About This Knowledge Guide

This knowledge guide is a practical resource for HR professionals, legal advisers, organisations and anyone involved in commissioning, conducting or understanding grievance, disciplinary and appeal hearings. It covers the purpose and legal framework of workplace hearings, what makes a hearing fair and defensible, how an independent chair approaches the decision-making process, and when appointing an external chair is the right decision for an organisation.

The guide is written from the perspective of a practising barrister, part-time judge and accredited investigator who chairs grievance, disciplinary and appeal hearings in complex, sensitive and senior-level matters. It reflects how hearings actually work in practice, including how decisions are made, how credibility is assessed, and how outcomes are reached that will withstand appeal or employment tribunal scrutiny.

If you are looking for an independent external chair for a grievance, disciplinary or appeal hearing, you can find full details on my grievance and disciplinary chair service page. If you need an independent investigator to conduct the investigation that precedes the hearing, see my independent workplace investigator page.

The Purpose of Grievance and Disciplinary Hearings

Grievance and disciplinary hearings serve a distinct and important function in the workplace justice process. They are the decision-making stage: the point at which the findings of an investigation are tested, the parties have the opportunity to be heard, and a conclusion is reached on outcome.

A grievance hearing gives an employee who has raised a formal complaint the opportunity to present their case and to have that case considered by an impartial decision-maker. A disciplinary hearing gives an employee who has been the subject of an investigation the opportunity to respond to the findings before any sanction is imposed. An appeal hearing gives a party who is dissatisfied with the outcome of an earlier hearing the opportunity to have that decision reviewed.

In each case, the quality of the hearing determines the fairness and defensibility of the outcome. A well-conducted hearing produces a decision that is grounded in evidence, transparently reasoned, fair to all parties, and capable of withstanding scrutiny. A poorly conducted hearing can render an otherwise correct decision unsafe and expose the organisation to successful challenge in an employment tribunal, regardless of the merits of the underlying facts.

The Legal and Procedural Framework

Natural justice

The principles of natural justice govern all workplace hearings. The two core principles are that a person is entitled to know the case against them and to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to it, and that the decision-maker must be, and must appear to be, impartial. These principles are not optional procedural niceties. They are fundamental requirements that tribunals will scrutinise closely when investigating whether a hearing was fair.

The ACAS Code of Practice

The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures sets out the minimum standards of fair process that employers are expected to follow. Failure to follow the Code does not automatically make a dismissal or other outcome unfair, but tribunals take it into account when assessing whether the employer acted reasonably, and a failure to follow the Code without good reason can lead to an uplift of up to 25 percent in any compensation awarded.

The Code requires that employees are informed in writing of the allegations against them before any hearing, that they are given sufficient time to prepare their response, that they have the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or colleague, that the hearing is conducted by someone who was not involved in the investigation, and that the outcome is communicated in writing with the right to appeal.

The range of band of reasonable responses

In disciplinary hearings, the decision-maker does not ask whether the sanction imposed was the one that most decision-makers would have chosen. They ask whether it falls within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances. This is an important distinction. A decision to dismiss may be within the range of reasonable responses even where many employers might have chosen a lesser sanction, provided the decision-maker has approached the matter fairly, considered all relevant factors, and acted consistently with how similar matters have been handled previously.

Types of Hearing

Disciplinary hearings

A disciplinary hearing takes place after an investigation has established that there is a case to answer. Its purpose is to give the employee the opportunity to respond to the findings of the investigation before any decision about sanction is made. The chair reviews the investigation report and evidence, hears from the employee and any witnesses, considers any mitigation or explanation offered, and reaches a decision on whether the conduct is proven and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.

Disciplinary sanctions range from a first written warning through to final written warning and dismissal, including summary dismissal for gross misconduct. The severity of the sanction must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, consistent with how similar matters have been dealt with previously, and reached after genuinely considering any mitigation or explanation offered by the employee.

Grievance hearings

A grievance hearing gives an employee the opportunity to present their complaint formally and to have it considered by an impartial decision-maker. The chair reviews the investigation report and any relevant evidence, hears from the employee raising the grievance and, where appropriate, from the person against whom the grievance is raised, and reaches findings on whether the grievance is upheld, partially upheld or not upheld.

Grievance hearings often involve more complex interpersonal dynamics than straightforward disciplinary matters, particularly where the grievance relates to the behaviour of a senior colleague, manager or board member. The chair must be skilled at managing those dynamics while maintaining the structured, evidence-based approach that fair decision-making requires.

Appeal hearings

An appeal hearing reviews the fairness and reasonableness of an earlier decision. It is not a complete rehearing of the original matter from scratch, though in some cases it may be appropriate to conduct a more thorough review. The chair must assess whether the original process was fair, whether the findings were supported by the evidence, whether the decision-maker took into account all relevant factors and excluded irrelevant ones, and whether the outcome was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Appeals require particular care because the chair must apply a structured framework of review without simply substituting their own view for that of the original decision-maker. The question is not whether the appeal chair would have reached the same decision, but whether the original decision was reasonable and procedurally sound.

