When investigation imperfections do not make a misconduct dismissal unfair

Background

In the case of Lamb v Teva UK Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether an Employment Tribunal was required to find a dismissal unfair because of alleged procedural flaws in the investigation and disciplinary process.

The claimant was an engineering supervisor at a pharmaceutical manufacturing site, with responsibility for health and safety matters and appropriate technical training. A serious safety incident occurred after a forklift charger with a damaged cable had not been properly locked off. A colleague later suffered an electric shock, which was treated as a potentially fatal incident.

Following an investigation, the employer concluded that the claimant had been aware of the damaged charger, had failed to ensure it was properly isolated, and had signed a permit confirming an area was safe when it was not. He was dismissed for gross misconduct. His internal appeal was unsuccessful.

The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim. The Employment Tribunal rejected it, finding that the employer had acted reasonably. He appealed to the EAT, arguing that the investigation and disciplinary process were fundamentally unfair.

EAT decision

The EAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

The claimant relied on four main arguments. First, that the investigation was unfair because the investigator had also provided a witness statement. Second, that the note-taker during the investigation had also given evidence. Third, that key evidence was disclosed shortly before the disciplinary hearing. Fourth, that a manager involved in the investigation process had been overheard making comments suggesting the outcome was predetermined.

The EAT emphasised that unfair dismissal law requires an assessment of overall fairness, applying common-sense industrial standards rather than a forensic or court-like approach. Investigations need to be reasonable, not perfect.

On the facts, the Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the investigator’s limited dual role did not undermine fairness. He was not the decision-maker, his evidence formed only a small part of the overall case, and the claimant did not challenge his involvement at the disciplinary stage. There is no absolute rule preventing someone with some prior involvement from conducting an investigation.

Similarly, the note-taker’s limited questioning and later witness evidence did not render the process unfair. Her role was minor and she was not responsible for deciding the outcome.

The EAT also rejected the argument that late disclosure of evidence made the dismissal unfair. The additional material related to matters already squarely within the allegations. The claimant did not object to its use, did not seek an adjournment, and had been given a full opportunity to respond.

As to the alleged comments suggesting that the claimant was “done” or would not return to the business, the Tribunal accepted such remarks may have been made. However, they were not made by the decision-maker and reflected the seriousness of the incident rather than bias. Viewed in the round, they did not undermine the fairness of the disciplinary process.

The Tribunal had been entitled to find that the investigation was thorough, even-handed and conducted in good faith, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

Learning points for employers

This decision reinforces that tribunals assess disciplinary processes holistically and will not expect perfection. Minor procedural flaws, overlapping roles or ill-judged comments will not automatically render a dismissal unfair where the investigation is careful, even-handed and conducted in good faith.

However, the case also highlights some straightforward steps that could have avoided criticism arising at all. In smaller organisations, appointing an external investigator can help preserve independence where internal roles inevitably overlap. Clear separation between investigation and decision-making, early and complete disclosure of evidence, and reminding managers to avoid speculative or premature comments about outcomes remain sensible safeguards. While the employer ultimately succeeded, these relatively quick wins would have reduced litigation risk and strengthened the robustness of the process from the outset.

---

For more information or advice, please contact Matt Verrier in our Employment team.