Procedural Fairness in Unfair Dismissal

This month’s key case emphasises the continuing importance of procedural fairness in dismissal situations. In Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] EAT 75, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a dismissal could still be fair where the manager who ultimately decided to dismiss the employee had not personally conducted the disciplinary hearing.

Ms Charalambous worked as a relationship manager at the National Bank of Greece’s London office. She was suspended and later dismissed for gross misconduct after sending a spreadsheet containing highly confidential client information to her trade union representative, her solicitor, her own personal email, and her brother — who worked for another bank. During the investigatory and disciplinary process, she met with a manager appointed to lead those stages, but the ultimate decision to dismiss was taken by her line manager without a separate face-to-face meeting with that manager. She appealed internally, but the dismissal was upheld.

At the EAT, Ms Charalambous argued that it was unfair that the manager who dismissed her had not personally conducted the disciplinary hearing. The EAT dismissed that ground of appeal, holding that procedural fairness should be judged on the process as a whole, not on a rigid rule that the decision-maker must hold the disciplinary meeting personally. Provided an employee has had a genuine opportunity to put forward their case, and an appeal was conducted with an opportunity to be heard, the tribunal can find the overall procedure fair.

For employers, this case serves as a reminder that while best practice remains to ensure that the person who decides on dismissal has had direct contact with the employee, tribunals will look at the totality of the process when assessing fairness. Good documentation of the steps taken — and adherence to the ACAS Code of Practice — remains essential.