This was a claim of unfair dismissal and the claimant denied that he had been guilty of gross misconduct and alleged that the investigation carried out by Mr Canavan (Group Packaging Manager of the respondent) had been flawed on the basis that he was biased and had an interest in the outcome of the investigation. It was also suggested that the outcome of the disciplinary procedure had been predetermined prior to the disciplinary procedure commencing. 

The events arose out of allegations that stock had been stolen from the respondent and the claimant was subsequently invited to an investigatory meeting after which he was suspended on full pay. A disciplinary meeting was held, after which the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. An unsuccessful appeal ensued.

The tribunal had to consider whether or not they were satisfied with the case made that there was an element of conflict in the investigation of this matter. It was held that Mr Canavan, who was familiar with the workings of his department, may have been well placed to carry out any relevant investigations. The Tribunal also flatly rejected the assertion that the manager acted in ‘an adjudicative capacity in his role as investigator’, since there was no evidence to substantiate such a claim. Again, the seminal NICA case of Rogan was cited by the Tribunal in deciding that the respondent had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable. It was held that the decision taken by the employer in this matter fell within the band of “reasonable responses” to the misconduct involved.

Practical lessons

The tribunal cited Rogan and affirmed the principle that the more serious the allegation the greater the need for more cogent evidence. However, the claimant failed to specifically attack the conduct of the disciplinary or appeal process, instead attacking the ‘personal interest’ Mr Canavan had in the process. Substantiating this allegation proved very difficult, but in truth the claimant was unable to adduce sufficient material evidence to the tribunal. If another claimant in a similar situation possessed tangible evidence of bias or personal interest then a Tribunal may be required to look more closely at the appropriateness of the disciplinary procedure.
http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2014/1521_13IT.html