Grievance procedures: the standard three-step procedure

Your employer's grievance procedure may have more than three steps, but it must include the following.

1. Written statement

You must set out your grievance in writing (often called a step one letter). Your employers grievance procedure should say who to send your letter to. If thats the person causing the problem, or if theyve ignored previous complaints, send it to the HR department or to the persons boss.

• Find sample 'step one letters' on the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) website (opens new window)

2. Meeting

Your grievance should be looked into in a fair and unbiased way. Your employer should invite you to a meeting (sometimes called a hearing) to discuss the problem, and you should attend if you can. If there is someone else involved, they might also be there (but you should tell your employer if you are uncomfortable with this).

The meeting should be at a convenient time for you and anyone else involved. If you think you've not had enough time to prepare, ask for more time. If your employer doesnt agree (and they don't have to), you should go to the hearing, but make sure that your lack of preparation time is noted.

Gather your thoughts before the meeting. Don't be afraid to write down what it is you want to say. There is nothing wrong with reading this out at the meeting.

It is up to your employer what format the meeting takes but they will normally go through the issues that have been raised and give you the opportunity to comment. The main purpose of the meeting should be to try to establish the facts and find a way to resolve the problem. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) have a code of practice which sets out how your employer should carry out a grievance procedure.

• Read the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files

If you ask your employer beforehand, you have a legal right to take a 'companion' (who is a colleague or trade union representative) to the meeting with you. If no colleague is willing to accompany you, and you're not a union member, ask if you can bring a family member or a Citizen's Advice Bureau worker (but your employer does not have to agree to this). The companion can present and/or sum up your case, talk on your behalf and confer with you during the hearing. They're protected from unfair dismissal or other mistreatment for supporting you.

The meeting must be at a convenient time for your companion. You can ask for a postponement of up to five days if necessary to get your chosen companion there.

• Trade unions - find out more
• More about the companion at a hearing from the Acas code of practice (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files

You should be given notes of the meeting, and copies of any information given by other people. Unless they need to investigate further, your employer should tell you reasonably quickly what's been decided, and about your right to appeal if you're not satisfied. You might be told of the outcome verbally at first but it will usually be confirmed in writing.

3. Appeal meeting

If you're not satisfied with the decision, or you think the procedure followed was seriously flawed, you have the right to an appeal. This is usually heard by a higher level of management. If that isnt possible, your employer could ask an Acas mediator or other independent person to hear it. The appeal hearing is similar to the original meeting, and you have a right to a companion, as before.

Your employer should give you enough time to appeal. If they don't, make your appeal anyway, and say that you'll provide more information later.

If you are considering taking your issue to an Employment Tribunal you may want to appeal even if it seems pointless, because a tribunal award could be reduced if you don't.

If you cant sort out the dispute, you can get help through mediation, conciliation or arbitration, if your employer agrees to it.

• Mediation, conciliation and arbitration - find out more
• How to sort out a problem at work

How soon can you go to a tribunal if you're still not satisfied?

If your grievance is of the type which could ultimately be taken to an Employment Tribunal you must send your written grievance (step one letter) to your employer no later than three months after the date that the problem occurred.

You must then wait 28 days (starting from the date you sent the step one letter) so that our employer can deal with the matter. Then, if you're not satisfied with your employer's response, you can make your claim to an Employment Tribunal.

• More about resolving a problem at work
• Find out more about Employment Tribunals

Some types of Employment Tribunal claims are not subject to the statutory minimum grievance procedures and have strict time limits. If you are unsure about what to do you can get help from any of the sources listed below.

Where to get help

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) offers free, confidential and impartial advice on all employment rights issues. You can call the Acas helpline on 08457 47 47 47 from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday.

• Acas (opens new window)

Your local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) can provide free and impartial advice. You can find your local CAB office in the phone book or online.

• Find your local Citizens Advice Bureau (opens new window)

If you are a member of a trade union you can get help, advice and support from them.

• More about trade unions

More useful links

• Guidance on the statutory minimum procedures from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (opens new window)
• Visit the Resolving Disputes homepage from the DTI (opens new window)
• Get advice from Acas on discipline and grievances at work (opens new window)
• Read the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files
• Advice for employers about handling discipline and grievance issues from Business Link (opens new window)

From: http://www.direct.gov.uk

Whistle blowing - supporting governance in higher education

All HEIs should have mechanisms through which staff or students can make allegations about perceived irregularities in the running of the institution (often referred to as public interest disclosure or 'whistleblowing'). Provided that the allegation is made lawfully, without malice and in the public interest, the position within the institution of the individual making the allegation should not be jeopardised.

Annexe K of the Committee of University Chairmen Guide for Members of Governing Bodies (HEFCE 01/20) sets out good practice in dealing with whistleblowing (www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2001/01_20.htm)

From: http://www.hegovernance.ac.uk
----------------------------
So, if a staff member raises a legitimate concern regarding 'perceived irregularities' by his/her managers, the governors will be impartial, they will be objective and they will get at the bottom of all this... Yeap! And pigs fly...

Anti-workplace bullying campaign launches

London Brand Innovations has created a new campaign for the anti-workplace bullying charity the Andrea Adam Trust.

The campaign, which includes outdoor, online, DM and experiential activity, will promote the charity’s Ban Bullying at Work Day, which will fall on the 7 November.

The strapline for the campaign urges workers to “speak out” by addressing the issues of workplace bullying.

The charity estimates that bullying in the workplace costs both workers and employers over £18 billion each year and said that one in four workers have experienced bullying at work.

Matt Whiteridge, operations director at Ban Bullying at Work, said: “Following last year’s successful campaign we have been inundated from businesses and from individuals. People are beginning to recognise bullying behaviours and understand their negative impact on the workplace. This year we are taking the campaign up a level to an even wider audience and encourage people to support the campaign in their own workplaces.”

The Andrea Adam Trust is a non-political, non-profit making charity operating to focus on the problems caused by bullying behaviour in the workplace.

From: http://www.mad.co.uk

Snooping ScanSafe Ltd

Over the last year we dealt with two attempts to hack this blog and various attempts to break our password. We also had 'Reputation Defender' persuading Google to drop parts of this blog from the search engine.

The most recent snooping around comes from a company called 'ScanSafe Ltd', whose mission - among others -is to:

'...to create, enforce and monitor Web usage policies. Layering real time rule-based filters with up-to-date and accurate categorization database, Web Filtering enforces your organization's acceptable usage policy, protecting you from the legal liabilities of inappropriate content... the problems associated with providing unmonitored and unregulated Internet access steadily increase. ScanSafe Web Filtering Service is fully managed and puts you in control of how your employees use the Internet. ScanSafe delivers best-of-breed filtering with streamlined configuration...'

The question to ask is which 'smart' educational institution is employing 'ScanSafe' to keep its' employees off this blog while they are at work? The answer is simple: Look at the Hall of Shame. And what a vain and useless act considering people can surf from home, internet cafes, libraries, etc. The name and shame policy followed by this blog is getting up some noses. Well, bad luck. Treat your employees with dignity and respect so we can all get a life. The idea that we will remain silent is simply not on.

Research project avoids blame or the 'quick fix'

'A key finding for future project work has been the issue of engagement by employees at all levels of the organisation for change to be effective and 'owned'. Thus superficial attempts which do not reach the endemic values and culture of the organisation are unlikely to succeed...'

A PDF of the study is available here:
http://www.port.ac.uk/research/workplacebullying/
filetodownload,52783,en.pdf

Matters Concerning Members of the Governing Body - Conflicts of Interest

2.20 It is central to the proper conduct of public business that chairs and members of governing bodies should act and be perceived to act impartially, and not be influenced in their role as governors by social or business relationships. Good practice requires that a member of a governing body who has a pecuniary, family or other personal interest in any matter under discussion at any meeting of the governing body or one of its committees at which he/she is present shall, as soon as practicable, disclose the fact of his/her interest to the meeting and shall withdraw from that part of the meeting.

A member of the governing body is not, however, considered to have a pecuniary interest in matters under discussion merely because he/she is a member of staff or a student of the institution. Nor does the restriction of involvement in matters of direct personal or pecuniary interest prevent members of the governing body from considering and voting on proposals to insure the governing body against liabilities which it might incur.

2.21 Institutions should maintain a register of interests of all members of the governing body. The secretary and any other senior officer closely associated with the work of the governing body, for example the finance director, should also submit details of any interests. The register should be publicly available and should be kept up-to-date.

