The parellels are that in criminal law a person cannot be tried for the same offence in relation to the same set of circumstances twice.
In civil law, which is the realm in which employment law sits, where a case has been heard by the court it is not possible to start a new case in relation to that matter. The new case would be thrown out for duplicity.
In this situation the only reason such a course could be justified would be if new evidence came to light that the employee had been involved in something that would warrant dismissal if it had been known about at the time, such as theft from the employer.The reason for this is that, in my example, the theft was not known about, not investigated , not adjudicated on and so constitutes a "new" situation.
I hope this helps. If I have missed something or you have further points please reply
Hi thanks for this, I wonder is there a reference or case that would support this. So that I may take this to my employer
I will try to find some references for you and come back to you later today if that is ok. It may take a while to put together
ok Thank you
Will get back to you asap
There is a case in respect of disciplinary proceedings by employers so the criminal law is not particularly relevant but the authority is the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which only allows someone to be tried for the same offence twice where there is compelling new evidence such as a confession by the acquitted person
In employment law there is a case on this called Christou & Ward v. Harringey. The employees were social workers and the case involved the death of a baby so it was a serious case. The tribunal held that whilst the rule of double jeopardy does not exist as far as disciplinary proceedings were concerned a second hearing for the same thing would only be fair if new information came to light and the situation was very serious