In a recent case called Lamb v Teva UK, Mr Lamb was employed as an engineering supervisor with electronic training. He became aware of an electrical fault with a charger used on workplace equipment. Under the employer’s health and safety procedures, the charger should have been locked off and taken out of use until repaired. Mr Lamb failed to do so and later confirmed the area was safe. A contractor subsequently suffered an electric shock.
Mr Lamb was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal found that, despite some procedural shortcomings, the dismissal was fair. Mr Lamb appealed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered what amounts to a fair procedure in misconduct cases and upheld the Tribunal’s decision, even though:
- the investigating officer also gave a witness statement
- the note taker during the investigation also gave a witness statement
- some key evidence was disclosed less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing
- comments were made, possibly by the investigatory officer, suggesting that Mr Lamb would not return to the business
The EAT confirmed that dual involvement as a witness and investigator does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, particularly where those individuals are not the decision makers. It also noted that Mr Lamb did not object to the late evidence and that it did not materially alter the allegations. Comments about the likely outcome, while unhelpful, were not made by the decision-maker and were natural comments to make given the seriousness of the incident.