Witness in Grievance Hearing Help

[Pickman's model]

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.

That's why I feel the best way forwards is to say this process isn't properly constituted and it is due to this that i feel it opens up the possibility of legal action. That if it was following the law and procedures no one would be happier to assist than you but as things stand, well...

That way you avoid shitting on anyone and reiterate this clusterfuck is a manager's fault

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

While that is generally the case I believe there are times when an employer can decide to process matters under a grievance procedure without one employee submitting a formal grievance.
For example, if you have two employees that basically cannot work together, constantly raise informal complaints about each other, have refused to engage in any informal means of resolving the conflict I think the employer would be within its rights to launch a grievance process to try and get the matter sorted. Also while checking stuff I found this

In Hope v British Medical Association EAT/000187/21, this scenario played out. Mr Hope was employed by the BMA. He brought a number of grievances against senior staff which he wanted to discuss informally. However, he refused to progress his grievances to the formal stage or to withdraw them.

In an effort to resolve matters, the BMA called a formal grievance meeting and directed Mr Hope to attend but he failed to do so. The grievance meeting proceeded in his absence and, unsurprisingly, the grievances were not upheld.

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.

Employees that require reasonable adjustments - which could include not being interviewed - should get them where appropriate, but an employer could ask someone to provide written responses, for attend with reasonable adjustments in place. (Again this is a could, in practice it is probably not that likely).

 

[purenarcotic]

Thank you all so much for the responses, this has been really, really useful.

 

[Aladdin]

This friend of yours has not formalised a greivance. Management is running with an investigation based on her comments....this is theirs now.

If you are not employed by them by the time interviews commence then you are not obliged to give any interview.

 

[Aladdin]

That's why I feel the best way forwards is to say this process isn't properly constituted and it is due to this that i feel it opens up the possibility of legal action. That if it was following the law and procedures no one would be happier to assist than you but as things stand, well...

That way you avoid shitting on anyone and reiterate this clusterfuck is a manager's fault

100% in agreement with this.

 

[Aladdin]

Employees that require reasonable adjustments - which could include not being interviewed - should get them where appropriate, but an employer could ask someone to provide written responses, for attend with reasonable adjustments in place. (Again this is a could, in practice it is probably not that likely).

I asked if I could write a witness statement and was told I could not do that because the parameters of the investigation had been agreed on and that all interviews had to be live.

 

[Pickman's model]

Even proper grievances don't resolve things, you can't legislate harmony and contrition.

 

[muscovyduck]

I'm confused about this. You're the union rep but you're annoyed you've been dragged into a grievance?

 

[Aladdin]

I'm confused about this. You're the union rep but you're annoyed you've been dragged into a grievance?

There IS NO greivance. The colleague didnt make a formal complaint.

This is a trigger happy management issue.

 

[muscovyduck]

In some workplaces, the policies about grievances etc differ slightly, and it can be opened by someone who isn't directly affected by it, if it causes them to feel that they're in a discriminatory or unsafe environment. Usually in my experience, this is because complaints and grievances have been significantly mishandled before (ie, someone's been retaliated against to the point of dialing 999 or when it went to court, the court denied a mediation request) and some regulatory body or a union or something has come in and forced the change to the policy in response. So if you have a look at the policy and spot that there, it's going to be problematic in terms of putting the breaks on this case but it suggests there's history of other mismanaged cases which, if you can find out more about, would obviously help in an argument to stop this one.

 

[purenarcotic]

I'm confused about this. You're the union rep but you're annoyed you've been dragged into a grievance?

Yes. I’m annoyed because I think management response has been completely over the top and now I’m being named in things I don’t think are problematic enough to warrant such a response. I’m annoyed I wasn’t asked by her if she could name me because I think if nothing else, that is the courteous thing to do. I’m annoyed because nobody wants to go through and be subjected to these processes and regardless of being the rep I am also human.