2.22 Details of the terms of appointment should be set out as appropriate in the letter of appointment, but institutions may wish to seek a signed undertaking that governors will act responsibly.

2.23 The governing body should have the power to remove any member of the governing body from office, and must do so if the member breaches the conditions of his/her appointment.

From: Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK, November 2004/40

What is going on...

...at the University of Glamorgan?

The well-placed lie...

...One of the most insidious forms of academic violence is the generation and transmission of rumours. We know from Ekman's (1985) research that the liars who are difficult to detect are those who can anticipate when they will have to lie, who will not be severely punished if caught, whose lies are sanctioned higher up in the system, who have successfully deceived the target before, who are practised in lying, and who have a good memory.

There is often an element of ambiguity to very skillful lies (Rosnow, 1991), making it difficult to receive disconfirming input. Disconfirmation may not even be sought, since we seem to have a tendency to want to believe the worst of people—a negativity bias (Amabile & Glazebrook, 1982) —and "to want to spit in god's eye" (J. Letvin, personal communication, 1976) — especially, perhaps, if they are above us in rank or status. Rumours and other lies are likely to be believed, and passed on to others, when the listeners are uncertain, are under stress, or are experiencing personal anxiety (Rosnow, 1991) — a situation that obtains for many faculty and students these days.

Aspects of the academic environment make it fertile soil for bumper crops of rumours and other lies. Unfortunately, students can also get caught up in the web of intrigue—as victims of coercion and of academic politics, but also as potential contributors to the violence, wittingly or unwittingly.

For a number of reasons, rumours are particularly difficult to dispel:

• For instance, the target of the rumour may not even be aware of the circulation of lies about them; they may only have noticed that people are treating them differently.
  
  
• If the target becomes aware of the lies and tries to correct the misperceptions or misinformation, they are less likely to be believed (a) because they may be perceived as being "defensive" (à la perceptions of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth: "methinks the Lady doth protest too much") and (b) because primacy is more powerful in communication effectiveness than is recency (discussed in Markus & Zajonc, 1985).
  
  
• Even otherwise very intelligent people tend to believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire"; the possibility that both the smoke and the fire may have been caused by an arsonist—a psychological arsonist—seems rarely to spring to mind.

Taken together, these factors may render impossible any due process or achievement of social justice for the victim.

The generation and transmission of rumours is difficult to curb: like the unethical passing on of confidential information "confidentially", the transmission makes both the bearer of the tale and the recipient of the misinformation "important". Yet, left unchecked—and thereby condoned—rumours can lead to very destructive consequences for the target of this violence, the recent suicide of a McGill psychologist being a case in point (Fox, 1994). When left unchecked, the character assassination can create a climate in which two additional circumstances may obtain:

• The victim can achieve pariah status; vulnerable others, afraid of being "tarred with the same brush", may avoid being linked to or associated with the victim, thereby isolating the victim and leaving them bereft of support.
  
  
• Unscrupulous others, bent on revenge, can "justify" to themselves further violence, thereby escalating the irreversible damage.

The generation and transmission of rumours is unethical (Stark[-Adamec] & Pettifor, 1995); failure to curb rumour-mongering is also unethical; even listening to rumours condones the violence and could therefore be considered unethical. The generation, transmission, and failure to curb rumours is so prevalent in academic work environments that one may feel pressed to choose between two unattractive explanations: that academics do not realize the gravity of the situation and the unethical nature of these acts; or that they do realize that such behaviour is wrong and, like true sociopaths, persist in wrongdoing anyway...

From: Psychological violence in academia, University of Regina

How a union official reacted to a member who asked for no more legal assistance from the union

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for informing me of your decision and I note also the email which you have sent to XXXX XXXX [the union lawyer employed by a major legal company], copied to me, informing her.

I will write to XXXX to ask them to return all papers to you as soon as possible so that you can pass these to your new adviser.

As you have taken your decision it is not really appropriate for me to enter into lengthy discussion with you. I note what you say and your disappointment with what the union and our lawyers have been able to do for you has been evident for some time. However, much of the problem has been beyond our control:

* You joined AUT at a time when we were not a recognised union at CIA, had no branch and no local rep. [This is not what AUT stated on their web page]

* You had a conflict of interest with a NATFHE member, so that the local NATFHE and the regional office in Gateshead were involved in assisting that member. [Contrary to what AUT stated on their web page]

* As a result, even following the merger of AUT and NATFHE, UCU is still unable to provide you with an experienced local union rep or full time official support from the regional office in Gateshead which now covers XXXX. [So why pay membership fees?]

