Avoid being “fundamentally unfair”: the importance of robust disciplinary procedures

A recent Employment Tribunal case highlights the critical importance of following fair and reasonable disciplinary procedures. In the Employment Tribunal decision for Mrs L Murray v Astley House Nursing Home Ltd, the employer’s actions were described as ‘cavalier’ and ‘fundamentally unfair’, resulting in a significant amount of compensation being awarded to the claimant.

Background

Starting in January 2019, the claimant Mrs Murray commenced employment as an Administrator at the Astley House Nursing Home, which was part of the group company Pepperwood Care Limited, of which Ms Chohan is the sole director and shareholder.

In June 2024, Ms Chohan became aware that the claimant had been working overtime hours. She called the claimant to investigate these additional hours. Her PA, Ms Duffy, took notes of the call. Mrs Murray was shocked at the allegations of unauthorised hours. At the end of the call, she was suspended from work and escorted from the building.

Ms Chohan then instructed Ms Duffy to conduct a Disciplinary Hearing, despite the policy requirement for a Home Manager, Director, or Operations Manager. At the Hearing, Mrs Murray explained that her timesheets were processed by Head Office and the additional hours had been approved by her manager, Kirsty Steele.

The claimant was dismissed, with immediate effect, by letter. In Tribunal evidence, Ms Duffy indicated she had not considered a lesser sanction, nor had she considered the claimant’s length of service or clean disciplinary record. There had been no investigation into any of the claimant’s points.

The Appeal was heard by Christine Walsh. The Tribunal noted, ‘Ms Walsh regarded the requirement to deal with the appeal as an imposition’ and had the view ‘she had no power to carry out any investigations’. In one telling example, Mrs Murray asked about the authorisation of her hours, and Ms Walsh replied, ‘I cannot give any information on why you feel this query has not been answered.’ Following the unsuccessful appeal, Mrs Murray raised Employment Tribunal claims.

Findings

The Tribunal found Mrs Murray to be a credible and reliable witness. It appeared that Ms Chohan had been unhappy with the overtime, but these hours had been approved and processed by Head Office. There was no evidence that the claimant had been dishonest or disobedient.

The respondent’s solicitor made brief submissions, including the argument that the respondent ‘could have appeared weak’ if they hadn’t dismissed the claimant. The solicitor conceded there had been deviation from the disciplinary procedure and a lack of compliance with the Acas Code of Practice.

The Tribunal concluded that ‘the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure at every stage of the process’. Mrs Murray’s claims of Unfair Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal were both successful. Her claim of Unlawful Deductions from wages was also upheld. In total, the respondent was ordered to pay over £27,000 to Mrs Murray.

Takeaways for Employers

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to fair and reasonable disciplinary procedures. The financial consequences of unfair procedures can be substantial, and Employment Tribunal claims may lead to significant reputational damage.

Bright Contracts offers comprehensive resources, including a Disciplinary Policy aligned with Acas guidance, to support employers and help ensure procedures are fair and legally compliant. Please contact us to learn more about the support we can offer you.