 

[purenarcotic]

In some workplaces, the policies about grievances etc differ slightly, and it can be opened by someone who isn't directly affected by it, if it causes them to feel that they're in a discriminatory or unsafe environment. Usually in my experience, this is because complaints and grievances have been significantly mishandled before (ie, someone's been retaliated against to the point of dialing 999 or when it went to court, the court denied a mediation request) and some regulatory body or a union or something has come in and forced the change to the policy in response. So if you have a look at the policy and spot that there, it's going to be problematic in terms of putting the breaks on this case but it suggests there's history of other mismanaged cases which, if you can find out more about, would obviously help in an argument to stop this one.

Ours is very basic and says nothing about third parties raising it. I think when she was complaining to her manager, her manager has decided that what she was saying was a grievance. But they failed to tell her that. Which is, to me at least, a pretty crucial thing to do!

 

[Aladdin]

Yes. I’m annoyed because I think management response has been completely over the top and now I’m being named in things I don’t think are problematic enough to warrant such a response. I’m annoyed I wasn’t asked by her if she could name me because I think if nothing else, that is the courteous thing to do. I’m annoyed because nobody wants to go through and be subjected to these processes and regardless of being the rep I am also human.

Yep.
I felt that way too. Really pissed off at being dragged into something that shouldn't have happened and only did because of lazy management pawning it off onto others.

 

[muscovyduck]

Ours is very basic and says nothing about third parties raising it. I think when she was complaining to her manager, her manager has decided that what she was saying was a grievance. But they failed to tell her that. Which is, to me at least, a pretty crucial thing to do!

OK I think I'm reading between the lines a bit better now on what the situation is.

So really, the original person needs to go back and confirm she was trying to have this handled informally. It looks bad in the legal system if someone comes in and escalates things too quick, and usually its expected things are dealt with informally first if possible, so if someone faces consequences due to this grievance, but they can evidence the complainant saying "hey I didn't want this dealt with like that", they can fight back.

This is assuming it genuinely is something relatively petty which we are having to take your word on. And also assuming the original complainant isn't lying to you because you're upset you've been named as a witness.

I think if they've named you without asking, they also have to take full ownership of the situation where they do have agency over it, and not just say "management scary don't wanna disrupt this now it's in motion". And also be telling you the truth about what's going on. So if you turn around to them and say "go back to management and sort this out" and you get a response that doesn't sit right, I think you'll know for sure where the problem is.

 

[StoneRoad]

While that is generally the case I believe there are times when an employer can decide to process matters under a grievance procedure without one employee submitting a formal grievance.
For example, if you have two employees that basically cannot work together, constantly raise informal complaints about each other, have refused to engage in any informal means of resolving the conflict I think the employer would be within its rights to launch a grievance process to try and get the matter sorted. Also while checking stuff I found this



Employees that require reasonable adjustments - which could include not being interviewed - should get them where appropriate, but an employer could ask someone to provide written responses, for attend with reasonable adjustments in place. (Again this is a could, in practice it is probably not that likely).

BiB - I had exactly this situation to resolve - back in 2021/22.
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out an escalating situation with informal processes.
One party would not accept a mediation of conflicting grievances, because it didn't find 100% in his favour - nor instructions to stop what amounted to bullying nor even apologise for exceptionally poor behaviour in the period leading up to the attempted mediation meeting.
It is phenomenally difficult sometimes to deal with personality clashes.
Final result was neither person continued their employment for more than a few months.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

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.

i seem to remember something like that, but think (at my workplace when i was a union rep) that applied if management wanted to put me on a disciplinary charge. not sure it would have applied if i'd been named as a witness in someone else's disciplinary / grievance.

witnesses don't generally need a representative / advocate.

and don't think pn is being asked to represent anyone here.

i don't think i ever got involved in any disciplinaries, or in grievances that weren't sorted with a quiet word, but if i had got in to something where other union members were involved and i was being asked to act as witness as well as represent someone, or if multiple members were seeking representation, i'd have needed to go to branch officer and ask wtf to do about it all - i think there was a process where a rep from another department or someone from branch level would get involved or something.

I'm confused about this. You're the union rep but you're annoyed you've been dragged into a grievance?

but this isn't about pn getting involved to represent a member at either a grievance or disciplinary, which would be part of what a rep expects to do, this is being dragged in on a personal level.

Ours is very basic and says nothing about third parties raising it. I think when she was complaining to her manager, her manager has decided that what she was saying was a grievance. But they failed to tell her that. Which is, to me at least, a pretty crucial thing to do!

i'm inclined to agree.

but - again, without wanting to know what the allegation is all about, just wondered if employer has a policy that any allegation of particular type/s of misconduct will be investigated formally (or if it's there's a legal or professional standard requirement to investigate allegations of whatever formally), and that's why it has escalated?

 

[purenarcotic]

OK I think I'm reading between the lines a bit better now on what the situation is.

So really, the original person needs to go back and confirm she was trying to have this handled informally. It looks bad in the legal system if someone comes in and escalates things too quick, and usually its expected things are dealt with informally first if possible, so if someone faces consequences due to this grievance, but they can evidence the complainant saying "hey I didn't want this dealt with like that", they can fight back.

This is assuming it genuinely is something relatively petty which we are having to take your word on. And also assuming the original complainant isn't lying to you because you're upset you've been named as a witness.

I think if they've named you without asking, they also have to take full ownership of the situation where they do have agency over it, and not just say "management scary don't wanna disrupt this now it's in motion". And also be telling you the truth about what's going on. So if you turn around to them and say "go back to management and sort this out" and you get a response that doesn't sit right, I think you'll know for sure where the problem is.

All we can ever do on these sorts of threads on urban is take someone’s word on it tbf lol. I don’t massively appreciate the implications there either. I’m not afraid of speaking out, that’s not the reason why I don’t want to get involved. I’m not trying to weasel my way out of something and land someone else in the shit just because it might be uncomfortable for me. I’m well aware that the right thing to do is often the hardest thing to do. But this is all a bizarre mess over issues that could and should be addressed at management level in supervisions. If a member came to me and said they were being subject to a disciplinary over these matters I would go nuts.

 

[muscovyduck]

All we can ever do on these sorts of threads on urban is take someone’s word on it tbf lol. I don’t massively appreciate the implications there either. I’m not afraid of speaking out, that’s not the reason why I don’t want to get involved. I’m not trying to weasel my way out of something and land someone else in the shit just because it might be uncomfortable for me. I’m well aware that the right thing to do is often the hardest thing to do. But this is all a bizarre mess over issues that could and should be addressed at management level in supervisions. If a member came to me and said they were being subject to a disciplinary over these matters I would go nuts.

OK and that's fine and I get that and I believe you, but as a union rep you should understand why I put a disclaimer on what I have said - because if there's something you're keeping to yourself (which imo would be fair enough, I also keep things vague on here when asking for advice, but one of the consequences of it are people being cautious when giving advice) it might change the advice you're being given.

 

[equationgirl]

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.

Yeah, I had a colleague name me in a greivancr as a witness to events I had not witnessed, and was really pissed off about it. I was planning on not giving a statement of any kind of asked, and my union rep colleagues agreed.

Speak to your union rep but it's not a court of law where you can be compelled to give a statement.

How much longer do you have left before you leave?

 

[muscovyduck]

purenarcotic do you know much about if this sort of thing has happened before, and/or how new is the manager? Did the email your colleague receive look like a template, or did it look like someone had specifically typed it out? Did the wording in it match the policy you've seen?

The reason I ask is because you'll want to determine if there's a degree of randomness to this or if it's targeted at someone

From what you've said the policy sounds basic, but the wording in the email sounds like it's been copied and pasted from other more detailed policies I've seen. Those ones are what I spoke about earlier - policies that have been formed in environments where complaints keep getting mis-managed