Disciplinary Procedures in the Rough: a drive down the range of reasonable responses
Posted on 25th February 2025 at 14:10
A golf club’s deputy course manager, with 40 years of service behind him, accidentally toppled a digger into a trench. He was unhurt. He omitted to record the near miss in the Club’s accident book. The course manager found out 9 months later. He decided this called for a disciplinary hearing. To his mind, the near miss and the omission together constituted gross misconduct. Despite a conflict of recollection and a plea for leniency, the recently appointed Club Chief Executive decided to dismiss.
What led the tribunal in Haynes v Walton Heath Golf Club to decide the deputy’s dismissal was unfair?
In the Club’s favour, there was no doubt that the first two tests for fairness – honest belief and reasonable grounds – were met, notably because of the failure to record the near miss, even though the scope this might have given to avoid a later incident was mere speculation.
However, the investigation was flawed. Other incidents that could have diluted culpability were not considered. Notes of meetings were withheld. Exaggeration was notable, and became self serving. The course manager was conflicted and should have stepped aside from the investigation. There was procedural unfairness.
As such, dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The incident was not inherently culpable. The claimant’s length of service, albeit carrying a “should have known better” factor, ought to have carried weight in mitigation. No thought was ever given to a lesser sanction. The Club’s professed loss of trust in him was lacking in substance.
Even then, the claimant lost 50% of his prospective award as a result of his contributory conduct. The trial had taken 7 days, both parties being represented by Counsel. The claimant’s victory may have been somewhat Pyrrhic. As to the Club, whether the considerable time and costs might have been saved by admitting unfair dismissal but focusing upon contributory fault is another matter.
One last point. The course manager decided that disciplinary action was required after “having taken HR advice”, at a time when an external HR provider had been engaged a month earlier to review the Club’s employment contracts. Might legal advice have made a difference, and prevented the Club from ending up bunkered?
Are you in need of advice on how to conduct a tricky disciplinary process? Or whether to do so at all, when a lesser sanction might be the best option? We can help. Contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk .
Tagged as: contributory fault, disciplinary hearing, gross misconduct, honest belief, range of reasonable responses, reasonable grounds, sufficient investigation
Share this post: