14/10/2026

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome clarification on the role HR can properly play in disciplinary proceedings in Mr WYC Shing v University of the Arts London [2026] EAT 154.

Many employers will be familiar with the concerns arising from the EAT’s decision in Ramphal v Department for Transport, which warned against HR becoming involved in the substantive decision-making process. Claimants have frequently relied on Ramphal to argue that HR involvement undermined the independence of a disciplinary outcome.

In this latest decision, however, the EAT has emphasised that Ramphal is not authority for the proposition that any HR intervention will render a dismissal unfair. Instead, the focus remains on whether HR, or any other person outside the disciplinary process, exerted undue influence over the decision-maker.

The facts

The Claimant, a senior lecturer, was summarily dismissed following findings relating to an inappropriate relationship with a student. One of the arguments advanced on appeal was that the dismissal was unfair because HR had been involved in the disciplinary process and the Employment Tribunal had failed properly to apply the principles established in Ramphal.

The tribunal found that the HR representative’s involvement was limited. An email relied upon by the Claimant merely recorded the HR adviser understanding that the decision-maker was likely to pursue dismissal. The tribunal found no evidence of improper pressure or interference in the decision-making process.

What did the EAT say?

The EAT confirmed that Ramphal should be understood in its factual context. The concern in Ramphal was not HR involvement itself, but external influence on the decision-maker that undermined the integrity of the disciplinary process.

Importantly, the EAT observed that the boundaries of permissible HR involvement are fact-sensitive and that there is “no reason” why HR should not advise on issues such as the distinction between misconduct and gross misconduct where this assists organisations in achieving consistency across disciplinary decisions.

The EAT went further, recognising that consistency is an important objective and that HR input can help ensure similar cases are treated in a similar manner across different parts of an organisation.

The judgment also suggests that HR assistance with drafting outcome letters will not, without more, undermine the fairness of a dismissal. In this case, the EAT noted that HR had drafted a letter only after the decision-maker had already decided to dismiss and there was no evidence that HR altered the substance of the decision.

Practical lessons for employers and HR

Whilst decisions of the EAT are not bending on the Industrial and Fair Employment Tribunals in Northern Ireland, they are persuasive authorities.

The decision provides reassurance that HR can play an active and legitimate role in disciplinary processes, provided they do not take over the decision-making function.

The key question is whether the decision remains that of the appointed manager. HR involvement is unlikely to create difficulties where HR:

• provides advice on process and legal risk;
• supports consistency of approach across the organisation;
• advises on the application of disciplinary policies;
• assists managers in understanding the distinction between misconduct and gross misconduct; and
• helps prepare or draft outcome correspondence once the decision has been reached.

A risk remains if HR’s role moves beyond advice and support into influencing findings of fact, determining culpability or exerting undue pressure on the decision-maker. As the EAT confirmed, fairness will depend on the facts of the particular case and the extent of any influence exerted.

For HR professionals, this judgment is a useful reminder that involvement in disciplinary processes is not only permissible but can be important in ensuring fairness and consistency. The EAT has confirmed that Ramphal should not be treated as a blanket prohibition on HR participation. Rather, the focus should remain on preserving the independence of the manager tasked with making the disciplinary decision.

The legal team remains on hand to support in any ongoing disciplinary processes, particularly those which may result in dismissal.

Should you require specific advice, please contact info@employedsfederation.org.