Avoiding HR Pitfalls: Why Fair Investigations Matter in Disciplinary Cases

A recent employment tribunal ruling in Shah v FoodHub Ltd is a cautionary tale for employers: dismissals made in haste, without following proper procedure, can lead to significant financial and reputational damage. As hybrid and remote working continue to reshape the employment landscape, this case underscores the importance of structured processes and procedural fairness.

Background to the case

Tanveer Shah joined Stoke-on-Trent-based FoodHub, an online food ordering platform earning two promotions in under three years to become UK sales team manager – a role that required him to spend most of the week in the field, coaching and mentoring staff.

When FoodHub’s CEO, Adrian Mula, suspected Mr Shah was working remotely from Egypt and neglecting his duties, frustration escalated into an on-the-spot dismissal. He was accused of “illegitimately taking a salary.”

Although the initial dismissal was overturned, Mr Shah was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary process that ultimately ended in the same outcome. At a tribunal, employment judge Maxwell ruled that the process was “little more than a façade” designed to justify the earlier decision. The “unfair” dismissal, coupled with an investigation with “fundamental flaws”, led to its decision to award Mr Shah £61,519.

Why the dismissal was deemed unfair

While the employer had reason to question Mr Shah’s performance, this case investigation contained “fundamental flaws.” Employers must demonstrate that their investigation was reasonable in all circumstances, even when misconduct appears obvious. This includes:

• Presenting the full substance of allegations clearly.
• Allowing the employee time to respond.
• Substantiating claims with evidence, such as witness interviews, relevant documents, performance reviews, and timelines.
• Capturing all evidence, including that which may refute allegations.

Purposefully omitting key information could be considered as skewing the investigation’s results in favour of a predetermined result.

The importance of impartiality

Ensuring the investigator is not also the decision-maker is critical, and each role and procedural step should be clearly signposted. Depending on the size and structure of the business, this could involve HR or a senior manager with no prior involvement.

FoodHub blurred these lines. The HR Manager investigated and questioned Mr Shah at the disciplinary hearing, failed to gather testimony from colleagues who could have corroborated Mr Shah’s work, and did not disclose key evidence before the hearing. Mr Shah’s “unblemished good service” was also overlooked – something that should be considered when deciding any sanction.

Judge Maxwell concluded the process “failed even the minimum standards of fairness expected of a reasonable employer.”

Lessons for employers

The absence of HR early in this case is telling – a measured process could have prevented legal risk. Instead, HR’s late involvement became reactive, attempting to retrofit fairness into an unfair process.

To avoid similar pitfalls, employers should:

• Make HR consultation mandatory before taking first steps in response to misconduct.
• Implement a ‘cooling-off’ period before serious decisions.
• Provide training for managers on disciplinary procedures, communication skills, and de-escalation techniques.

Hybrid working and unclear expectations

This case also exposes how unclear expectations around remote and hybrid working can fuel misunderstanding. Since 2020, many employers have adopted flexible patterns but failed to standardise policies.

Employers must implement set policies that clearly define expectations, ensuring they:

• Specify where employees can and cannot work, especially abroad.
• Set approvals processes for temporary overseas working.
• Outline reporting and performance expectations in remote contexts.
• Consult staff before operational changes that affect contractual terms.

This will help employees understand their responsibilities and encourage transparent, open communication.

Final thoughts

As hybrid working continues to reshape employment relationships, the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and procedural integrity remain non-negotiable. Even with substantial reason for dismissal, structured processes protect both employees and organisations from legal and reputational risk. By embedding this culture of trust and transparency, organisations can ensure that integrity is consistently reflected in decisions and practices.

How we can help

If you’re concerned about disciplinary procedures, remote working policies, or mitigating unfair dismissal risks, our employment law specialists can provide practical, tailored advice.