of those comments did not impact the fairness of that decision. In this case, the procedural flaws were held to be minor and did not affect the fairness of the dismissal. More serious procedural flaws would likely have resulted in a different outcome. For example, if the investigating officer was also a key witness, or if either witness had been the decision maker. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case the EAT considered whether an employee’s dismissal was unfair due to the fact that, among other things, two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note taker and an investigating officer. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Lamb and Teva UK Limited, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which a dismissed employee argued that, among other things, the fact that two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note-taker and an investigating officer meant that a fair procedure had not been followed and therefore, his dismissal was unfair. L, an engineering supervisor, worked for a global supplier of medicines. During the course of his work, L was told by a colleague that there was an issue with a forklift truck charger, which appeared to have a split cable causing an electrical fault. A few weeks later, work began to install new chargers and L signed a work permit to say that the area was safe, clean and tidy, although in fact the electrical fault which had been earlier identified had not been remedied. Five days after L signed the work permit, a worker in the warehouse suffered an electrical shock due to the split cable when attempting to use the forklift truck charger and the incident was categorised as a potential fatality. The employer appointed B to carry out an investigation into the incident and as part of that investigation, B also gave a witness statement confirming that he had overheard a colleague tell L about the electrical fault and that he had seen L go to investigate the issue immediately thereafter. C, who also had some limited involvement with the events in question, was appointed to take notes during the investigation and later gave a witness statement to say that she had been told by L prior to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings that he had not been aware of the electrical fault. CCTV evidence showed that L had inspected the faulty cable on the day his colleague told him about it and that he had not followed the employer's correct procedure for putting faulty equipment out of operation as he had not padlocked the equipment, nor had he tagged it as out of use. Following the conclusion of the disciplinary process, L was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal found that L's dismissal had not been procedurally unfair. It did not consider it fatal that B and C had been involved in the investigation and had acted as witnesses, nor was it fatal that CCTV evidence had only been provided to L 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing and that it was possible B or C or another manager, CT, had been overheard saying that they did not think L was going to be back at the business. L appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Agreeing with the tribunal that the procedure followed, when considered as a whole, had been fair. It noted that neither B nor C were decision makers in the process and that while it may be desirable to have someone who is not required to provide statements in relation to the disciplinary matter carry out the investigation, and in some circumstances a failure to do so would mean the dismissal was unfair, there is no absolute rule that someone who has been involved in such a capacity cannot fairly conduct an investigation. It also noted that the tribunal had been entitled to take into account the fact that L did not expressly challenge the evidence of B nor did he raise any issue with his earlier involvement at the time he received the disciplinary pack containing B's statement. With regard to C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that she had less involvement than B, although it did go slightly beyond that of note-taker, as she had asked a couple of questions during the investigation, but she was not in charge of the investigation in any way. Regarding the late disclosure of CCTV evidence, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal had been entitled to take into consideration the fact that L had not objected to its late provision at the time and to find that it did not impact the fairness of his dismissal. The final matter raised by L related to a comment to the effect that L would not be returning to the business. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that, as none of the managers who may have made the comment were involved in the decision to dismiss L, again the Tribunal was entitled to find that the making of those comments did not impact the fairness of that decision. In this case, the procedural flaws were held to be minor and did not affect the fairness of the dismissal. More serious procedural flaws would likely have resulted in a different outcome. For example, if the investigating officer was also a key witness, or if either witness had been the decision maker. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Description
In this case the EAT considered whether an employee’s dismissal was unfair due to the fact that, among other things, two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note taker and an investigating officer. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Lamb and Teva UK Limited, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which a dismissed employee argued that, among other things, the fact that two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note-taker and an investigating officer meant that a fair procedure had not been followed and therefore, his dismissal was unfair. L, an engineering supervisor, worked for a global supplier of medicines. During the course of his work, L was told by a colleague that there was an issue with a forklift truck charger, which appeared to have a split cable causing an electrical fault. A few weeks later, work began to install new chargers and L signed a work permit to say that the area was safe, clean and tidy, although in fact the electrical fault which had been earlier identified had not been remedied. Five days after L signed the work permit, a worker in the warehouse suffered an electrical shock due to the split cable when attempting to use the forklift truck charger and the incident was categorised as a potential fatality. The employer appointed B to carry out an investigation into the incident and as part of that investigation, B also gave a witness statement confirming that he had overheard a colleague tell L about the electrical fault and that he had seen L go to investigate the issue immediately thereafter. C, who also had some limited involvement with the events in question, was appointed to take notes during the investigation and later gave a witness statement to say that she had been told by L prior to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings that he had not been aware of the electrical fault. CCTV evidence showed that L had inspected the faulty cable on the day his colleague told him about it and that he had not followed the employer's correct procedure for putting faulty equipment out of operation as he had not padlocked the equipment, nor had he tagged it as out of use. Following the conclusion of the disciplinary