HR's role in disciplinary decisions

HR involvement in disciplinary decisions does not necessarily render a dismissal unfair.

Background

Mr Shing, a senior lecturer, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following findings relating to an inappropriate relationship with a student. Among his tribunal complaints was one for unfair dismissal. He argued that HR had exerted improper influence over the disciplinary process. The tribunal rejected his claims, finding that the university had conducted a fair disciplinary process. He appealed, arguing that the tribunal had failed properly to apply the principle established in Ramphal v Department for Transport, an earlier EAT decision addressing the permissible extent of HR involvement in disciplinary proceedings.

EAT decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The EAT drew a clear distinction between legitimate advice about the seriousness of alleged misconduct and improper pressure on the person responsible for deciding whether an employee should be dismissed.

The Ramphal case does not prohibit HR from expressing views on whether conduct amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct. In fact, such advice could be particularly valuable where an employer needed to maintain consistency across disciplinary cases.

The crucial consideration was whether the decision maker had retained responsibility for reaching an independent conclusion. The EAT accepted that in this case HR had not exerted improper pressure – its involvement had been minimal and legitimate. The HR adviser merely drafted the dismissal letter after the decision maker had already decided to dismiss and HR did not alter an investigation report or take over the substantive decision.

Comment

Employers may use HR to help maintain consistency in disciplinary sanctions across an organisation without automatically compromising the fairness of a dismissal. The key question is whether the dismissal decision remains that of the appointed manager.