• Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 6 subscribers
  • Views 16921 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Grievance raised by employee against another

James

Hi, 

I understand when a grievance is raised informally against another employee, the next step should generally be to talk privately to the person complained about to try to resolve. However If the employee proceeds with submitting a formal grievance, can I check I understand the correct steps?

1.Carry out a full investigation into the grievance and obtain all relevant evidence. 

2. Invite the employee to the grievance meeting and remind them of their statutory rights to be accompanied.  Send the evidence to the employee in advance of the grievance meeting.

3. Hold the meeting, allowing the employee to explain details of grievance and take notes etc. 

4. Adjourn the grievance meeting to give proper consideration to all the evidence before making a decision.

With regards to the employee who is subject to the grievance being raised, what communication is / should be made during this process?    

I presume they would be made aware of the grievance being raised and provided with (appropriate) evidence.  Would they be involved in any capacity ( with mediation ) in the meeting) or only informed of the outcome post meeting?   

Apologies in advance for the basic question - very new to HR and trying to get my head around this!

Thanks

James

Parents

  • Katy is correct. But it's also worth noting that you really should complete the lion's share of an investigation as part of the informal process of resolution, because how can you give an informal resolution the best chance of success if you haven't thoroughly investigated the substance of the grievance? By the time you get to having to invoke formal resolution proceedings, it just means printing out more copies for those involved.

    However - and I know some colleagues may disagree with me on this, but I've always found it a helpful perspective - I would recommend you begin by looking at this grievance rather differently.

    If an employee (Boris) raises a grievance about the behaviour of another employee (Doris), it's not Doris against whom Boris is raising the grievance: it's against you, the employer, and your failure (so far) to prevent, ameliorate or mitigate Doris's behaviour. I find that this perspective gives you a better sense of the extent to which Doris needs to be involved in the investigation and resolution.

    Similarly, should you decide that disciplinary action against Doris is the correct resolution, it's not Boris doing it: it's you, the employer. And that will tell you the extent to which Boris needs to be involved.

    This makes sense because, if Doris swears loudly at Boris in the office and a manager takes her aside and tells her clearly that her behaviour is unacceptable and warns her of the consequences of a repeat, then the employer has already acted. If Boris raises a grievance then it's not because of Doris's behaviour but because he thinks the employer's response was insufficient or inadequate (because this is the fourth time she's been told and nothing has changed).

    If you keep that in mind, it should make all other things a lot clearer.

Reply

  • Katy is correct. But it's also worth noting that you really should complete the lion's share of an investigation as part of the informal process of resolution, because how can you give an informal resolution the best chance of success if you haven't thoroughly investigated the substance of the grievance? By the time you get to having to invoke formal resolution proceedings, it just means printing out more copies for those involved.

    However - and I know some colleagues may disagree with me on this, but I've always found it a helpful perspective - I would recommend you begin by looking at this grievance rather differently.

    If an employee (Boris) raises a grievance about the behaviour of another employee (Doris), it's not Doris against whom Boris is raising the grievance: it's against you, the employer, and your failure (so far) to prevent, ameliorate or mitigate Doris's behaviour. I find that this perspective gives you a better sense of the extent to which Doris needs to be involved in the investigation and resolution.

    Similarly, should you decide that disciplinary action against Doris is the correct resolution, it's not Boris doing it: it's you, the employer. And that will tell you the extent to which Boris needs to be involved.

    This makes sense because, if Doris swears loudly at Boris in the office and a manager takes her aside and tells her clearly that her behaviour is unacceptable and warns her of the consequences of a repeat, then the employer has already acted. If Boris raises a grievance then it's not because of Doris's behaviour but because he thinks the employer's response was insufficient or inadequate (because this is the fourth time she's been told and nothing has changed).

    If you keep that in mind, it should make all other things a lot clearer.

Children
No Data