Dangers of Drifting
HR has always been busy but never more so than now, the numbers of operational staff have been depleted by ‘restructuring’ and in many organisations the level of case work experience is at an all time low. This means that many folk are trying to put a pint into a half pint pot – and sometimes without even the expertise to pour accurately!
Matters are being allowed to drift and this is particularly true of grievances. Organisations are shooting themselves in the foot!
One of our team Brenda Roper spends much of her time investigating complex discipline and grievance issues for organisations who need an independent investigator – or simply do not have the resources or expertise to undertake the work themselves. She has noticed that the grievances she has been commissioned to investigate are becoming older and older.
Almost all grievance policies quite rightly say that informal resolution is the best initial approach. The Acas Code of Practice also says that informal resolution should be attempted in the first instance. We strongly recommend that the time period for informal resolution should be carefully contained and progress monitored.
Consider this recent example. Mr A, a manager, made an informal complaint of bullying (he had allegedly been shouted at aggressively) by a member of his team. What he was really looking for was senior management support to help him manage the situation; Mr A needed the extra help because he is profoundly deaf making communication more difficult. Nothing happened. Mr A then submitted a formal grievance, this time citing both bullying and unsupportive management. The organisation began to try and resolve the matter informally. 18 months a later a formal investigation was commissioned because informal resolution had failed.
Why is this a problem?
- Memories have faded and the integrity of the investigation is undermined.
- Staff have left the organisation leaving holes in the potential investigation.
- Mr A is distressed and angry that the organisation has failed him.
- He may have a prima facia case for disability discrimination and the organisation has little or no evidence with which to defend itself.
- The psychological contract with Mr A has been breached.
- A member of staff may have ‘got away with’ inappropriate behaviour.
- A precedent has been set if inappropriate behaviour happens elsewhere in the organisation.
Why did this happen?
- Because the grievance never rose to the top of the priority list.
- Because meetings to try and reach informal resolution were widely spaced and unproductive.
- Because HR allowed an unproductive informal approach to simply drift – perhaps in the hope that it would simply go away.
- Because there was a change in case manager and the new case manager had to start again because there was a paucity of notes.
- Because disciplinary investigations always take priority and HR staff numbers are limited.
If an Employment Tribunal claim is brought, the cost to the organisation both in time and money will be immense and may be compounded by a compensation order. In addition, employee engagement has been reduced both in terms of the manager involved and his staff over whom this grievance has been hanging for far too long.
Cullen Scholefield recommend that informal resolution should be actively pursued but that if no substantial progress is made within a month of the grievance being received, then a more formal approach should be taken. Of course, if very real progress is being made then the month can be extended by a further defined period. Time bounding focuses the mind and ensures that if a formal investigation is needed it can be undertaken thoroughly, with integrity and that the final outcome is positive for both the individual and the organisation.
If you would like a Word version of this article or just like to chat to us please contact us.
