The importance of framing disciplinary allegations accurately
was starkly exemplified in a recent decision of the EAT sitting in
London.
In Celebi v Scolarest Compass Group UK & Ireland
Ltd an appeal was taken by the employee to the EAT against a
finding of the Tribunal that Mrs Celebi had not been unfairly
dismissed. Mrs Celebi had had been disciplined for the "loss" of
£3,000, in circumstances where the employer and employee both knew
she was really being charged with the theft of the money. This
mis-categorisation of the charge led the EAT to conclude that the
subsequent dismissal was unfair.
Employers must take care when framing disciplinary allegations
to ensure that the allegations made are accurately framed. It is
very much a case of "it must do what it says on the
tin".
It is worth remembering that even when allegations are made that
amount to criminal conduct on the part of the employee, the
"standard of proof" that the employer must meet to be satisfied
that misconduct has occurred does not change. The employer does not
have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or even on balance of
probabilities. What is required is a genuinely held belief in the
guilt of the employee, based on reasonable grounds.