Failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (the Acas Code) will usually increase the risk of a dismissal being found to be procedurally unfair and can result in increased compensation being payable to a dismissed employee.
However, in Buzolli v Food Partners Ltd, the EAT has upheld an Employment Tribunal's decision that a dismissal was fair despite some procedural defects which meant that the Acas Code was not followed to the letter.
Mr Buzolli worked for Food Partners Ltd as a driver. In March 2010 he was given a final written warning for failure to attend work due to being under the influence of alcohol. The company's disciplinary policy stated that this would remain on his file for 12 months. In September 2010 Mr Buzolli crashed his company vehicle, causing over £6,000 worth of damage. Following and investigation and disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed.
Mr Buzolli claimed that the company had not complied with the Acas Code because his final written warning had not stated that further misconduct within the 12 month period could result in dismissal; his existing warning had not been mentioned in the disciplinary hearing; and it had not been made clear in the letter inviting him to the disciplinary hearing that he might lose his job.Both the Employment Tribunal and the EAT rejected his unfair dismissal claim. They concluded that despite procedural flaws, Mr Buzolli should have been aware of the significance of the final warning, and that Food Partners had complied with the Acas Code. The EAT agreed with the Tribunal's approach of looking at the employer's procedure overall, rather than at specific failings. It also noted that Mr Buzolli had not mentioned his objections at the appeal stage.
The common sense approach of the EAT in this case will be welcomed by employers. The case also highlights the importance of maintaining clear and comprehensive disciplinary procedures and policies. The employer was able to rely on a well-drafted disciplinary policy which meant that the Tribunal could overlook procedural defects which might otherwise have rendered the dismissal unfair.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