process, L was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal found that L's dismissal had not been procedurally unfair. It did not consider it fatal that B and C had been involved in the investigation and had acted as witnesses, nor was it fatal that CCTV evidence had only been provided to L 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing and that it was possible B or C or another manager, CT, had been overheard saying that they did not think L was going to be back at the business. L appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Agreeing with the tribunal that the procedure followed, when considered as a whole, had been fair. It noted that neither B nor C were decision makers in the process and that while it may be desirable to have someone who is not required to provide statements in relation to the disciplinary matter carry out the investigation, and in some circumstances a failure to do so would mean the dismissal was unfair, there is no absolute rule that someone who has been involved in such a capacity cannot fairly conduct an investigation. It also noted that the tribunal had been entitled to take into account the fact that L did not expressly challenge the evidence of B nor did he raise any issue with his earlier involvement at the time he received the disciplinary pack containing B's statement. With regard to C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that she had less involvement than B, although it did go slightly beyond that of note-taker, as she had asked a couple of questions during the investigation, but she was not in charge of the investigation in any way. Regarding the late disclosure of CCTV evidence, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal had been entitled to take into consideration the fact that L had not objected to its late provision at the time and to find that it did not impact the fairness of his dismissal. The final matter raised by L related to a comment to the effect that L would not be returning to the business. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that, as none of the managers who may have made the comment were involved in the decision to dismiss L, again the Tribunal was entitled to find that the making of those comments did not impact the fairness of that decision. In this case, the procedural flaws were held to be minor and did not affect the fairness of the dismissal. More serious procedural flaws would likely have resulted in a different outcome. For example, if the investigating officer was also a key witness, or if either witness had been the decision maker. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this case the EAT considered whether an employee’s dismissal was unfair due to the fact that, among other things, two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note taker and an investigating officer. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Lamb and Teva UK Limited, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which a dismissed employee argued that, among other things, the fact that two witnesses in the disciplinary process also acted as a note-taker and an investigating officer meant that a fair procedure had not been followed and therefore, his dismissal was unfair. L, an engineering supervisor, worked for a global supplier of medicines. During the course of his work, L was told by a colleague that there was an issue with a forklift truck charger, which appeared to have a split cable causing an electrical fault. A few weeks later, work began to install new chargers and L signed a work permit to say that the area was safe, clean and tidy, although in fact the electrical fault which had been earlier identified had not been remedied. Five days after L signed the work permit, a worker in the warehouse suffered an electrical shock due to the split cable when attempting to use the forklift truck charger and the incident was categorised as a potential fatality. The employer appointed B to carry out an investigation into the incident and as part of that investigation, B also gave a witness statement confirming that he had overheard a colleague tell L about the electrical fault and that he had seen L go to investigate the issue immediately thereafter. C, who also had some limited involvement with the events in question, was appointed to take notes during the investigation and later gave a witness statement to say that she had been told by L prior to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings that he had not been aware of the electrical fault. CCTV evidence showed that L had inspected the faulty cable on the day his colleague told him about it and that he had not followed the employer's correct procedure for putting faulty equipment out of operation as he had not padlocked the equipment, nor had he tagged it as out of use. Following the conclusion of the disciplinary process, L was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal found that L's dismissal had not been procedurally unfair. It did not consider it fatal that B and C had been involved in the investigation and had acted as witnesses, nor was it fatal that CCTV evidence had only been provided to L 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing and that it was possible B or C or another manager, CT, had been overheard saying that they did not think L was going to be back at the business. L appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Agreeing with the tribunal that the procedure followed, when considered as a whole, had been fair. It noted that neither B nor C were decision makers in the process and that while it may be desirable to have someone who is not required to provide statements in relation to the disciplinary matter carry out the investigation, and in some circumstances a failure to do so would mean the dismissal was unfair, there is no absolute rule that someone who has been involved in such a capacity cannot fairly conduct an investigation. It also noted that the tribunal had been entitled to take into account the fact that L did not expressly challenge the evidence of B nor did he raise any issue with his earlier involvement at the time he received the disciplinary pack containing B's statement. With regard to C, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that she had less involvement than B, although it did go slightly beyond that of note-taker, as she had asked a couple of questions during the investigation, but she was not in charge of the investigation in any way. Regarding the late disclosure of CCTV evidence, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal had been entitled to take into consideration the fact that L had not objected to its late provision at the time and to find that it did not impact the fairness of his dismissal. The final matter raised by L related to a comment to the effect that L would not be returning to the business. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that, as none of the managers who may have made the comment were involved in the decision to dismiss L, again the Tribunal was entitled to find that the making of those comments did not impact the fairness of that decision. In this case, the procedural flaws were held to be minor and did not affect the fairness of the dismissal. More serious procedural flaws would likely have resulted in a different outcome. For example, if the investigating officer was also a key witness, or if either witness had been the decision maker. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
