How can employers prove employee misconduct if required to in an Employment Tribunal? Paul Chamberlain, Head of JMW's Employment team, outlines how businesses can identify and document misconduct to prove a dismissal has been fair, though specific professional advice should be sought in each case.
The dismissal of an employee for a reason which "relates to the conduct of the employee" is potentially fair, according to section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996).
Misconduct could include actions such as:
And also, more serious actions, such as:
Although the language in the statute makes this clear, the Court of Session in CJD v Royal Bank of Scotland confirmed that the conduct in question does not need to be "reprehensible". The Employment Appeal Tribunal also confirmed in JP Morgan Securities Plc v Ktorza that the conduct does not need to be "culpable".
Examples of what your company deems to be misconduct and/or gross misconduct should be detailed within your disciplinary procedure.
It is your job, as the employer, to show that conduct was the reason for dismissal. For the purposes of establishing the reason for dismissal, you only need to have a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct; the belief does not have to be correct or justified.
Sometimes, it may be difficult to decide which of the statutory reasons applies to the employee's actions. For example, in cases of negligence, it may be possible to characterise the reason as capability or conduct. It is unlikely that you would be penalised by the Employment Tribunal for applying the incorrect label, as long as:
All disciplinary proceedings should be documented. The records that you keep should include, among other things:
It is important to produce detailed notes, as this will make it easier to recollect events and decisions taken at the time. You should ensure that all records are clear and concise, bearing in mind that it may be necessary not only to refer to them, but also to produce them during the course of any subsequent disciplinary hearing or tribunal proceedings, or if the employee makes a data subject access request.
For further guidance, please see this article about documenting employee misconduct and disciplinary issues.
A reasonable investigation is an important element of the Burchell test of fairness in misconduct dismissals.
The Burchell test was established in the case of British Home Stores v Burchell and states that dismissal for misconduct will only be fair if, at the time of dismissal:
Where a reasonable investigation has not been carried out, employees may be able to argue that their dismissal was unfair on the basis that:
The degree of investigation required depends on the circumstances. The employer should assess its approach taking account of the following:
While an employer may be criticised for failing to investigate thoroughly enough, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has commented that it is "never likely" that an investigation will be held to be unreasonable solely on grounds of being "too thorough".
As an employer, you may dismiss an employee fairly for gross misconduct without prior warnings and without notice. The term "gross misconduct" is used to describe the most serious types of misconduct, such as theft or violence, which would warrant instant dismissal. It will be conduct that "so undermines the relationship of trust and confidence [...] that [the employer] should no longer be required to retain [the employee] in [their] employment", according to Neary v Dean of Westminster.
Unfair dismissal compensation: how much can it cost businesses?
Wrongful dismissal: how is it different from unfair dismissal?
What is employee whistleblowing and how should businesses respond?