Running a Hearing You Have Not Run Before
A practical order of play for a disciplinary hearing, what the chair has to do, and the five habits that make an otherwise sound hearing look unfair.
How one organisation's hearing actually ran, step by step
The two steps that were missed were the two that cost a sentence each: saying what the meeting could lead to, and letting the companion speak. This is one organisation's own record, not a statement of what any jurisdiction requires.
Chairing a hearing is a sequence, and following it in order is most of the job: say what the meeting is and what could come out of it, put the allegations, put the evidence, let the person respond without interruption, let their companion speak, adjourn, decide. Most people who get it wrong get it wrong by skipping the first step and by never adjourning.
The decision process in “Running a Hearing You Have Not Run Before” needs evidence that can be checked without turning one activity signal into a conclusion. When reviewers consider the platform for hourly timesheet template, its time and project records can provide operational context, but allegations, employee responses and consequential decisions still require a fair human process.
The chair is usually a line manager doing this for the first or second time, with an HR adviser alongside and a strong wish for it to be over. Almost everything that goes wrong follows from that, and almost all of it is avoidable by having the order written down in front of you.
For an independent reference relevant to “Running a Hearing You Have Not Run Before”, consult the Splunk insider-threat guide. Use it to test record quality, access, retention, fair process and exception handling against the organisation’s real departure workflow.
The order of play
- Introduce everybody and say what role each person is in, including the note-taker.
- State what the meeting is, what it concerns, and the range of possible outcomes.
- Read the allegations and confirm the person has had them and the evidence.
- Put each item of evidence and invite a response to each.
- Ask whether there is anything else they want to say, and let them finish.
- Invite the companion to address the meeting and to sum up.
- Ask whether there is anything they want you to consider before you decide.
- Adjourn.
Step seven is the single most useful sentence in a hearing. It catches mitigation that would otherwise be raised for the first time on appeal, and it is the question people most often forget to ask.
Adjourning, even when you know
Deciding in the room looks like deciding in advance, and in many cases it is indistinguishable from it. Adjourning for twenty minutes is the minimum; adjourning overnight is better and costs almost nothing.
The adjournment is also when the decision is actually made, which is a different activity from listening. A chair who is forming an outcome while the person is still speaking is not hearing the end of what they say, and that tends to show in the decision letter.
Five habits that undo a sound hearing
- Starting without stating the possible outcomes, so the person did not know what was at stake.
- Reading from a prepared outcome, or having one visible on the table.
- Interrupting the person or their companion, particularly during mitigation.
- Introducing a document nobody has seen before and expecting an immediate answer.
- Ending with "we'll let you know" and then saying nothing for three weeks.
None of these is about the merits. All of them are about how the meeting reads afterwards, which is what somebody else will be assessing.
New evidence in the room
If something new appears — a document, an account, an explanation that has not been investigated — the hearing does not have to continue to a decision. Adjourning to look into it is a sign of a process working, not a failure.
Deciding anyway, on the basis that it probably would not have changed anything, is the version that causes trouble. The point of the hearing is that the outcome was open, and an unexplored answer is evidence that it was not.
Mitigation is not the same as the facts
Two questions are being decided and they should be kept apart: did the thing happen, and if so what should follow. Personal circumstances, length of service, a clean record, the context at the time — these belong to the second question.
Hearing mitigation and then not mentioning it in the decision letter is a specific and common failure. Whatever weight it was given, say what it was and say why the outcome is what it is despite it.
When the person does not come
Somebody may not attend — they are unwell, they refuse, or they simply do not appear. Proceeding in their absence is sometimes necessary and should never be the first response.
Offer an alternative date. Offer written representations instead. Offer to hear from their companion alone. Where the meeting eventually goes ahead without them, record what was offered, what was declined and why the decision was taken to proceed. A hearing held in somebody's absence after three offers reads very differently from one held after none.
Taking the note
The chair cannot chair and minute at the same time. Somebody else takes the note, the note is sent afterwards, and the person is invited to comment.
Recordings are a separate question. Whether either side may record, with or without consent, differs and is worth settling in policy before somebody produces a phone. The usual practical approach — an agreed note, offered for correction — removes most of the reason anyone would want to.