* In these circumstances, I have tried to provide as much support as possible through XXXX in Newcastle.

I understand how, in these difficult circumstances, you would feel disappointed with the type of service we have been able to offer. I wish you well with the hearings ahead and success and good health in the future.

With best wishes,
XXXX XXXXX
----------------------
And thus one more member became disillusioned... and wrote to Roger Kline and Paul Mackney:

"...I have been in touch with my AUT branch in Edinburgh (XXXX XXXX) – for some months now - who referred me to an Employment Law firm in Newcastle. David has tried to be helpful and has authorised funds for the lawyer to advise me. I understand that AUT has no rep in my town and XXXX – despite his support and good will - was unable to offer any other assistance. XXXX told me that AUT does not have a specialist consultant on workplace bullying, and I have found this very disturbing. Is this the case with UCU as a whole? It would be hard to accept that UCU does not have access to a specialist on workplace bullying. Academics are suffering in big numbers, let alone support staff. The evidence is not just anecdotal. I can refer you to numerous surveys and reports, including some from teaching unions, which confirm this disturbing trend.

The union lawyer has been helpful whenever I manage to get in touch with her. Over the last four months, I was able to meet with her twice. She has often told me that my union rep should take up day-to-day issues relating to my case, and ideally, the lawyer should look after the big picture.

Bottom line is that I have no regular support from my union, and I am fighting alone my case of institutionalized workplace bullying against my senior managers. I often have to make decisions on a weekly basis, but there is no assistance beyond a possible reply through email or a phone call. This is while I am dealing with symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress caused by workplace bullying during the last few years at XXXX. I often have to refer to a legal advice phone line provided by my union. The usual waiting time is 2-3 hours during working hours. They try to be helpful but they usually refer me back to my union lawyer. There does not seem to be anybody available or qualified to deal with this case of workplace bullying.

The costs of workplace bullying not just to the union members and victims (targets), but also to our profession collectively must be phenomenal. The impact on our health has possibly never been estimated. Until this thing happened to me, I could only think of it as impossible. Now I live a nightmare. This is not just a general plea. I have some questions to ask. I seek assistance and justice.

• Does UCU have access to a specialist in workplace bullying? If not, when can I have access to one?
• It is not sufficient for Higher Education Institutions to have anti-bullying policies that are worth nothing. How is our union keeping accountable these institutions in terms of how they are applying their policies? Do all employees run awareness sessions and workshops open to staff? How often?
• Does our union have a programme of training reps and other appropriate union members, to recognize and deal effectively with workplace bullying? How is our union proactive in dealing with workplace bullying in our profession?..."

No reply was received.

Utterly Completely Useless - Part 2

Dear Sally (UCU leader), Jenny (regional UCU official) and Hamish (UCU legal official),

I am writing to each of you today to ask for your assistance in seeking justice in a matter that I believe has important implications for all UCU members.

As you may already know, I have fallen victim to acts of criminal witness intimidation, in violation of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, at the hands of Mr Donald Beaton, University Secretary of Kingston University, and have more recently learned that Prof Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor of the University in all likelihood, ordered Mr Beaton to commit these rather serious and troubling acts on his behalf.

All evidence points to guilt on the part of these individuals, who are, quite shockingly, members of senior management, however, unfortunately, a number of events have prevented them from being held to account for their actions. Moreover, they/the University have not denied that these individuals have committed the acts in question, as there is, in my view, rather compelling documentary evidence to support a conviction on these charges.

The only justification or explanation that has thus far been offered by the University's lawyers, who have represented Mr Beaton following his indictment by the Magistrates' Court on 20 April 2007, is that while the acts in question, if committed in connection with a civil or criminal matter in a wide range of "relevant proceedings" (e.g. County Court, High Court, Crown Court, Magistrates' Court, etc) would be illegal, the Act does not explicitly list Employment Tribunal proceedings under the set of "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act. In other words, according to the University's solicitors, committing witness intimidation in connection with ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings, does not amount to a criminal act because Employment Tribunal proceedings are not "relevant proceedings."

