High-profile dismissals can create the illusion that acting quickly is the same as acting correctly. This article cuts through that misconception, using a recent government case to highlight the clear gap between perception and reality. For UK employers, dismissal is not about instinct or urgency - it is about process, discipline, and fairness. Follow the rules set out in the ACAS Code, or risk turning a justified decision into an avoidable liability.
High-profile dismissals can create the illusion that acting quickly is the same as acting correctly. This article cuts through that misconception, using a recent government case to highlight the clear gap between perception and reality. For UK employers, dismissal is not about instinct or urgency - it is about process, discipline, and fairness. Follow the rules set out in the ACAS Code, or risk turning a justified decision into an avoidable liability.
Author: Colin Barratt
Don’t Copy the Headlines: Why Process Still Matters in Employee Dismissals
Don’t copy the government, follow the rules!
Recent high‑profile reporting on the dismissal of Sir Olly Robbins, a senior civil servant, has reignited an issue familiar to every employer: the difference between wanting to dismiss, and being able to do so fairly.
From an HR perspective, the case provides a striking real‑world contrast between how dismissal appears to have been handled at the highest levels of government and how employers in the UK are required to act every day.
According to multiple reputable news outlets, Sir Olly Robbins was dismissed abruptly after the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary stated that they had lost confidence in him over the handling of security vetting in the Mandelson appointment controversy. Media accounts describe the dismissal as having taken place late at night, reportedly following a phone conversation, with no public reference to a period of suspension, a formal investigation, a disciplinary hearing, or an internal appeal process. The decision was swift and, at least from what has been disclosed, final.
None of this is to suggest that the decision itself was right or wrong. The issue is process and the striking contrast between how dismissal appears to have been handled at the top of government, and how the law requires businesses to proceed in even far less senior cases.
Doing it Right. What Employers Are Legally Required to Do
Under the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, employers are expected to follow a clear and methodical process before dismissing an employee for conduct or capability reasons. Although the Code is not legislation, employment tribunals are required to take it into account, and failure to follow it can result in compensation being increased by up to 25%.
In simple terms, the expected steps are:
A fair and impartial investigation to establish the facts before any decision is made
Notification of allegations in writing, with accompanying evidence where appropriate
A disciplinary hearing, allowing the employee to respond and to be accompanied
A reasoned decision, proportionate to the evidence
A clear right of appeal, heard by someone not previously involved
Employers are routinely warned that skipping any of these steps, even where misconduct seems obvious, can render a dismissal procedurally unfair.
Indeed, ACAS is explicit that an employee should always be offered a right of appeal, including in cases of summary dismissal.
A Final Word for Business Leaders
High‑profile dismissals may create the illusion that decisive action is simple. In reality, most employers operate under far stricter constraints.
Following a fair disciplinary process is not a bureaucratic obstacle. It is a safeguard: for your organisation, your leadership team, and your reputation.
If there is one takeaway from cases like this, it is this: employers are expected to follow the rules they are given and should continue to do so, regardless of how loudly or urgently others appear not to.
