A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal has placed the spotlight on “scripts” written for disciplinary hearing managers, and other aspects of procedural fairness including how much information from an investigation must be shared with employees.
This recent EAT decision will feel familiar to many employers: how far can HR go in helping managers prepare without unfairly steering the outcome; when do privacy rights bite on work-device searches; and how much evidence must be disclosed to the employee? The judgment is a helpful reminder of the basics—identify the allegations with care, ensure the decision maker and employee see the same core material, avoid the appearance of prejudgment, and keep HR’s role to law and process, not conclusions. It’s a practical reminder that small procedural missteps won’t necessarily sink a dismissal, but straying from these fundamentals might.
The Claimant was employed by the FCA and fell out with a female colleague. After an argument in the canteen, the colleague received an anonymous email which contained harassing and threatening language. The colleague reported the email to HR and investigations began with the Claimant also making his own counter grievances. Following an investigation, it was determined that on balance, the anonymous email was sent by the Claimant. This was the first disciplinary charge against the Claimant.
Post investigation, the Claimant sent a further email to his and the colleague’s line...
When examiners don’t get veterans’ records, bad decisions aren’t a mistake—they’re a systemic failure. In a blistering oversight hearing this week, members of Congress openly questioned whether th...