{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent was a \"head of control function\" requiring board consultation under Clause 8.1.6 of IPEC guidelines before disciplinary proceedings could be instituted","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent's position as Risk and Compliance Manager; IPEC guidelines requirements; board consultation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the failure to consult the board before instituting disciplinary proceedings rendered the proceedings void ab initio","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Lack of board resolution; email from board member; statutory requirements"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent, a Risk and Compliance Manager, spilled tea on his work laptop leading to disciplinary charges. After a full hearing, the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty but imposed only a final written warning instead of dismissal. Both parties appealed - the employer appealing the leniency of the sentence, and the respondent cross-appealing on procedural grounds that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid for lack of board consultation as required by IPEC guidelines.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases