header-logo header-logo

16 January 2015 / Shane Crawford
Issue: 7636 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Back to basics

shanecrawford

When can disciplinary procedures be instigated & what process applies? Shane Crawford reports

It is regularly assumed that if a disciplinary process exists, by virtue of a reference within the contract of employment, then an employer is entitled to implement it, if acting in good faith without rebuke.

Two recent cases have highlighted the importance of asking two basic questions before the commencement of a disciplinary process:

  • What disciplinary process is applicable according to the contract of employment?
  • When is it appropriate to implement the disciplinary procedure?

Davies v London Borough of Haringey [2014] EWCH 3393 (QB) emphasised the importance of close scrutiny of the contract of employment to determine which disciplinary process had effect and therefore, who had the power to suspend.

Mian v Coventry University [2014] EWCA Civ 1275 revisited the test for an employer’s decision to commence disciplinary proceedings.

Determining who has the power to discipline an employee

The High Court in Davies v London Borough of Haringey was faced with a challenge by a teacher to the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll