What is a Section 278 Agreement?

A Section 278 Agreement is a legal agreement between a developer and a highway authority to carry out highway works.

The Role Of HR In Disciplinary Investigations

Where serious allegations of misconduct are raised at work and dismissal is a possible outcome for the employee concerned, it is important that employers follow a fair process. HR have an important supporting role to play in this. Here are 5 things HR should do to get started when faced with a disciplinary investigation:

The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances is engaged and should be consulted. This is a really useful overall guide to any disciplinary process.
Consult all relevant internal policies. Check that there is evidence that they have been communicated. The disciplinary policy is the most obvious – it can be used to help frame the allegation. If the allegation is one of breach of policy, then that policy must also be consulted.
Consider who the appropriate officers are for each stage of the disciplinary process. This can be particularly important where the individual involved holds a senior position. Ideally you will have separate and independent personnel lined up to handle the investigation, disciplinary and any appeal.
Consider whether the circumstances warrant the employee’s suspension. Generally, this will only be where the allegation is one of gross misconduct; there is a risk of destruction of evidence or of intimidation of witnesses.
Provide any administrative support which the investigatory officer might require. For example, setting up investigatory meetings, sorting out notetaking, and copying evidence.

As important as it is to know what to do to provide HR support to a disciplinary investigation, it is equally important to know what not to do. It is important that the role of HR remains advisory only on matters of procedure and law. The case of Ramphal v Department for Transport confirmed this principle and made clear that the investigatory report must be the work of the investigating officer, and the conclusions reached must be their own. In this case HR had heavily amended the report of the investigating officer and changed its proposed conclusions. The Claimant succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim as a result.