Our research revealed a number of factors contributing to drawn-out disciplinary processes. Of these, employees taking sick leave due to stress or anxiety emerged as the biggest complication, with 23% of employers citing this as the most common cause of delays.

Pete Sewell, Employment Law Adviser and Solicitor at WorkNest, says: “The very nature of disciplinary proceedings, with its inherent tension and potential consequences, will naturally cause employees to feel stressed. Hopefully by following a fair and robust disciplinary process for all those concerned, these stresses are alleviated.  However, absences throughout the disciplinary procedure may delay the process and it is not uncommon for employees facing disciplinary action to go off sick as a delay tactic.”

Indeed, one respondent said that in their experience, “the really badly behaved employee invariably seems to go off sick with “stress and depression””. Another said: “Colleagues are now switched on to using the mental health card which backs off any further action against them until all other avenues have been looked into, i.e. Occupational Health reports, etc.”

Pete advises: “These cases will often turn on the facts. An employer may be able to proceed with a disciplinary hearing if any employee is on sick leave, but further investigation will be needed to understand if the employee is fit to attend the hearing and if there any adjustments required. Although this causes time delays, and inevitably would involve rescheduling, it limits contrived unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims.”

In addition, roughly one in five (19%) employers face setbacks in disciplinary procedures due to the availability of internal staff. One respondent said: “As an organisation with a limited number of managers, investigations into disciplinary matters take considerable resource.” Another added: “Due to being a small organisation and shift work, the availability of all involved can sometimes be a logistical nightmare.”

Kirstie Smith, Trainee Solicitor at WorkNest, advises: “Whilst every effort should be made by an employer to investigate potential disciplinary matters without unreasonable delay, it is recognised that smaller employers may face additional hurdles due to their size and resources. In terms of the investigation stage, employers should bear in mind that employees do not have a statutory right to prior notification or to be accompanied. This can speed things up the investigation process, as well as the use of virtual meetings if logistics do not permit an in-person meeting. Employers may also wish to consider parachuting in HR Consultants to conduct the investigation and/or disciplinary stage, a service which WorkNest offers. The benefits of this are twofold: there is no impact on an employer’s internal resources, and employers will benefit from specialist HR professionals at the helm of the process.”  

According to qualitative data gathered by the survey, other factors contributing to a lengthier disciplinary process include union involvement, a lack of sufficient evidence to proceed, retaliatory grievances, and colleagues being reluctant to get involved.

Kirstie says: “A disciplinary process should ideally be a straightforward HR protocol, but for a plethora of reasons, many employers find themselves ensnared in a protracted process. Of course, in some cases, a longer process will be justified due to the severity of the conduct and the points to be investigated. However, our research findings highlight a pressing need for organisations to reevaluate their approach and streamline these procedures for greater efficiency and effectiveness. When carrying out such an evaluation, employers need to be mindful that efficiency should not trump reasonableness and fairness in a disciplinary process.”