Delays in investigation

Case 1: The facts

Harry Donald worked as an insurance salesman and was investigated in relation to mis-selling, for which he received a final written warning. Some time later, his employers decided to reinvestigate the matter and dismissed him. As a result Donald lost out on a substantial redundancy payment.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal was cynical of the employer's motives in conducting a second investigation just at a time when Donald would have become entitled to redundancy. The delay in carrying out the investigation, coupled with the fact that the policy at the centre of the mis-selling investigation had not been revoked or varied, was enough to cast doubt on whether there had been a reasonable investigation, it said.

The case was sent to a different tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Donald v AMP (UK) EATS/0053/04