Witness in Grievance Hearing Help

[purenarcotic]

This is a bit of an odd one urbs, so hoping the experienced amongst you can help…

A colleague in my team complained to her manager about some of the conduct of other members within the team. For reasons I don’t quite understand, this has been turned into a grievance. My colleague has not submitted a formal grievance, nor was she notified that her manager would be taking things further / viewing her complaint as such. The first she knew about the grievance was when she received an email requesting she attend a meeting as a witness.

During this meeting, she was asked if anybody else witnessed some of the specific things she was talking about. She told me that she named me. I’m really pissed off about this. I’m leaving in a few weeks and don’t want to get involved as I’m conscious if upheld other staff could be subject to disciplinary action and I just don’t want the drama. It’ll leave a right bitter taste in the mouth too which will be sad as I’ve been very happy there for the past 9 years. I haven’t been contacted yet, but assuming I am, can I refuse to attend any meetings? I will consult with my union branch but the hive mind of urban is a valuable thing!

 

[Aladdin]

You're under no obligation to attend any interview or meeting as a witness.
Can I pm you as this is on a public thread?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

i'm no expert here, and it's a while since i was a union rep, but...

seems odd that management have taken the decision unilaterally to turn this in to a formal grievance. most grievance polices / procedures i've seen are along the lines of you raise it informally first, and if you're not satisfied with the outcome, then the complainant can go formal.

or are management doing this as a disciplinary against the other person / people?

do you know if colleague wants to go ahead at formal level? or to be a witness if it's going to turn in to a disciplinary?

i can see that you're in an awkward position - go in as witness to support this colleague and you're potentially dropping other colleagues in the shit. refuse to take part and you're potentially letting this one colleague down and might give management the impression she's lying about it.

also a bit difficult for the union where one member complains about another.

obviously i don't know and don't want to know what is being alleged and what you have or haven't seen / heard, and it's a bit shit if colleague has given your name as witness without talking to you first.

i don't think they can compel you to go along, but if you do, id suggest stick to the truth, even if that truth is that you don't know, didn't hear what was said, or can't remember the detail (although don't let them push you in to saying that something didn't happen - that's not the same thing.)

 

[Epona]

Is there some truth in what your colleague has said or is this all made up then?

 

[purenarcotic]

Is there some truth in what your colleague has said or is this all made up then?

No there is some truth in it. But I’m not going to share the finer detail on t’internet. I don’t want to get involved, I’m really pissed off she named me without asking me first. I just want to know if I can say that I’m not prepared to give a statement if asked.

 

[purenarcotic]

You're under no obligation to attend any interview or meeting as a witness.
Can I pm you as this is on a public thread?

No need to PM, I just wanted to know if I could say no. Thanks though.

 

[Epona]

I think you should be truthful no matter what position it puts you in.

 

[purenarcotic]

I think you should be truthful no matter what position it puts you in.

I am truthful. I raise things that I think are appropriate to raise regardless of how that might come back on me. I have no concerns that these issues might affect the vulnerable people we work with or amount to bullying or victimisation. The issues are largely down to the team being very young and with some learning to do about professionalism and initiative. I have no grievance against them and don’t think anybody should be disciplined. I think, as ever, our management have gone overboard in their response and I have no wish to play a part in that. I would never lie and am a bit bemused if that’s your interpretation of stating I don’t want to be involved.

 

[Epona]

I am truthful. I raise things that I think are appropriate to raise regardless of how that might come back on me. I have no concerns that these issues might affect the vulnerable people we work with or amount to bullying or victimisation. The issues are largely down to the team being very young and with some learning to do about professionalism and initiative. I have no grievance against them and don’t think anybody should be disciplined. I think, as ever, our management have gone overboard in their response and I have no wish to play a part in that. I would never lie and am a bit bemused if that’s your interpretation of stating I don’t want to be involved.

My apologies, I read it as your colleague wanted your help to defend them in a case and you weren't wanting to help for fear of rocking the boat.
I've experienced bullying myself at work and have as a union rep also represented other people who were going through bullying - other people refusing to speak up to protect themselves is a massive problem that simply allows these situations to continue.

I am very sorry if I have misjudged the situation though. Best wishes to you.

