Ramphal v Department For Transport

A disciplinary investigation must remain the work of the appointed investigating or dismissing officer. Human Resources may advise on law, procedure, process, consistency, completeness and clarity. It should not seek to influence findings of fact, credibility, culpability or the sanction.

Where undisclosed Human Resources interventions coincide with a marked change from exculpatory findings and a warning to findings of gross misconduct and dismissal, the tribunal must examine and explain whether the intervention was improper and materially affected the decision. A decision may be unfair if its integrity was influenced by persons outside the proper disciplinary process, particularly where the employee was not told of a changed case to answer. The principles in [2014] ICR 194 apply beyond its particular contractual setting.

The claimant, an Aviation Security Compliance Inspector, was summarily dismissed after an investigation into expense claims and use of hire cars. The same manager, Mr Goodchild, acted as investigator and dismissing officer.

His early draft reports contained findings favourable to the claimant and proposed a final written warning. After substantial contact with Human Resources, later drafts removed those findings and recommended dismissal for gross misconduct. No fresh evidence was identified to explain the change.

The Employment Tribunal at London (Central), by a decision dated 30 April 2014, dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim. It held that Human Resources had provided permissible advice and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant appealed on the ground that the Tribunal had failed properly to address improper Human Resources influence on the decision.

1. Appeal allowed and remitted. The Employment Tribunal's conclusion that the dismissal was fair could not stand. It had not adequately investigated or explained the effect of Human Resources' involvement in the dramatic change in the investigating and dismissing officer's findings and proposed sanction.

2. Applying Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust, [2014] ICR 194, the report in a disciplinary process must be the product of the appointed investigator. An officer may seek Human Resources advice on law, procedure and process. Human Resources may assist to ensure that necessary matters are addressed and that the report is clear. Its role must not extend to influencing the officer's assessments of credibility, factual culpability, whether conduct amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct, or the appropriate sanction.

3. A fair dismissal requires a fair investigation and procedure. If persons outside the proper process influence the integrity of the final dismissal decision, the dismissal will be unfair, especially if the employee does not know of that influence. An employee is entitled to expect a decision by the proper officer without lobbying on culpability. The employee should be told of material changes in the case to answer and of representations going beyond legal, procedural or process advice.

4. Here, the removal of exculpatory findings after Human Resources interventions, and the move from a final warning to summary dismissal without fresh evidence, permitted an inference of improper influence. The Employment Judge's finding that the ultimate decision was Mr Goodchild's did not answer whether he had been influenced on culpability and sanction. The findings on contributory fault and any Polkey reduction might also have been tainted.

5. The Employment Tribunal must determine whether Human Resources' influence was improper and, if so, whether it materially affected the findings on culpability and the decision to dismiss. Fact-finding was for the Tribunal, not the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The case was remitted to the same Employment Judge in accordance with the remission guidance in Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard, [2004] IRLR 763.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant's appeal and remitted the unfair-dismissal claim to the same Employment Judge for further consideration.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): On 30 April 2014, dismissed the claimant's unfair-dismissal claim.