Saturday, 2 June 2012

Employee Discipline and Baby P

Can an employee be disciplined for the same offence twice? Yes in extreme circumstances says the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"). The Appeal Tribunal has recently handed down its decision in Christou & Ward v London Borough of Haringey

Ms Ward was the social worker responsible for Baby P. Ms Christou was her supervisor, whom Sharon Shoesmith promised would not lose her job over the death of Baby P. Both employees were subject to  Haringey Councils 'Simplified Disciplinary Procedure'. The maximum penalty under the Simplified Disciplinary Procedure was a written warning, which they both received.

After the media coverage alongside the OFSTED inspection and the subsequent dismissal of Sharon Shoesmith, the Council revisited the disciplinary allegations and decided to dismiss Ms Ward and Ms Christou.

Both Claimants issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunal ("ET") submitting that to discipline them twice for the same allegation and already having been subject to a sanction was legally impermissible and unfair. The Employment Tribunal disagreed and held that they had been fairly dismissed.

They appealed to the EAT and they upheld the original judgement of the ET. 

Slade J (presiding) upheld the majority decision of the employment tribunal that the dismissals were not unfair. It held there was no concept of 'double jeopardy' or 'res-judicata' in internal disciplinary proceedings. It further held that whilst it would be highly unusual for a second set of disciplinary proceedings to follow a first arising out of the same facts, this was an extremely 'rare' case and the tribunal was entitled to hold that the employer's actions were fair in the light of the media spotlight and the new management regime which took a different view of the seriousness of the employees' conduct (see para 112).

Employers should not take this case as being authority for the proposition that an employer can revisit previous disciplinary proceedings and choose to dismiss when a sanction has already been decided and acted upon. The key phrases in this case are 'rare case' and 'highly unusual'. What does remain is the employers duty to always act within a range of reasonable responses.

If you need assistance with disciplinary issues our Free Employment Law Helpline is available to you on 07716 346 708. Failing that you can email us on gda@cheshirelawassociates.com



  

No comments:

Post a Comment