 

[purenarcotic]

i'm no expert here, and it's a while since i was a union rep, but...

seems odd that management have taken the decision unilaterally to turn this in to a formal grievance. most grievance polices / procedures i've seen are along the lines of you raise it informally first, and if you're not satisfied with the outcome, then the complainant can go formal.

or are management doing this as a disciplinary against the other person / people?

do you know if colleague wants to go ahead at formal level? or to be a witness if it's going to turn in to a disciplinary?

i can see that you're in an awkward position - go in as witness to support this colleague and you're potentially dropping other colleagues in the shit. refuse to take part and you're potentially letting this one colleague down and might give management the impression she's lying about it.

also a bit difficult for the union where one member complains about another.

obviously i don't know and don't want to know what is being alleged and what you have or haven't seen / heard, and it's a bit shit if colleague has given your name as witness without talking to you first.

i don't think they can compel you to go along, but if you do, id suggest stick to the truth, even if that truth is that you don't know, didn't hear what was said, or can't remember the detail (although don't let them push you in to saying that something didn't happen - that's not the same thing.)

She’s not in the union… actually none of them are sadly. I think my colleague is generally shitting it as she thought she was just having an offload to her manager and it’s suddenly turned into this big thing that she didn’t ask for and wasn’t appropriately informed about. It’s a mess before it’s even properly started!

 

[Puddy_Tat]

She’s not in the union… actually none of them are sadly. I think my colleague is generally shitting it as she thought she was just having an offload to her manager and it’s suddenly turned into this big thing that she didn’t ask for and wasn’t appropriately informed about. It’s a mess before it’s even properly started!

oh bugger

it sounds complicated

 

[redsquirrel]

i'm no expert here, and it's a while since i was a union rep, but...

seems odd that management have taken the decision unilaterally to turn this in to a formal grievance. most grievance polices / procedures i've seen are along the lines of you raise it informally first, and if you're not satisfied with the outcome, then the complainant can go formal.

This. Sounds like shite/lazy management to me.

purenarcotic is this a hearing or investigation? There should be an investigation held to establish facts (during which witnesses may be interviewed), only after that should there be a hearing (if appropriate).
I don't agree with Aladdin, all workplaces will expect staff to engage with grievance/disciplinary/etc processes as part of their employment. In many cases (as at my employer) it is an explicit duty to engage in such processes. Refusing to engage could make you liable for a disciplinary (see page 25).

Now if you are leaving in a few weeks already have another job lined up, then in practice well they cannot really do all that much, although they could put something on your reference.

Obviously your union rep will be able to guide you (and read any policies your workplace has one these matters), and will have more info on the situation than you can give out here, but I'd be wary about directly refusing to take part in the process. If you really don't want to get involved I'd obfuscate and delay, the old trick of saying you unable to do something rather than will not do something can be used - "Am willing to attend this meeting but unable to do so on the dates mentioned...".

But while not pleasant grievance investigation meetings should not be too horrible, it should be just you, your rep, the investigator and possibly someone from HR/a minute taker. You should be given the opportunity to make statements of your own - so you can say that you think this process has been badly handled and gone overboard - not just answer the question of the investigator.
Hearings can be more horrible, you could be questioned by (the reps of) both parties, plus the hearing panel. And if things have got to that stage it could well be more confrontational.

 

[not henry]

The issues are largely down to the team being very young and with some learning to do about professionalism and initiative. I have no grievance against them and don’t think anybody should be disciplined. I think, as ever, our management have gone overboard in their response and I have no wish to play a part in that. I would never lie and am a bit bemused if that’s your interpretation of stating I don’t want to be involved.

What you say here sounds like a considered and honest response of how you feel about it. You could offer it to management and decline to answer any specific or detailed questions

 

[redsquirrel]

^again I think an employer would have good grounds for considering that as refusing a reasonable request - and so grounds for discipline.

Which does not mean it might not be the course of action to take but doing so should be considered carefully.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I don't agree with @Aladdin, all workplaces will expect staff to engage with grievance/disciplinary/etc processes as part of their employment. In many cases (as at my employer) it is an explicit duty to engage in such processes. Refusing to engage could make you liable for a disciplinary (see page 25).

I agree - it's expected that all staff will cooperate if required at my place. I've been interviewed a few times over the years as a witness, no big deal in the great scheme of things. I've carried out investigations myself too - it's just part of the territory at work.

I actually quite enjoy disciplinary investigations - it's the old 'why is that lying bastard lying to me' principle.

 

[emanymton]

Is it possible someone else raised the grievance and your colleague is being asked to attend as a witness as she spoke to the manager about the same thing?

 

[alex_]

Now if you are leaving in a few weeks already have another job lined up, then in practice well they cannot really do all that much, although they could put something on your reference.

Most employers will just do an x worked here as a y between these dates now-a-days and mention nothing else.

