Getting too close to the decision

23 Oct 2015

HR must limit the extent to which it advises on disciplinary cases, particularly where dismissal is involved, or it risks rendering a dismissal unfair.  This may feel counter-intuitive – HR professionals do their best to help managers make decisions during disciplinary procedures and often they are called upon to give considerable guidance.

However, as the recent EAT case of Ramphal v Department for Transport reminds us, too much HR influence can be unfair.  In that case, the manager who conducted the disciplinary investigation originally recommended a finding of misconduct with a sanction of a final written warning.  He thought that Mr Ramphal’s explanations for certain irregular expense claims were plausible and consistent.  However, following lengthy discussion with HR, his final report recommended a finding of gross misconduct and summary dismissal.  Instead of giving Mr Ramphal the benefit of the doubt in various areas, he was highly critical of him.

The evidence in the employment tribunal showed that his change of mind had been heavily influenced by HR.  The shift from the initial recommendation to the final verdict was so striking that it gave rise to an inference of improper influence.

The EAT emphasised that whilst an investigating officer is entitled to call for advice from HR, this must be limited to questions of law, procedure and process and must avoid straying into questions of culpability.  In particular, HR should not advise on what an appropriate sanction should be, except as necessary to advise on matters of consistency.

In practice, when a manager asks for advice on what decision they can make, or what decision they should make in a particular case, HR should limit their advice to the range of decisions that might be made.  If the manager’s decision is notably inconsistent with decisions in similar cases, HR should draw this to their attention and invite them to reconsider.  But they should not recommend a decision.

Further reading

Permitted Development Rights and the revised NPPF: Article 4 directions

Blog, Legal Updates
A revised National Planning Policy Framework has just been published. Holly Stevenson focuses on the change to Article 4 Directions
Read more Read

Can commercial lessees now ‘relax’ given the extended Government moratorium on forfeiture for non payment of rent?

Legal Updates
Property Litigation Partner, Keith Pearlman, doesn't think so and explains why they could be in for a nasty shock from 1 October of this year
Read more Read

Excluding and limiting liability: How to play your cards right

John Yates considers the art of crafting clauses to reduce risk
Read more Read

Update on the rules concerning the changes to Crown Preference

Blog, Legal Updates
As corporate insolvencies remain low, a clear picture of how the partial reintroduction of Crown Preference is likely to impact on businesses, and on lender practices, has yet to emerge. Oliver Jackson provides an update
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch