EAT Find Failure To Hold Investigation Hearing Did Not Make Dismissal Unfair

In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal, an employer (Jefferies International Ltd) was found to have unfairly dismissed an employee by failing to follow a fair process, having not allowed him to appeal against the decision to dismiss him. However, they had been entitled to dismiss the employee on the grounds of him not being a fit and proper person for his work duties and responsibilities without holding an investigation meeting.

Radia v Jefferies International

Milan Radia (the Claimant) was the Managing Director of Jefferies International Ltd (the Employer) a financial services company which was regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

He brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the Employer, which was dismissed as it was found that his evidence was “not credible in many respects” and “on lots of occasions evasive“. In light of the ruling, the Employer suspended the Claimant, pending a disciplinary, but did not hold an investigation meeting. Mr Radia was then dismissed following the disciplinary hearing.

The Claimant lodged a second Employment Tribunal claim, where he claimed that his suspension, dismissal and the Employer’s decision not to hold an investigation hearing prior to his dismissal amounted to victimisation and unfair dismissal. This claim was rejected by the Employment Tribunal.

The Claimant then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that the Employer should not have dismissed him without holding an investigation hearing and should have allowed him to appeal the decision to dismiss.

The Claimant was successful at the EAT in relation to the point about the appeal. The Employment Tribunal had originally found that even if an appeal had been held it would have made no difference and so the lack of appeal did not render the dismissal unfair. However, the EAT disagreed with that finding, as they did not consider there was enough evidence to justify that decision.

However, the Claimant’s appeal in relation to the investigation failed. The EAT found that the two phases of investigation and disciplinary are not a legal requirement for an employer and in the circumstances, it was considered that the lack of the two stages, in this case, did not make the dismissal unfair.

Comment

Whilst this case makes it clear that a formal investigation hearing may not be necessary for every situation, there is a requirement for employers to follow reasonably fair procedures prior to dismissing an employee. What will amount to a reasonably fair procedure will depend on the circumstances and how they are interpreted by the tribunals, which can make it difficult for employers when making decisions in real-time.

Following clear procedures when disciplining and dismissing an employee mitigates the risk of an employer being embroiled in Employment Tribunal proceedings. They provide employers and employees with a clear understanding of the process that will be followed so they both know what to expect.