In matters of dismissal, the problem is not always the lack of grounds. More often, it is the lack of documentation.
In practice, a company may be convinced that it has valid reasons to dismiss an employee and yet see its decision weakened because it failed to document the facts, structure the procedure properly, or clearly explain the grounds for the measure. Documentation is not merely a formal requirement. It is an essential component of the legal robustness of any dismissal decision.
In disciplinary dismissal cases, this reality becomes evident from the statement of charges itself. When the allegations rely on vague formulations — such as breach of trust, insubordination, or repeated non-compliance — without the necessary specification of the conduct, dates, circumstances, and impact of the employee’s actions, the decision becomes vulnerable. It is not enough to state that misconduct occurred. It is necessary to demonstrate what happened, under what circumstances, and why the conduct is sufficiently serious.
Attempts to correct later what was inadequately done at the outset are also rarely successful. A poorly prepared dismissal seldom becomes legally sound simply because it is explained more effectively once litigation has begun.
In collective redundancy procedures, the issue takes on a different dimension. It is not enough to invoke economic, structural, or organisational reasons. It is equally necessary to demonstrate clearly and consistently the connection between those reasons and the selection of the employees affected by the measure. When the selection criteria are unclear, change throughout the procedure, or are inconsistent with the grounds presented, the decision becomes more vulnerable.
In dismissal due to the elimination of a position, the same requirement applies. It is essential to demonstrate the legal prerequisites for the measure, identify the position concerned, establish the absence of another compatible position, and comply with the procedural requirements laid down by law. And, as in collective redundancy cases, it is also essential to make the statutory compensation and all amounts due available to the employee in a timely manner.
In all these situations, the underlying issue is the same: a decision that lacks sufficient documentary support ends up relying more on perceptions than on properly organised facts. This increases the risk for all parties involved:
For this reason, relevant documentation does not begin when the intention to dismiss arises. It begins much earlier: in the definition of roles and responsibilities, the recording of instructions, the formalisation of incidents, the consistency of internal criteria, and the preservation of records that may later become necessary.
In dismissal matters, documentation does not solve everything. But it is often what determines whether the arguments can withstand judicial scrutiny.