• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Is it reasonable to suspend someone for fear of how they will react?

30 September 2019

Question marks

Something we are asked about fairly frequently is when it is appropriate to suspend an employee (and when it isn’t). There’s also been a great deal of case law about this over the years, and we’ve covered the topic in several previous articles, including most recently here.

It is well-established law that suspension should not be a knee-jerk reaction and the employer will need to be able to show that it was justified in the circumstances. Often we find that employers are worried about how an employee will react when they are told that they are facing disciplinary allegations. Is it acceptable to suspend them to ensure they don’t cause any disruption?

In the recent case of Gyftaki v Upton-Hansen Architects, the employee was a senior architect who had taken a period of leave without permission. She was suspended on her return from work while the employer carried out an investigation.

In evidence at the Tribunal hearing one of the directors explained the reasons for the Claimant’s suspension. The Tribunal summarised these as being “essentially that the Respondent was nervous that the Claimant would behave inappropriately at work, were she not to be suspended… that she was likely to be obviously upset and so to set a bad example to her junior colleagues, and [there was] a concern that she might possibly breach any confidentiality obligation the Respondent had placed upon her.” Her email account had also been suspended during this period.

The Tribunal was very critical of the employer’s decision to suspend and found that this (together with the employer’s decision to include a historic issue in the allegations against the Claimant) amounted to a breach of trust and confidence entitling the employee to bring a constructive dismissal claim. In particular, they felt the following were significant:

  • That there was no evidence to support the director’s view about Ms Gyftaki’s potential reaction to being told about the disciplinary allegations
  • That the reason for suspension given to her at the time was not the same as the reasons they had put forward in evidence at the hearing
  • That the suspension lasted over three weeks, despite the fact that the Claimant had suffered mental ill-health as a result of the suspension
  • That in terms of a breach of confidentiality about the process, the Tribunal felt it was more likely that questions would be asked and inferences drawn by colleagues about the Claimant’s absence for a lengthy period of suspension than would have been the case if the Claimant simply resumed her normal duties having been told about the need for confidentiality.

The employer appealed against the Tribunal’s decision, and the case was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT agreed with the Tribunal’s decision. In doing so, they commented that the employer had appeared to rely on advice from its advisers that suspension would always be appropriate for any allegations of gross misconduct, and strongly recommended “that the relevant persons consider whether they should be acting differently in future.”

The employer had also appealed against the Tribunal’s decision not to make a reduction to compensation for contributory fault, but this was also dismissed by the EAT. They felt that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the Claimant’s actions in taking the leave without authorisation were not causally linked to the fundamental breach of contract.

The clear lesson for employers in this case is that suspension should only be used where it is reasonably justified – and concerns about how someone will react to being informed of disciplinary allegations against them will not normally meet that test without some real basis for those concerns. Similarly, being accused of gross misconduct does not automatically amount to justification for suspension. If in doubt, it is best to take advice – if you’re dealing with a potential suspension situation, then give us a call to talk it through.

If you are dealing with a potential suspension, then we can help. Please call us on 01243 836840 for a no obligation chat, or email us at [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
  • Employer unfairly counted disability-related absences when dismissing 29th June 2022
  • Did an Employment Tribunal correctly award an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code in a sham redundancy case? 29th June 2022
  • Without prejudice negotiations – what is unambiguous impropriety? 29th June 2022
  • Does referring to a man’s baldness at work amount to sexual harassment? 25th May 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only