Why Managers Shouldn’t Create Their Own Disciplinary Sanctions

When a manager is deciding the outcome of a disciplinary hearing, they may feel that the usual options do not quite fit the situation.

A written warning might seem too lenient, while a final written warning or dismissal feels too severe. This can sometimes lead managers to come up with their own solution, such as removing a responsibility, reducing someone's pay, changing their role or suspending them without pay.

The problem is that a disciplinary sanction cannot simply be invented because it feels fair. Managers need to understand what the organisation's disciplinary procedure allows, what the employee's contract says and whether the proposed outcome can lawfully be imposed.

What Disciplinary Sanctions Can an Employer Give?

The usual disciplinary outcomes include a first written warning, final written warning or dismissal, or no action, depending on the circumstances and any existing warnings.

ACAS also recognises that employers may sometimes consider other disciplinary action. An employer might consider demotion rather than dismissal, for instance, but ACAS says the employer should first check what the employment contract allows and discuss the proposed action fully with the employee.

This is where managers need to be careful. The fact that an alternative sanction sounds reasonable does not necessarily mean the employer has the right to impose it.

Why Can't a Manager Just Choose a Different Sanction?

Some sanctions involve changing an employee's contractual terms. Reducing pay, demoting someone, removing contractual benefits or imposing an unpaid disciplinary suspension can have consequences beyond the disciplinary process itself. ACAS guidance states that alternative penalties such as disciplinary transfer, suspension without pay, demotion, loss of seniority or loss of increment may only be applied where the contract allows for them or the employee agrees.

A manager who creates a sanction without checking this could therefore turn a relatively straightforward disciplinary matter into a contractual dispute. It is much safer to establish what outcomes are available before deciding what feels appropriate.

Should Managers Follow the Disciplinary Policy?

The disciplinary policy should be one of the first places a manager looks when considering an outcome.

Following the policy also helps with consistency. If one manager decides that misconduct warrants a written warning while another invents a completely different penalty for a similar situation, it becomes much harder for the employer to demonstrate a fair and consistent approach.

This does not mean every case has to result in exactly the same outcome. The circumstances still need to be considered individually.

Can a Manager Go Straight to a Final Written Warning?

A manager does not necessarily have to start with a first written warning. Where a first instance of misconduct is sufficiently serious, the ACAS Code recognises that it may be appropriate to issue a final written warning instead. The outcome should reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and the circumstances of the case.

This is different from creating a new type of sanction. A manager is using an established disciplinary outcome but deciding, after considering the evidence, that the seriousness of the case justifies entering the process at a later stage.

What Should a Manager Consider Before Deciding the Outcome?

The decision should come after the disciplinary hearing, once the manager has considered the evidence and the employee's response. ACAS says employers should consider the investigation and meeting findings, what is fair and reasonable, and how similar cases have previously been handled.

The manager should also check whether the employee has any live disciplinary warnings and consider any relevant mitigating circumstances.

This is where HR advice can be valuable. HR can help the manager understand the options available under the policy, identify consistency or contractual concerns and discuss the risks attached to different outcomes. The decision itself should still be owned by the manager who has heard the case.

Why Consistency Matters in Disciplinary Decisions

Disciplinary decisions should not be made using a rigid formula, but employers should be able to explain why a particular outcome was reasonable.

Previous similar cases can be relevant. ACAS specifically identifies what an organisation has done in similar cases before as something employers should consider when deciding an outcome.

This does not prevent an employer reaching a different decision where the circumstances are genuinely different. It does mean managers should understand whether there is an established approach before introducing a sanction that has never previously been used.

Managers Make the Decision, but Within the Available Options

Managers should have ownership of disciplinary decisions. HR should not simply decide the sanction on their behalf. But ownership does not mean having unlimited freedom to create an outcome.

A manager's role is to consider the evidence, the employee's explanation, the seriousness of the misconduct and any mitigating circumstances, then decide on a fair and reasonable outcome from the options legitimately available to the organisation.

That gives managers genuine decision-making responsibility without creating unnecessary contractual or procedural problems.

Need HR Support?

Disciplinary outcomes are not always straightforward, especially where a manager is considering an alternative to the usual warning or dismissal.

BloomHR can support small businesses through disciplinary investigations, hearings and outcomes, helping managers understand their options and reach fair, practical decisions. Contact us for more information.