 

[emanymton]

Is it possible someone else raised the grievance and your colleague is being asked to attend as a witness as she spoke to the manager about the same thing?

To add a bit more as none of this makes sense. You don't get asked to be a witness at your own grievance hearing, it is your grievance hearing. I think you colleague has got the wrong end of the stick, or you management are amazingly incompetent (quite likely I guess) or a bit of both. It could be they have started a disciplinary against someone based wholly or in part on what she said and she is being asked to be witness at that or someone else raised a grievance and she is being asked to be a witness at that.

Normally you would conduct fact finding interviews first, but maybe they skipped that as they spoke to their manager already. And this is the other possibility, what she was been asked to attend is just a fact finding interview not an actual hearing.

The point of this ramble is that if you have not been asked to attend any meetings yet, you probably will not be. But if it is still at fact finding stage you might get asked based on what comes out of the initial interviews. If you are just be honest, if you don't think things are that big a deal, say so, and it will naturally come across in your evidence anyway. And given how slow these things can be, you could well have left before it gets to a hearing.

 

[Pickman's model]

What I would do would be to enquire as to the status of the proceedings and how they got here. I think the status of this grievance is as mentioned peculiar. Look at the policies. What I'd try to do is to say something along the lines of I'm happy to give any assistance to a propetly constituted grievance meeting or a complaint but the procedures haven't been followed and what you have is a bastard creation which in all honesty is going to lead to more harm than good and imo has the potential to expose everyone involved to legal action. In these circumstances I don't feel confident in the proceedings to assist.

 

[purenarcotic]

Most employers will just do an x worked here as a y between these dates now-a-days and mention nothing else.

Yes, that’s what mine does. Also I’m hopefully going back to uni do my reference has long been submitted and sorted.

 

[purenarcotic]

This. Sounds like shite/lazy management to me.

purenarcotic is this a hearing or investigation? There should be an investigation held to establish facts (during which witnesses may be interviewed), only after that should there be a hearing (if appropriate).
I don't agree with Aladdin, all workplaces will expect staff to engage with grievance/disciplinary/etc processes as part of their employment. In many cases (as at my employer) it is an explicit duty to engage in such processes. Refusing to engage could make you liable for a disciplinary (see page 25).

Now if you are leaving in a few weeks already have another job lined up, then in practice well they cannot really do all that much, although they could put something on your reference.

Obviously your union rep will be able to guide you (and read any policies your workplace has one these matters), and will have more info on the situation than you can give out here, but I'd be wary about directly refusing to take part in the process. If you really don't want to get involved I'd obfuscate and delay, the old trick of saying you unable to do something rather than will not do something can be used - "Am willing to attend this meeting but unable to do so on the dates mentioned...".

But while not pleasant grievance investigation meetings should not be too horrible, it should be just you, your rep, the investigator and possibly someone from HR/a minute taker. You should be given the opportunity to make statements of your own - so you can say that you think this process has been badly handled and gone overboard - not just answer the question of the investigator.
Hearings can be more horrible, you could be questioned by (the reps of) both parties, plus the hearing panel. And if things have got to that stage it could well be more confrontational.

Thanks. I am actually the union rep in the workplace, but these things happen extraordinarily rarely. I have sat in on grievance investigation meetings and I think that this is what is happening here. But it’s not actually very clear and my colleague isn’t in the union.

Edited to correct its grievance hearings I’ve been to, not witness investigation meetings. Clearly need to go back to bed haha.

I don’t think they have followed due process tbh. I’m also extremely cross that the email invitation sent to her said she couldn’t discuss this with anybody, due to confidentiality (this is fair enough) but did not make clear she could speak to her union or be accompanied into the meeting. I actually found the tone really threatening, and woe betide them if they send me the same copy frankly.

 

[purenarcotic]

To add a bit more as none of this makes sense. You don't get asked to be a witness at your own grievance hearing, it is your grievance hearing. I think you colleague has got the wrong end of the stick, or you management are amazingly incompetent (quite likely I guess) or a bit of both. It could be they have started a disciplinary against someone based wholly or in part on what she said and she is being asked to be witness at that or someone else raised a grievance and she is being asked to be a witness at that.

Normally you would conduct fact finding interviews first, but maybe they skipped that as they spoke to their manager already. And this is the other possibility, what she was been asked to attend is just a fact finding interview not an actual hearing.

The point of this ramble is that if you have not been asked to attend any meetings yet, you probably will not be. But if it is still at fact finding stage you might get asked based on what comes out of the initial interviews. If you are just be honest, if you don't think things are that big a deal, say so, and it will naturally come across in your evidence anyway. And given how slow these things can be, you could well have left before it gets to a hearing.

The email stated she was a witness (she showed it to me). In the meeting she said she was told this came about directly because of the comments she alone made to the manager. So I think it is incompetence. They dunno wtf they’re doing and I am baffled as to how we’ve got here.

 

[Cloo]

The issues are largely down to the team being very young and with some learning to do about professionalism and initiative. I have no grievance against them and don’t think anybody should be disciplined. I think, as ever, our management have gone overboard in their response and I have no wish to play a part in that. I would never lie and am a bit bemused if that’s your interpretation of stating I don’t want to be involved.

If you have to go can you try and frame everything this way - that you think the person just needs support to learn and grievance process seems excessive in your opinion?

 

[Pickman's model]

The email stated she was a witness (she showed it to me). In the meeting she said she was told this came about directly because of the comments she alone made to the manager. So I think it is incompetence. They dunno wtf they’re doing and I am baffled as to how we’ve got here.

I do think you should speak to your colleague and suggest how they might have handled things better, eg saying she could find someone to verify her claims rather than dropping you in it

 

[purenarcotic]

I do think you should speak to your colleague and suggest how they might have handled things better, eg saying she could find someone to verify her claims rather than dropping you in it

Oh I already have. She has said she’s really sorry but it’s a bit late now innit. She has told me that some of the specific dates she gave them I was actually off sick, so I definitely haven’t witnessed those and will be saying so. But I think she spoke generally about things too and when they asked if anybody else had witnessed this she named me.

 

[emanymton]

The email stated she was a witness (she showed it to me). In the meeting she said she was told this came about directly because of the comments she alone made to the manager. So I think it is incompetence. They dunno wtf they’re doing and I am baffled as to how we’ve got here.

I share your bafflement. None of it makes any sense.

 

[cesare]

At the very least, the company should be following the Acas code: Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures | Acas

It's a statutory instrument which means that any employment tribunal will take it into account when deciding on fairness.

ACAS also have guidance on conducting workplace investigations, here: Acas guide to conducting workplace investigations | Acas

 

[Aladdin]

Managers have move things on to greivance procedure because they dont want to be accused of doing nothing in the case of a complaint about alleged bullying.

If you decide to give a witness interview be sure to record your own answers.

No there is some truth in it. But I’m not going to share the finer detail on t’internet. I don’t want to get involved, I’m really pissed off she named me without asking me first. I just want to know if I can say that I’m not prepared to give a statement if asked.

I thought she named you as a witness to her being bullied ( from the op)

My understanding of greivance procedure is that the actual person with the greivance is the person who can start the procedure. She didn't start a formal greivance procedure. Did she put her thoughts in writing to management? If she did then they are covering their own asses.

I totally agree with you that sometimes younger staff jump the gun with running to management with problems instead of working on the problem themselves.

If there is an internal investigation you may need to cooperate. However I can tell you I was explicitly told by my own management that I was not obliged to be interviewed as a witness because I was on long term sick leave.
You mention that you are finishing up working there soon.
If you are gone from the workplace you are not obliged to give any interview.

Finally...the friend? If she does not want management to investigate or start greivance then she has to muster up the bottle to withdraw her comments.

 

[purenarcotic]

I share your bafflement. None of it makes any sense.

Innit. I am utterly bemused. But also mindful I have to be careful because I don’t know how much I’ll land her in it by saying she’s shown me that email, has spoken to me about the meeting etc, especially as she isn’t in the union herself.

 

[redsquirrel]

Thanks. I am actually the union rep in the workplace, but these things happen extraordinarily rarely. I have sat in on grievance investigation meetings and I think that this is what is happening here. But it’s not actually very clear and my colleague isn’t in the union.

Edited to correct its grievance hearings I’ve been to, not witness investigation meetings. Clearly need to go back to bed haha.

I don’t think they have followed due process tbh. I’m also extremely cross that the email invitation sent to her said she couldn’t discuss this with anybody, due to confidentiality (this is fair enough) but did not make clear she could speak to her union or be accompanied into the meeting. I actually found the tone really threatening, and woe betide them if they send me the same copy frankly.

Sounds like a total cock-up. Like emanymton none of this makes sense or appears to be in line with Acas guidelines.

Also if you are a nominated union rep check if you do not have specific clauses that apply to you. For example, at my workplace union reps are entitled to be represented by professional union employee.

Probably the best thing to do is to go to respond to any invitation asking for clarity and picking them up all the mistakes they appear to have made.