header-logo header-logo

29 October 2010 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7439 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Risky business

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter report on how employers should deal with allegations of criminal misconduct

An employer faced with misconduct committed by its employee either inside the workplace or outside of it, where the misconduct complained of could amount to a criminal offence, is faced with a tricky series of considerations when deciding how to conduct any disciplinary procedure.

The ACAS Guide: Disciplinary and Grievances at Work 2009 makes it clear that conviction for, or being charged with, a criminal offence, is not in and of itself grounds for dismissal. However such conduct by the employee has important ramifications for employers and the procedures that they may wish to adopt when considering or conducting a disciplinary procedure.

The first matter that an employer must consider is to assess the nature of the conduct: does it impact upon the claimant’s employment? If it is clear that this is not the case, then there is a good likelihood that the employer will not properly be able to conduct a disciplinary investigation. Impact on 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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll