Separate issue

I'm going to take a slightly more nuanced approach to this than Peter and say "it depends".

If the prospect of dismissal is on the table for the timekeeping issue, then it would, in my opinion, be pertinent to the deliberations of the chair to know that there was a separate allegation of a breach of H&S standards that had not yet been investigated. It would also be pertinent depending on the extent of the investigation that was required.

If, for example, half a dozen people and a CCTV camera watched the employee light a Molotov cocktail in the middle of the warehouse, toss it in the air and run away laughing, you probably don't need to wait for a separate investigation to provide details to the panel.

But, on the other hand, if someone left a piece of heavy machinery unsecured and the EE in the timekeeping case was one of three possible people responsible, you would probably not want to give the panel the impression that the EE was definitely a wrong 'un on that basis.

Basically, as one often has to say: we aren't the police. We are allowed and, indeed, expected to exercise a degree of common sense. However, Peter's advice arises from another important principle of our work, which is that of natural justice. If a decision on the timekeeping issue literally turned upon whether or not the H&S allegations were true, then it might be more appropriate that the chair either not know or be told to try to disregard what they know about the H&S allegations to ensure that the finding in the timekeeping case calls within the reasonable range.