DONALD MACKINNON – Staff matters: How would Highland firms handle 'Partygate' scenario?
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
By Donald MacKinnon, Group legal director, WorkNest LAW
With the news that Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson, Rishi Sunak and many other Whitehall employees will be issued fixed penalty notice fines by the Met Police for attending parties and gatherings at Downing Street during the coronavirus lockdowns, it raises the question for HR and business leaders – how do you handle similar misconduct situations in the workplace?
How do you fairly investigate a matter when employees, and possibly senior leaders, may argue that they weren’t breaking any workplace or criminal laws or argue their misconduct was unintentional?
Where allegations of misconduct at work are raised, a key part of any subsequent process is to carry out a thorough investigation before taking action against those involved. This may involve interviewing witnesses and gathering any documents that assist in the investigation.
With the Met confirming that 50 fines have been issued so far in relation to events that took place across Whitehall during lockdown, they clearly came to a conclusion that some people, they believe, broke rules intentionally.
In a workplace situation such as ‘Partygate’, the employee would put forward an explanation or defence before the employer may then have to consider how clear that rule was, how the rule was communicated to the employee and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the employee perhaps did not understand the rule fully.
The question will then arise as to whether the actions amount to gross misconduct, potentially invoking a summary dismissal, or whether there are mitigating factors that would point to a lesser sanction.
Generally, committing a criminal act in the course of one’s employment, would likely result in summary dismissal.
Senior figures like the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in trickier positions than junior staff members. These are figures who would have had the authority to prevent the alleged party taking place.
Even if those senior managers were not at the gathering itself, or only attended briefly, by condoning or turning a blind eye to proceedings, they have damaged the reputation of the organisation, the government in this case, and that may suffice to result in a dismissal.
