The role of HR in disciplinary investigations

Where serious allegations of misconduct are raised at work and dismissal is a possible outcome for the employee concerned, it is important that employers follow a fair process. HR have an important supporting role to play in this.

5 essentials for HR in a disciplinary investigation

1. Get off to a strong start
   Begin by referring to the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances – it’s a super useful overall guide to any disciplinary process.
2. Are your policies polished?
   Consult all relevant internal policies and make sure that you’ve done a good job of making all staff aware of them. The disciplinary policy is the most obvious one to check first – it can be used to help frame the allegation. If the allegation is one of breach of policy, then that policy must also be consulted.
3. Who needs to be involved for each stage of the disciplinary process?
   This can be particularly important where the individual involved holds a senior position. Ideally you’ll have separate and independent personnel lined up to handle the investigation, disciplinary and any appeal.
4. Can you justify your response?
   Do the circumstances warrant the employee’s suspension? Generally, suspension should only be for gross misconduct, or if there is a risk of destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
5. Have you set up appropriate resources for the process?
   You may need to supply administrative support for the investigatory officer – to set up investigatory meetings, notetaking, and copying evidence.

What HR should NOT do in a disciplinary investigation

As important as it is for HR to know what to do to support to a disciplinary investigation, it’s equally important to know what not to do. Critically, the role of HR remains advisory only on matters of procedure and law.

Ramphal v Department for Transport 

The case of Ramphal v Department for Transport made clear that the investigatory report must be the work of the investigating officer, and the conclusions reached must be their own. In this case HR had heavily amended the report of the investigating officer and changed the proposed conclusions. The Claimant succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim as a result.