What Makes a Hearing Fair

Fairness in a disciplinary or grievance hearing is not simply a matter of following a checklist. It requires the chair to approach the process with genuine impartiality, to listen to what is actually being said rather than what is expected, to test evidence carefully without becoming adversarial, and to reach a decision that is grounded in what has actually been established rather than in what the organisation, HR or senior management hoped the outcome would be.

The most common procedural failures that attract tribunal criticism include failing to give the employee adequate notice of the hearing and the specific allegations, failing to provide the employee with the evidence to be relied on in sufficient time to prepare a response, failing to allow the employee a genuine opportunity to respond before the decision is made, failing to consider mitigation or explanation with an open mind, and producing a decision letter that does not explain the reasoning behind the outcome in sufficient detail.

Structural failures include allowing the investigation and the hearing to be conducted by the same person, allowing HR to cross the line from supporting the process to influencing the outcome, and failing to ensure that the chair is genuinely independent of the matter and all parties.

Judgecraft: The Decision-Making Framework

Good decision-making in grievance and disciplinary hearings is a skill. It requires more than following procedure. It requires the ability to identify the real issues at the outset, to gather and assess evidence systematically, to evaluate the credibility and reliability of competing accounts through a structured framework rather than instinct, to manage unconscious bias, and to reach a conclusion that is clearly grounded in the evidence and transparently reasoned.

I approach all hearing work through a framework I describe as Judgecraft, drawn from my experience as a barrister, part-time judge and arbitrator across more than 1,000 cases. The core elements of this framework are as follows.

Identifying the real issues. Before assessing any evidence, the chair must be clear about what specific questions need to be answered. This requires reading the investigation report and evidence carefully, identifying the factual disputes that are central to the outcome, and keeping the hearing focused on those disputes rather than allowing it to become a general airing of grievances or a relitigating of peripheral matters.

Assessing credibility and reliability through structured criteria. Where accounts conflict, the chair must assess whose account is more likely to be accurate. This requires a structured approach using the recognised criteria for credibility assessment: the consistency of the account over time, the inherent plausibility of the account, whether it is corroborated by other evidence, how the witness presented when giving their account, the motivation each party has to present the evidence in a particular way, and the presence or absence of contemporaneous documentary support. Credibility assessment based on instinct or demeanour alone is unreliable and is regularly criticised by tribunals.

Avoiding unconscious bias. Decision-makers bring their own assumptions and experience to every hearing. Common forms of bias that affect hearing outcomes include confirmation bias, the tendency to seek evidence that supports an initial impression; authority bias, the tendency to give more weight to the accounts of senior individuals; halo and horn effects, where a generally positive or negative view of an individual colours the assessment of specific evidence; and groupthink, where the chair adopts the organisational view rather than forming an independent judgment. Recognising and actively managing these biases is an essential part of fair decision-making.

Transparent reasoning. A decision is only as defensible as its reasoning. The decision letter must explain not just what was decided but why, including how conflicting evidence was resolved, what weight was given to different evidence and why, how any mitigation or explanation offered by the employee was considered, and why the sanction imposed was proportionate and appropriate. Decision letters that simply state the outcome without explaining the reasoning are among the most frequently criticised aspects of internal processes in employment tribunal proceedings.

When to Appoint an Independent External Chair

Many organisations initially look to manage hearings internally. In straightforward cases with no conflict of interest that may be appropriate. But in complex, sensitive or high-profile matters, internal decision-making creates real and avoidable risks.

An independent external chair is particularly valuable where the allegations involve a senior member of staff, director or board member; where there is a realistic risk of perceived bias or conflict of interest in an internal process; where the case involves complex, sensitive or cross-cutting allegations; where there are multiple parties or cross-allegations; where a significant volume of evidence needs to be assessed; where there is a realistic prospect of employment tribunal proceedings; or where an earlier internal process has been challenged or has broken down.

Appointing the right chair before the process begins is significantly less costly than defending the consequences of a flawed process after the event. Employment tribunal litigation, reputational damage and internal breakdown of trust are all avoidable with the right approach from the outset.

How to Choose an Independent Chair

The criteria for choosing an independent chair are similar to those for choosing an independent investigator, but with additional emphasis on the specific skills of hearing management, evidence assessment and structured decision-making.

The chair must be genuinely independent of the organisation and all parties. They must have the legal knowledge to apply the correct procedural and substantive framework. They must have the analytical skill to assess evidence and make credibility determinations through a structured and transparent process. They must have the interpersonal skill to manage a hearing fairly and effectively, including the ability to question parties and witnesses clearly without becoming adversarial. And they must have the writing skill to produce a decision that is clearly reasoned and defensible.

Experience as a barrister, judge or arbitrator is a significant advantage in a hearing chair. These roles develop precisely the skills that good hearing chairing requires: structured questioning, evidence assessment,