Where an employer is contemplating disciplinary action the thoroughness of the investigation needs to reflect the potential seriousness of the consequences to a worker

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522

www.workrep.co.uk

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

The nurse not only lost her job but faced deportation.

The employment tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. The EAT overturned this finding on appeal and the Court of Appeal has reinstated the employment tribunal's verdict.

• The more serious the consequences of dismissal for an employee, the more thorough the investigation needed.
• If the employment tribunal has properly considered the Burchell v British Home Stores guidlines regarding the fairness of an investigation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary or where the decision is perverse, its findings should not be overturned.
• Where the evidence between two witnesses conflicts, the employer does not necessarily have to believe one employee over the other. Where it is not possible to discover the truth (over possibly true accounts reflecting differing beliefs of the parties) the employer should consider giving the accused party the benefit of the doubt.

From the Court of Appeal's verdict:

Where, "the evidence consists of diametrically conflicting accounts of an alleged incident with no, or very little, other evidence to provide corroboration one way or the other. Employers should remember that they must form a genuine belief on reasonable grounds that the misconduct has occurred. But they are not obliged to believe one employee and to disbelieve another. Sometimes the apparent conflict may not be as fundamental as it seems; it may be that each party is genuinely seeking to tell the truth but is perceiving events from his or her own vantage point. Even where that does not appear to be so, there will be cases where it is perfectly proper for the employers to say that they are not satisfied that they can resolve the conflict of evidence and accordingly do not find the case proved. That is not the same as saying that they disbelieve the complainant. For example, they may tend to blieve that a complainant is giving an accurate account of an incident but at the same time it may be wholly out of character for an employee who has given years of good service to have acted in the way alleged. In my view, it would be perfectly proper in such a case for the employer to give the alleged wrongdoer the benefit of the doubt without feeling compelled to have to come down in favour of on one side or the other. "

© 2010 Workrep