Quick Hits
- The role of HR in disciplinary proceedings is generally to guide the process and provide advice to the managers taking the decisions. In most situations, HR will not participate in taking the final decision.
- Nevertheless, cases are fact-specific, and someone from HR taking the decision in a disciplinary process does not automatically render a dismissal unfair.
Background and Analysis
In Shing v University of the Arts London, WYC Shing, a senior lecturer, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following findings relating to an inappropriate relationship with a mature student. He brought claims against his employer alleging unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
Counsel for Shing, relying on Ramphal v Department for Transport (2015), which restricted HR’s involvement to questions of law, procedure, and consistency, argued that HR’s involvement in Shing’s dismissal had rendered it unfair. Dismissing Shing’s appeal, the EAT held that the significance of HR’s involvement in a dismissal depended on the facts of the case. The EAT saw “no reason why in an appropriate case HR should not advise on the application of the suitability of the concepts of misconduct and serious misconduct and the dividing line between them, not least because otherwise it would be difficult for a company to maintain consistency of application between different persons who carried out dismissals.”
The EAT held that Ramphal does not establish that HR’s role as decision taker on a dismissal automatically renders the dismissal unfair. In fact, the EAT noted that HR plays a valuable role in keeping disciplinary decisions consistent across an organisation.
Key Takeaways
- In the UK, a manager typically takes the final decision in a disciplinary process, and HR’s role is to guide and advise the manager.
- A tribunal may weigh HR’s influence when assessing a dismissal’s fairness, particularly where it may amount to undue pressure on the decision maker. The EAT found no such pressure in the Shing case.
- HR may properly advise managers on whether conduct amounts to misconduct or serious misconduct, but the decision to dismiss rests with the manager.
- This is not an absolute rule and someone from HR can be assigned decision maker in appropriate cases.
Ogletree Deakins’ London office and Cross-Border and Global Reorganizations practice groups will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Global Reorganizations blogs as additional information becomes available.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts
