An employee does not have an implied duty to disclose to his employer allegations made against him whilst working elsewhere.

Where an employee admits to misconduct, it may be reasonable for an employer to limit its investigation into the situation.

The Court of Appeal has held that an employer did not breach its duty of care when it brought disciplinary proceedings against an employee suspected of giving a falsely positive reference about a former colleague. Whilst the allegations were not ultimately upheld, the decision to suspend was within the employer’s range of reasonable decisions.

The Court of Appeal has held that the sanction in a contractual disciplinary procedure could not be increased on appeal from a written warning to a dismissal. It held that interpreting the procedure to allow the employer to do this would be inconsistent with the contract and had the employer wanted this right, it should have been made explicit.

The EAT upheld a Tribunal’s decision that covert recordings made by an employee of her disciplinary and grievance hearings were admissible as evidence.

In Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that an employer’s failure to provide an impartial grievance procedure could breach the implied term of ‘trust and confidence’ and form the basis of a constructive dismissal claim.

In February 2005, Miss Davies, a high school teacher, was given a final written warning for alleged gross misconduct which was to remain on her record for 24 months. Miss Davies appealed the decision but subsequently dropped it after being advised by her trade union that the Council could potentially increase the sanction from a final warning to dismissal at the rehearing. In 2006, Miss Davies was accused of further misconduct. In deciding to dismiss her, the Council took into account the final written warning on her record.

In Wincanton v Stone, Mr Stone was employed as a driver for Wincanton. In 2009, Mr Stone received a first written warning for being insubordinate. In 2010, Mr Stone breached Wincanton’s health and safety rules when he pulled out of a loading bay when the light was red. This was not an act of insubordination but carelessness. Wincanton dismissed Mr Stone on the basis that the earlier warning “tipped the balance” in favour of dismissal, even though the two warnings were for very different types of conduct.