Grievance Procedure - Delta Digital

A job analysis of the positions applied for, the skills and competencies of Grade 6 and 7, and the aggrieved skills and competencies must be determined, as it pertains to job description, key performance objectives and functional responsibilities and activities.

The investigations may highlight any possible flaws in the interview procedures.  As a result further examination in the interview process should be looked at in relation to the acceptable practice.  

It would be advisable that the Company’s lawyer take a closer look at the local grievance files, in case it goes to the Employment Tribunal and the precedents set by the Court in other similar cases.

THE FORMAL GRIEVANCE 

Mr. Richards has raised a formal grievance procedure; the process is as follows (See Diagram 1). This will inter-relate with the organisational chart.  (See Appendix A)

Diagram1                                                        

                                                   

• The Procedure

It must be assumed that informal discussions and the mediation process with the Line manager have failed to produce an amicable solution.  As a result, if discussions continue to yield unsatisfactory results it will reach the Employment Tribunal. It is imperative for the organisation to ensure that the procedures are followed to the law as the Employment Act 2002 states, if the grievance procedure has not been followed before the case goes to a tribunal, the tribunal will decide whether it is the fault of Delta Digital or Mr. Richards, if it is the aggrieved any money awarded will normally be decreased by at least 10% and possibly up to 50%.  If it is Delta Digital, any money awarded will normally be increased in the same way.

According to paragraph 78 of the ACAS Code of Practice, Mr. Richards must be give an opportunity to explain his grievance and provide relevant information and state how or why he thinks it should be settled.  This has to be done at each of the stages.

• Keeping Records

It is important that formal written records be kept, according to ACAS Code of Practice, the records should include:

• The nature of the grievance raised
• A copy of the written grievance
• The Company’s response
• Action taken
• Reasons for action taken
• Whether there was an appeal and, if so, the outcome
• Subsequent developments

The Data Protection Act 1998 gives individuals the right to request and have access to certain personal data.  Copies of meeting records should be made available to Mr. Richards including any formal minutes that may have been taken, however any information that can compromise a witness can be withheld.

• Stage 1 – The Line Manager/Supervisor

Any grievance should first be raised in writing with the immediate supervisor who should attempt to settle it.  The investigation must be done in a timely manner after which a meeting to discuss the grievance held, giving at least 48 hours notice to Mr. Richards.  The employment relationship confers rights and duties on both sides.  Some of these responsibilities are legal and contractual; others are social or ethical in nature.

The Employment Act 2002 states:

‘It is the statutory right for a worker to be accompanied by a fellow worker or trade union official at the grievance meeting.’

Apart from the fact that we are bound by law, it is also good employment relations practice to allow a worker to be accompanied or represented so as not to suggest that his fundamental rights are being violated.

After the meeting is held, a confirmation of the outcome of the meeting must be presented to Mr. Richards as it relates to the decision, it must be indicated in the letter to whom he can refer, if unsatisfied with the grievance settlement.

• Stage 2 – Manager Marketing Operations

Mr. Richards has the right to submit his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Stage 1 procedure in writing and dated to the next level of management. Further explaining why he is displeased with the decision made, within ten working days after the decision at Stage 1.

Once the matter is raised at this level, the company is bound to review the findings at the previous level.  Further investigation should be given to either validate or clarify the facts presented or objections made by either of the parties involved.

An opportunity to respond has to be presented to Mr. Richards. Resulting from the meeting the manager will confirm the outcome and set out his decision in writing.

• Stage 3 – Divisional Manager

There is a strong possibility that the aggrieved will take the procedure to the next level. The procedure remains the same, the aggrieved indicates his grievance in writing explaining why he is unhappy with the outcome, within two weeks of the last decision.  

The next stage of appeal is Mr. Jones; it may be advisable that a Divisional Manager from a different Department listen to Mr. Richards’ grievance, as he may feel he will be prejudiced as:

• It is alleged that Mr. Jones displayed an abrasive manner during the interview process.
• He was on the Grading Appeals panel when Mr. Richards filed a successful claim, after ignoring Mr. Jones advice.
• Mr. Jones has voiced a negative view of Mr. Richards work standards and ethics.

The procedure remains the same.  The Divisional Manager will review the grievance and again arrange for any further investigation to clarify facts and invite the aggrieved to a meeting within ten working days.  Forty eight hours notice must still be given.

Mr. Richards will be given an opportunity to respond after which the outcome will be confirmed and the decision set out in writing.

• The Final Stage – Binding Arbitration

Once the grievance procedure has reached this level, the previous stages would be scrutinised to ensure that the correct channels were followed.

The outcome at this level is legally binding and needs to be implemented.

OUTCOME

• Favourable for Mr. Richards

If after investigating, the Employment Tribunal concludes that the grievance is well founded, it is the responsibility of Delta Digital to come up with a workable solution to the problem.

In the reorganisation of the company all the positions were filled and appointments made, therefore the company would either have to create a new position for Mr. Richards at Grade 7, or place him in an existing one.  If he is placed the downgrading of another employee way cause another grievance procedure.

This may tarnish the organisation’s image to attract talented people to work for the company.   Mr. Richards’s resulting win could raise a ‘hornet’s nest’ as other workers in the same situation may bring a procedure against the company.  Therefore at this juncture in the process, it will be critical to work with the aggrieved, to find a realistic and workable solution.

A possible solution could be the re-designing of Mr. Richards’ job to enhance his personal satisfaction.  As a result, an equitable compromise may be job enrichment, which involves vertical job enlargement.  Delta Digital could attempt to enrich Mr. Richards’s job by incorporating motivating or growth factors such as increased responsibility and involvement opportunities for advancement and a sense of achievement.

If a realistic solution is not found all promotions and downgrades could be revoked stating a restructuring of the selection procedures and criterion, based on recent events.  This may be costly and cause some disenchantment, but it will give the company a better opportunity to ensure that all positions, skills and competencies required were effectively and correctly done, ensuring the right qualifications and abilities for the various positions within the organisation.

In this manner, a clear picture will emerge of the total job.  Based on this job analysis both personnel and line management will be in a better position to structure a job interview and remove any perceived biases, while establishing training and development programmes that need to be implemented.

The legal dimension provides not only a basis for individual rights for employees, but also assists to strengthen the position of trade unions.  As this is a test case, it provides the mechanism for setting a precedent for future cases to ensure that the company acts reasonably in similar circumstances.

This win can also strengthen the perceived bargaining power of the Union or Bargaining Body which may accelerate further industrial actions, if the company ever errs.

• Unfavourable against Mr. Richards

If it is established, that there is no foundation to the grievance, Mr. Richards’s position will remain unchanged within the organisational structure.  It will however be useful to the organisation to consider why was the grievance brought?  Could there be a problem with personalities and communication within the organisation?  So it is important to take this grievance seriously.

The fault could lie with Delta Digital; when going through organisational change were the employees duly informed.  A workforce and its productivity become vulnerable when faced with un-communicated change, the grievance procedure may be the outcome.  As the procedure has failed:

• Staff motivation and job commitment will decrease by employees who empathise with Mr. Richards.  This may result in high employee turnover and higher labour costs, because of the training of new staff.
• The restructuring in itself could be a source of frustration, as some workers may feel negatively about their new job descriptions or roles and the possible increase in the section they manage.  This may result in employees following their job portfolios to the letter and not showing any innovation and motivation to do otherwise as they identify with their co-workers.
• Disliking how the entire process was handled could lead to the inability of workers to carry out their jobs effectively and efficiently, a de-motivated workforce.
• Loss of teamwork and job security would be casualties, with workers maybe citing negative outcomes of poorly managed change. If workers are so disillusioned, they may moan about their employer to people outside of the office.  This may tarnish the company’s corporate image, at a time when there is a steady growth in activities.

The employees may cite the restructuring process and changes to job roles as the things they feel most negatively about, there are also changes that people can feel most positively about if Delta Digital handles it well. In both cases, the way change affects people’s ability to do their jobs well is key, suggesting it’s possible to turn negative experiences into positive ones.

Interestingly, the company may consider their value and reputation to be central to employee motivation.  These factors are secondary to more personal ones that the employees hold dear such as actual job roles.   According to Mullins (2002) ‘the climate created by managers will have a significant influence on the motivation and behaviour of employees.

As a result, Delta Digital risks losing some of its staff because the Company failed to handle change properly.

CONCLUSION

Any worker may have concerns or complaints about his work, employment terms, working conditions or relationships with colleagues that he may want to bring to the attention of management.  By dealing with problems in a fair and reasonable manner, we are less likely to lose valued and skilled staff through resignation.  A re-evaluation of the Company’s procedure needs to be done to ensure:

• Involvement of employee representatives in order to encourage understanding, trust, better decision making and improved employment relations and organisational effectiveness

• Effective systems of representation to develop workplace partnership.

A further benefit of effective systems of representation at work is that they can help facilitate a cooperative approach to employment relations and in many cases the development of partnerships. Provided representatives maintain good communications with the workers they represent, they are in a good position to develop policies with management which are in the interests of all those with a stake in the enterprise.

In the end, the grievance procedure, apart form being a test case which will set a precedent within the Marketing Department, will be a learning experience to ensure proper procedures are followed throughout the rank and file of the company.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, M. 1999, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, London, Kogan

Beardwell, I., and Holden, L. 2001, Human Resource Management a Contemporary Approach: England, Pearson Education Limited

Foot, M., and Hook, C. 2002, Introducing Human Resource Management, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited

Mullins, L. 2002, Management and Organisational Behaviour, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited

Philip, L., Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. 2003, Employee Relations: understanding the employment relationship, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited

Post, J., Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. 2002, Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics, New York, Mc Graw-Hill

Salaman, M. 2000, Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, New Jersey, Prentice Hall

Torrington, D., and Hall, L. 1991, Personnel Management: A New Approach, UK, Prentice Hall International Ltd

Websites:

ACAS code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures [Online], Available:http://www.acas.co.uk/publications/pdf/CP01.pdf [Nov. 20, 2004]

ACAS Code of Practice Handbook [Online], Available:   [Nov. 10, 2004]

Unfair Labour Practices [Online], Available:  [Nov. 20, 2004]

Employment Act of 2002 [Online], Available: . [Nov. 20, 2004]

Grievance Procedures [Online], Available: http://www.acas.org.uk/publications/pdf/dealingwithgrievances.pdf [Nov. 20, 2004]

---