And speaking of winning and losing brings me to the case of Mr Craig Lamb v Teva Uk Ltd, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined whether an employee was unfairly dismissed due to an employer’s disciplinary procedural imperfections.

Mr Lamb was employed by Teva UK Ltd, in May 2011, as an Engineering Supervisor at a pharmaceutical manufacturing site. As part of his role, he held responsibility for health and safety matters and had received electrical safety training.

In June 2022, a fault was identified with a forklift truck charger, including a damaged cable. Although the issue was reported, the charger was not properly isolated or “locked off” to prevent use. Teva later alleged that Mr Lamb failed to take appropriate action despite being aware of the risk.

In July 2022, Mr Lamb signed a permit confirming that an area was safe for contractors to work in. However, CCTV evidence later suggested that he had signed the permit without physically inspecting the area or ensuring the faulty charger had been removed or isolated.

A few days later, another employee suffered an electric shock from the defective charger. The incident was treated as a potentially fatal health and safety event.

Following an investigation, Teva concluded that Mr Lamb had committed serious misconduct by failing to follow safety procedures and by inaccurately certifying that the area was safe. He was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Mr Lamb then brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal.

The ET dismissed Mr Lamb’s unfair dismissal claim and found that Teva had acted fairly in dismissing him. The ET accepted that Teva had carried out a reasonable investigation into a serious health and safety incident and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to them.

Mr Lamb argued that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair for several reasons, including:

• the investigating manager also providing witness evidence;
• the note taker in the investigation process also giving evidence;
• important CCTV evidence being disclosed less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing; and
• comments allegedly being made before the hearing suggesting he was “done at the business” and would not return.

The ET acknowledged that there were imperfections in the process but concluded that, viewed overall, the disciplinary procedure remained fair. It found that the overlap in roles was limited, the late evidence did not materially prejudice Mr Lamb, and there was insufficient evidence that any alleged comments had influenced the decision-maker.

Mr Lamb appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the ET should have found the dismissal unfair because of the procedural flaws in the investigation and disciplinary process.

The EAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ET’s decision. In doing so, the EAT confirmed that disciplinary procedures are assessed based on their overall fairness rather than whether every aspect of the process was perfect. The EAT noted that the ET had been entitled to conclude that the process was “scrupulously fair” despite the issues raised by Mr Lamb.

The EAT rejected the argument that the investigation became unfair simply because the investigating manager and note taker had also provided witness evidence. It held that their involvement was relatively limited and did not undermine the integrity of the overall process. The EAT confirmed that there is no absolute rule preventing some overlap between witnesses and investigators, particularly where the overlap is minor and the ultimate disciplinary decision is taken independently.

Mr Lamb also argued that CCTV evidence disclosed shortly before the disciplinary hearing materially increased the seriousness of the allegations against him. However, the EAT agreed with the ET that the evidence related to allegations already under consideration and that Mr Lamb had not objected to the hearing proceeding. The EAT concluded that the ET had been entitled to find that the timing of disclosure did not make the dismissal unfair.

The EAT also considered allegations that comments had been made indicating Mr Lamb would not return to the business before the disciplinary process concluded. The EAT found that even if such comments had been made, the individuals concerned were not the ultimate decision-makers in the dismissal process. As a result, the ET had been entitled to conclude that the disciplinary process had not been tainted by bias or predetermination.

This case is a useful reminder that ETs will assess disciplinary procedures as a whole and will not necessarily find a dismissal unfair simply because there were procedural imperfections. For employers, the decision highlights several practical points:

• investigations should still aim to separate roles where possible, particularly in serious misconduct cases;
• late disclosure of evidence can create risk and should generally be avoided;
• managers should avoid making comments that could suggest predetermination; and
• where health and safety breaches arise, employers are likely to be afforded a wider margin of appreciation when responding to serious risks.

Importantly, the EAT reinforced that the legal test is not whether the employer’s process was flawless, but whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances when viewed overall.