Dismissal disciplinary procedure

Until the case of Polkey v. A.E. Dayton (Services) ht the courts tended to take the view that where employers did not follow their disciplinary procedures, but even if they had it would have made no difference to the outcome, tiien the dismissal was fair notwithstanding such failure. This principle was summarised by Browne Wilkinson, J. in Sillifant v. Powell Dufjryn Timber Ltd as follows ... 

Plant and lab people in the chemical and plastics industries must be hired after a careful screening to ensure that only those who are particularly conscientious in following established operating procedures are hired. Furthermore, these attitudes must be fostered by training and supervisory reinforcement. Willful disobedience of these procedures or a negligent attitude cannot be tolerated and appropriate disciplinary procedures followed, including (if warranted) dismissal. 

In the rare cases where sexual, racial or disability discrimination occur, this needs to be dealt with swiftly for ethical reasons as well as the sake of the mentoring scheme s reputation. There are various penalties that can be applied to such offences, ranging from warnings of dismissal from the program to dismissal from the company. As with all disciplinary or grievance cases, the penalty should be appropriate to the offence and thorough procedures should have been carried out to verify any allegations. 

Employers are required to follow the statutory dispute resolutions procedures contained in Schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002. There are two types of disciplinary and dismissal procedure (DDF) the standard DDF and the modified dismissal procedure. Employers may incorporate the steps contained in the statutory DDF in their own internal procedures. 

Dismissal is dealt with in the following section, but a Tribunal, to find a dismissal fair, must be satisfied that the dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances. In the majority of cases this entails the employer following his own disciplinary and grievance procedures subject to the statutory DDF having been included. It is important that an employer should have formal disciplinary rules which should be communicated to each and every employee. It is a requirement of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the written particulars of employment include the disciplinary rules that are applicable. Should such communication not have taken place the employer will not be able to rely on such rules, and a dismissal which might otherwise have been fair could be ruled unfair. Failure to follow the statutory dismissal procedure will render any dismissal automatically unfair. 

When the policy or procedure is in effect, enforcement is usually through disciplinary action. Discipline must be consistent, or the policy or procedure will lose its power. Depending on the severity of a policy violation, progressive discipline provides a level of punishment commensurate with the violation. For example, a first offense may result in a one-day suspension, a second offense in a one-week suspension, and a third violation in termination. In such a case, two employees could get a different punishment for the same conduct. Another consideration may be the seniority of employees. Discipline may be more severe for a seasoned veteran than for a new employee. Some policy violations are so severe as to warrant immediate termination. These are usually reserved for those violations that could result in death or serious injury to others, or those relating to matters of integrity. Embezzling money from the organization may not create a risk of injury, but the nature of the violation would warrant dismissal. 

---