Summary: Can a less than perfect disciplinary process result in a fair dismissal?

Yes, says the EAT in Lamb v Teva UK. Tribunals should look at the process as a whole rather than focusing on minor flaws. Employers are expected to carry out a reasonable investigation, but the law does not require perfection.

Facts: The employee, Mr Lamb, was 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. The employee failed to do so and later confirmed the area was safe. A contractor subsequently suffered a (potentially fatal) electric shock. The employee was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal. He argued that the process was flawed because both the investigator and the note-taker were also witnesses; key CCTV footage was disclosed late and a manager (but not the disciplinary manager) had allegedly said he was ‘done at the business’ before the outcome.

Tribunal decision: The Tribunal said that, despite some procedural shortcomings, the dismissal was fair. The employee appealed.

EAT decision: The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the dismissal was fair. It emphasised that procedural fairness is assessed in the round. Tribunals should look at the overall process rather than isolating individual imperfections and while employers must carry out a reasonable investigation, the law does not require perfection.

In respect of this case, the EAT confirmed that the involvement of two witnesses as investigator and note-taker did not automatically make the dismissal unfair, particularly given they were not the decision-makers. It also noted that the employee 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 understandable given the seriousness of the incident).

Implications: This case highlights the practical way tribunals look at disciplinary procedures. The main question is whether the process, taken as a whole, is within the range of reasonable responses.

That said, even if the odd slip-up won’t necessarily be fatal, getting the basics right still matters. Simple steps - like keeping investigations independent from the disciplinary process, sharing evidence on time, and clearly separating the roles of HR, witnesses and decision-makers - can go a long way to avoiding the risk of unfair dismissal.

This is likely to become even more significant when qualifying service for bringing unfair dismissal claims is reduced to six months from 1 January 2027 under ERA 2025.