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
It is important to remember that when it comes to selling services, you must deliver on your promises.
Under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974, organisations are obligated to avoid public health and safety risks through the conduct of their business.
How does a media-savvy employer ensure a season of festive cheer but without mishap, damage to their reputation or harassment and bullying claims?
Providers need to be alive to the risk of contractors becoming insolvent and how to limit the resulting inevitable disruption.
Housing associations must continue to deliver core functions effectively and compliantly notwithstanding the uncertainty over the standards to which you will be held in the future.
Over the last few years the meaning of “asset management” has changed from being all about repairs to understanding that assets might not stay in an organisation forever.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has understandably prompted a fundamental reconsideration of how building safety is approached for High-Rise Residential Buildings.
Results from the latest three-yearly valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are starting to trickle through.
The potential for Brexit with or without a deal causes uncertainty, and credit rating agencies do not like uncertainty.
Let’s face it, Wills are underappreciated and often overlooked. In fact, around 54% of the British public do not have one!
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.