The role of HR in dismissal decision making

Mr S was a senior lecturer and had a brief romantic relationship with a mature student, which was deemed inappropriate. The student complained about Mr S’s behaviour. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr S was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct. The decision to dismiss was reached by Professor C, and the reasons for dismissal were set out in a letter to Mr S.

The claim

Mr S issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal, which included unfair dismissal. One of his arguments was that there was improper influence by HR over the decision to dismiss. He argued that the role of HR should be limited to advice on law and process and should not stray to findings of culpability or decisions on sanction.

The Tribunal noted that HR drafted a document on behalf of Professor C recommending to the Vice-Chancellor that Mr S be dismissed for misconduct. Mr S argued that this showed improper involvement by HR in the dismissal decision. The Tribunal did not agree. It found that Professor C reached the decision to dismiss himself and that HR drafted the document on his instructions, reflecting his views. The disciplinary outcome letter was signed by Professor C. It found that Professor C was not influenced by HR and that HR did not go beyond drafting a letter for Professor C to send after he had decided that he was going to dismiss. It concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer and that the dismissal was fair.

Mr S appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The issue for the EAT to consider was the extent to which HR managers can be involved in a decision to dismiss. Mr S relied on the case of Ramphal v Dept of Transport. He argued that according to Ramphal, HR should not be involved in decision making in a dismissal case. The EAT found that in this case, however, the role of HR was minimal.

The EAT noted that Ramphal provides authority that if undue pressure is placed on decision making by HR (or anyone else outside the proper process), that could be a factor in determining whether the dismissal was fair. This will depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case. The EAT noted that in this case, the Tribunal found there was no improper pressure by HR.

The EAT noted that there is no reason why in an appropriate case HR should not advise on the concepts of misconduct and serious misconduct and the dividing line between them. This is partly because it would otherwise be difficult to maintain consistency between decisions by different decision makers. Ramphal is not authority that any intervention by HR in advising on a decision to dismiss makes a dismissal unfair.

Comment

As the EAT noted, what is and is not permissible by HR in a dismissal case will depend on the specific facts of each case. HR can advise on the sanction in a disciplinary process, but must not place undue pressure on the decision making because this is a factor that may lead to a finding that a dismissal is unfair. The disciplinary manager should make their own decision.

We can provide bespoke training on handling disciplinary and grievance issues. Contact us to find out more.

Mr Shing v University of the Arts London

22 October 2026

2026 Scrase Law Ltd. This update is for general information only and is not advice. You are recommended to seek professional advice before taking any action on the basis of this update