In Ramphal v Department for Transport, the employer launched an investigation into possible misconduct by Ramphal (R) in relation to his expenses and use of hire cars. A manager, Goodchild (G), was appointed to conduct the investigation and act as dismissing officer if necessary. G had little experience in disciplinary proceedings and during the course of preparing his report and decision, he received advice from the Human Resources Department (HR). The advice he was given was not limited to matters of law and procedure, and the level of appropriate sanctions with a view to achieving consistency, but extended to R’s credibility and his level of blameworthiness.

G’s first draft report contained a number of findings in favour of R, including that his actions were not deliberate and his explanations for petrol use, expenses and why fuel was significantly in excess of that expected by the line manager were plausible. G’s provisional view was that R was guilty of misconduct rather than gross misconduct and that he should be given a final written warning. After further communications with HR, G’s report became more critical of R, favourable findings were removed, G’s conclusion of the severity of the offence was changed to gross misconduct and R was summarily dismissed.  

The EAT upheld R’s appeal against an ET’s finding that the dismissal was fair. No new evidence came to light after the initial report and the ET failed to explain what it was that persuaded G to change his views so radically. HR appear to have sought to persuade G to take a more critical view of R’s conduct and to reject his explanations for certain expenditure which G originally appeared to have accepted. It could be inferred that G had been inappropriately lobbied by HR and the ET had not given sufficient consideration as to what had led to G’s change of heart.

The EAT also provided guidance on HR’s role in disciplinary situations. Although a dismissing or investigating officer is entitled to seek guidance from HR or others, such advice should be limited to matters of law and procedure and to ensuring that all necessary matters have been addressed and are clear. Furthermore, an employee facing disciplinary charges and dismissal is entitled to expect that the decision will be taken by the appropriate officer, without having been lobbied by other parties as to the findings he should make as to blameworthiness, and he should be given notice of any changes in the case he has to meet so that he can deal with them.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.