Disciplinary when stress, suspension and a footballer are involved


For employees a disciplinary investigation is often thought to be a worrying process.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 5 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

As you may have seen in the recent media, Rangers Football club and Joey Barton has been the topic of conversation.

Joey Barton signed a two year contract earlier this year for the football club but there was allegation of a training ground dispute. Which led to a disciplinary investigation with a six week suspension. Barton was given a reinstatement to train with the Club’s youth team. However, Barton was then absent due to stress. Recently, a mutual agreement was reached to terminate his employment.

In employment, this is a typical scenario, a company finding itself in a stalemate when trying to discipline an employee.

For employees a disciplinary investigation is often thought to be a worrying process. They may feel the company believe their actions amount to misconduct or feel their job is at risk. If the company feels it is a strong case against the employee, it will want to proceed as quickly as possible but if an employee feels a outcome has already been determined, there is little incentive to engage with the process. As the employee is on full pay until a decision is reached, requests to postpone proceedings or submission of a fit note can arise.

However, the company can still require the suspended employee to attend disciplinary meetings during normal working hours but if the employee provides a good reason for the request to suspend the meeting then at least one occasion the company would be expected to abide.

The company can proceed with a hearing in the employee’s absence only if it is reasonable to do so and the employee must be warned that the hearing will go ahead regardless of their attendance.

The situation is more complex when the employee is requesting to postpone the meeting due to ill health. In these circumstances, it needs to be made clear to the employee, their absence does not change the fact that he or she remains suspended pending a disciplinary investigation.

If the absence is likely to be for a long period of time, the company should attempt to clarify the situation. Being unfit for work does not mean the employee is unfit to participate in a disciplinary. The company can ask the employee, their GP/occupational health advisor (with permission) whether they can attend a meeting. The company could also look to make reasonable adjustments to the normal process such as allowing the employee to provide written submissions rather than attending in person.

If the employee is unable to engage in anyway, the company must determine whether or not it is necessary to continue in the absence of the employee. If the alleged misconduct is sufficiently serious, or if the company feels that the relationship with the employee has irreparably broken down, there can be merit in considering a “mutual agreement” with the employee as an alternative solution.

In many scenarios, an employer will be reluctant to effectively reward the misconduct of an employee. However, returning to Joey Barton, his reported salary would have cost Rangers in the region of £120,000 during his suspension. Combined with the management time and effort involved in a disciplinary process, or even a portion of it, this cost may have been better spent on focusing on an agreement at an early stage, rather than keeping the employee away from work.

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.