In this Employment Appeal Tribunal case from GB the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Aviation Security Compliance Inspector and the Respondent launched an investigation into possible misconduct by the Claimant in relation to his expenses and use of hire cars. An inexperienced manager, Mr Goodchild, was appointed to investigate and discipline, if necessary. He took a lot of advice from the HR department, as you might expect an inexperienced manager to do.

However, the advice was not confined to procedural and similar matters but bled into areas concerning culpability and credibility. Mr Goodchild was initially disposed to believe that the claimant had made mistakes, rather than intentionally defrauded the employer. However, it appears that the HR department had influenced him and later reports changed the finding from 'misconduct' to 'gross misconduct'. 

This case should be of interest to Irish HR professionals and others concerned with workplace investigations - the UK Supreme Court case of Chhabra referenced by the EAT is often referred to by Irish employment lawyers. Allowing the appeal against the findings of the employment judge who had failed to explain his reasoning, the EAT concluded:

"Although a dismissing or investigating officer is entitled to seek guidance from Human Resources or others, such advice should be limited to matters of law and procedure and to ensuring that all necessary matters have been addressed and achieve clarity. Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2014] ICR 194 applied.

"A Claimant facing disciplinary charges and a dismissal procedure is entitled to expect that the decision will be taken by the appropriate officer, without having been lobbied by other parties as to the findings he should make as to culpability, and that he should be given notice of any changes in the case he has to meet so that he can deal with them."
http://bit.ly/1J7z2sW