Employer information: In the recent case of Draper v Mears Ltd the The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) have stated what level of information needs to be in a step 1 letter. Mr Mears had a company vehicle but was not allowed to use this for personal usage and Drapers also operated a "zero tolerance" policy regarding consuming alcohol before driving a company vehicle. Mears suspected Mr Draper of breaching these policies and therefore had investigatory meetings, at which Mr Draper admitted that he had drunk a pint of lager before driving. By letter Mr Draper was invited to a formal disciplinary meeting, the letter stated that disciplinary action would be considered with regard to his using a vehicle for social purposes, conduct failing to reasonably ensure the health and safety of himself and others, insubordination, and breach of Mears's company vehicle regulations and procedures. Mr Draper was dismissed after the disciplinary hearing for reasons set out in writing the following day.

In considering the case the EAT considered its comments in Alexander v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd [2006] IRLR 422 that, at step 1 of the standard disciplinary and dismissal procedure, the statement need do no more than state the issue in broad terms and that the employee needs only to be told that he is at risk of dismissal and why. In Alexander, the EAT had said that this was consistent with the approach adopted in the cases involving the statutory grievance procedures, including Canary Wharf Management Ltd v Edebi [2006] IRLR 416, and that, while most employers will give more than a brief statement of grounds, compliance with the statutory minimum procedure is met by a limited written statement of that nature.

In Mr Draper's case the EAT found that the letter set out the grounds on which Mears were contemplating dismissing him. Even if that had not been the case, the tribunal were entitled to look at the context as a whole and decide whether the letter provided enough information taking into account Mr Draper's knowledge at the time he received it. Since it was accepted by Mr Draper that he knew of the allegations against him before he received the letter, the only conclusion open to the tribunal was that there had been compliance with step 1. The EAT held that the employer had complied with step 1 of the procedure by giving the employee a letter which set out in broad terms the conduct about which complaint had been made.