Fixing the faulty machinery of a disciplinary process that malfunctioned

After Clint admitted breaching strict health and safety rules at work, you can probably guess what happened next.

He was dismissed from his role at a manufacturing company where he had worked for eight years.

Devastated Clint accepted he had done wrong, but felt the decision was unfair and too severe based on the particular circumstances of his case, and fact the disciplinary process conducted breached the ACAS Code of Practice.

Clint was spotted by his manager using cutting machinery while not wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE).

Although Clint apologised immediately and acknowledged the mistake, he was suspended from work.

Later the same day, Clint received an email from his manager inviting him to a virtual meeting the following day.

Clint joined the meeting and was greeted by his boss and a HR advisor. He was informed it was a disciplinary hearing.

Shocked Clint argued it was unfair because he had no advance warning of the nature of the meeting or time to prepare.

But he was told the hearing would go ahead and if he refused to take part it would continue in his absence and a potential outcome was dismissal.

Clint had previously supported a colleague going through a disciplinary process, and knew what was happening was not right.

So, he argued that he had a statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing and that company policy means it should always carry out a disciplinary investigation before taking formal disciplinary action.

Clint was informed because he admitted what had happened, and the seriousness of the matter, company policy allowed the hearing to take place in the manner it was.

Despite his legitimate protests Clint eventually gave up, felt he had no choice but to take part in the hearing, and was dismissed following it.

Clint contacted our Employee Support Centre for help to challenge the decision.

Prior to doing so he had submitted a disciplinary appeal against his dismissal, which he said amounted to an unfair dismissal.

The employer, in a letter confirming its decision, said Clint’s contract was terminated  for breaching the health and safety policy and actions that posed a significant risk to himself and his colleagues.

Our representative discussed the case with Clint and reviewed the notes of the disciplinary hearing, which was the only evidence available.

He felt that although Clint admitted the allegation, the decision based on the evidence and process conducted was unduly harsh and unfair.

Clint’s desired outcome to his appeal hearing was to be reinstated.

Our representative asserted at the disciplinary appeal hearing that the disciplinary process was grossly unfair. He referred to Clint being denied his statutory right to be accompanied at such a hearing and time to prepare for it.

In addition he pointed out the unfair conflict of interests in the manager being the only witness in the case and the decision-maker.

Having also reviewed the company disciplinary policy prior to the hearing, our representative pointed out there was nothing in it to support conducting a disciplinary hearing in the way it was carried out.

He then focused on the allegation and mitigation. This included the fact Clint had acknowledged his mistake, apologised and shown remorse and taken appropriate learning from what occurred. In addition, reference was made to his exemplary work record and usual commitment to safety and that what happened was completely out of character and a momentary lapse at an extremely difficult time. At the time Clint’s wife was undergoing urgent medical tests, although she was later given the all clear.

Our representatives will always request from an employer any information, which they think may help an employee’s case.

In Clint’s case, the information requested and received regarding health and safety training was used by our representative to argue it had been inconsistent, and there were instances where other employees had not strictly adhered to the PPE requirements but had not been dismissed.

Our representative contended that in the circumstances the decision to dismiss Clint was disproportionate and unfair.

Clint was reinstated following the appeal hearing and the disciplinary sanction was downgraded to a six-month formal warning.