The effect of this view, if it were to be upheld as a matter of law, is to create an "open season" on claimants and respondents alike with respect to such proceedings, as in effect, witness intimidation would become legal in Employment Tribunal cases.

What has since transpired is that a hearing was held on 10 May 2007 before a District Judge, Hon. Stephen Day. Judge Day wisely ruled that the case should be continued in anticipation of the possibility that the matter would be taken up by the CPS for prosecution. He also ruled that were the CPS to take the case and were they to then decide to drop it for any reason, my wife and I could take the case back as a private prosecution, which is how it was launched in the first instance.

This week, the CPS notified us that they had, indeed, decided to take on the case, but that they had decided to drop the matter altogether on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence, since, in their view, Employment Tribunal proceedings did not constitute "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act. To my surprise and dismay, I learned today at a hearing before the Court, that we would not simply be able to take the matter back to continue it as a private prosecution, but that it would be formally ended.

As I understand things, our only viable option would be to refile the matter as a private prosecution before the County Court. In discussing our options with my Branch Rep, (Name deleted) who so kindly attended today's court proceedings and who was extremely supportive of my efforts to seek justice in this rather extraordinary matter, (name deleted) felt that one possibility would be to file a petition with the County Court for a District Judge to hear arguments as to why Employment Tribunals should, as a matter of law, be considered to be "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the act, notwithstanding the fact that such proceedings are not explicitly referenced, on the grounds that Parliament must surely have intended for witness intimidation to be a crime for such in such a clearly bona fide civil proceeding as an Employment Tribunal case, and that it could not possibly have been their intention for witness intimidation to, in effect, be legal in such proceedings. Following a positive ruling on that, he suggested that we could then launch a private prosecution on the matter, having already achieved a clear view on whether such proceedings constitute "relevant proceedings" in respect of the intentions of Parliament, and therefore as a matter of law. Thus we would file to separate actions in sequence, the first being to decide matters of law and the second to decide whether or not the facts then suggest that Mr Beaton and Prof Scott had, indeed, committed illegal acts as set forth in the allegations.

This seems to me like a reasonable set of steps, though given that the case is relatively simple and given that following (name deleted)'s suggested course of action would likely take more time to pursue, it might very well be that both steps could be accomplished in one case, namely a private prosecution, part of which could be devoted to first establishing the matters of law, and then the case could continue along to deal with matters of guilt or innocence.

In the end, I would certainly be open to either possibility as a course of action, but in all instances, I feel so strongly that a serious injustice has taken place, and that if allowed to stand, this case will set precedent in respect of any FE/HE employer (or employee) being able to resort to witness intimidation in Employment Tribunal cases with total impunity. That will mean that witnesses in such cases will feel reluctant to come forward and that important and compelling evidence, (such as that which Kingston University has attempted to suppress), of wrongdoing will be prevented from seeing the light of day, thereby depriving UCU members of their right to have their concerns properly aired before a Court of Law.

I am therefore asking each of you to consider seriously the matters at stake in this case in respect of their potential and likely impacts on all UCU members now and in the future. And I am asking that you take appropriate action to support me in pursuing this case further in the Courts so that the rights of UCU members to be free from intimidation in Employment Tribunal cases is preserved.

Specifically, I am taking the unusual step of formally requesting legal support and or any other support that UCU can provide so that this matter can be taken forward, since there will, indeed, be costs (albeit, hopefully not excessive costs) involved in pursuing this matter vigorously. I do realize that such support is not normally provided as part of UCU's Legal Assistance Scheme, and I am not specifically requesting such support under this scheme. Rather, I am asking that UCU consider providing support under whatever auspices it feels are appropriate under the circumstances.

Again, I believe this to be an unusual and important case, one that is worthy of being supported by UCU on behalf of all of its members, and so I therefore urge you to support my efforts. I look forward to your prompt written response to my request for support and to receiving whatever support you feel that UCU can offer.

Please feel free, as well, to forward my letter to any other UCU officials whom you think would need to see such a request for support so that it can be duly considered. I would also urge you to speak with (Branch Rep), who has seen the relevant evidence in this case, in order to gain directly his valuable insights on the matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Dr Howard Fredrics, UCU Member.
-------------------
Letter written on 22 June 2007. To date, Dr Howard has not received a reply.