Ramphal v Department for Transport
Mr Ramphal was an Aviation Security Compliance Inspector for the Department for Transport. He was under investigation following the result of a random audit of his expenses claims, which flagged approximately 50 claims requiring further investigation. These related to excessive petrol consumption, possible use of his hire car for personal reasons and suspicious subsistence expenses such as purchasing two meals or two cups of coffee.
Mr Goodchild, Head of Land Security Compliance, was appointed to carry out the investigation as well as being the disciplinary chair. Mr Goodchild had not previously acted in disciplinary proceedings so he met with HR officers, familiarised himself with the disciplinary procedure and, in particular, noted the distinctions between misconduct, gross misconduct and the appropriate penalties.
On 11 September 2012, Mr Goodchild sent the first draft of his report to HR. In summary, this report was partly critical but it also contained a number of favourable findings such as:
He went on to recommend a finding of misconduct with a final warning.
Between 11 September 2012 and 5 March 2013 (almost six months) HR and Mr Goodchild were in communication about the report and several drafts were produced. The report changed significantly, favourable references to Mr Ramphal were removed and were replaced with critical findings. The proposed finding of misconduct was changed to a finding of gross misconduct with a recommendation of dismissal.
The EAT referred to the Supreme Court case of Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust in which it was found that,
“There would generally be no impropriety in a case investigator seeking advice from an employer’s human resources department, for example on questions of procedure. I do not think that it is illegitimate for an employer, through its human resources department or similar function, to assist a case investigator in the presentation of a report, for example to show that all necessary matters have been addressed and achieve clarity.”
The EAT were of the view that if the integrity of the final decision to dismiss has been influenced by persons outside the procedure it would be unfair.
The EAT referred the case back to the Employment Tribunal to determine whether the influence of HR was improper and, if so, whether it had a material effect on the ultimate decision of Mr Goodchild, both in relation to Mr Ramphal’s culpability and whether there was such influence on the decision that he had been guilty of gross negligence and should be summarily dismissed.
What is the impact of this decision?
The case suggests HR should limit their advice to questions of law, procedure and process. Our view is that HR teams will now need to be more careful in the way they advise colleagues carrying out investigations and, in particular, when coming to decisions on disciplinary hearings. Advice on sanctions should focus on:
Where HR remain concerned about a proposed course of action we would suggest legal advice is sought for the decision maker as this advice will be subject to legal privilege.
Employers should also be aware that:
Employers should carefully consider their method of communication and have in mind how they would feel if the employee or an employment tribunal judge were reading any written communications/notes.
It is also of note that it is generally not advisable to recommend a sanction in an investigation report as that will be a matter for the disciplinary chair to decide. However in this case the investigator and disciplinary chair were the same person and the investigatory report appears to have been used as a “decision report”.
Please contact Faye Rush
We have been working with care homes to update their contracts and advise on the risks of charging the resident a regular “top-up” or additional fee where a resident is funded through NHS CHC
The parliamentary processes are complete and the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”) which cap exit payments in the public sector at £95,000 will be in force from 4 November.
As the UK’s social housing sector recovers from the initial Covid-19 outbreak and lockdown, now is the time to focus on the challenges that may emerge next.
There is no universal approach to regenerating town centres. However, housing must be considered a key part of any regeneration project – providing well-needed new homes and economic growth.
Friday 16 October marks the 6th annual Wear Red Day in England, Wales and Scotland. Wear Red Day is the brainchild of the charity; Show Racism the Red Card (SRTRC). SRTRC aims to educate young people so they are equipped to recognise and challenge stereotypes, misconceptions and negative attitudes towards race.
Alongside the Building Safety Bill published in July 2020, the Fire Safety Bill is a key step in the Government’s strategy to improve building and fire safety in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy
Government regulations came into force on 23 September 2020 providing LGPS (local government pension scheme) employers with flexibility on meeting exit payments and LGPS funds with flexibility too
Charity Financials, the financial information program from Wilmington Charities, has published its latest Income Monitor report.
As employers face the end of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme on 31 October 2020, Katherine Sinclair and Libby Hubbard discuss the intricacies of the redundancy process for furloughed employees.
We have learned many things over the last six months; the latest lesson is that there is no new normal. The Government initiatives and guidance may have slowed down a pace, but the challenges for employers and their employees remain.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.