header-logo header-logo

28 May 2009 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7371 / Categories: Opinion , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

New beginnings

Tom Walker says it’s time to review our approach to grievances

A sceptical view of the grievance process has always been that it was no more than the first step in litigation. Owing to the legal requirement to enter a grievance under the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/752) (the Regulations), at times its status simply became procedural. However, with the birth of the new procedure last month, is it time to reassess our attitude to grievances?

Despite the ever-changing, finer definitions of constructive dismissal, it was a general rule of thumb that someone who resigned claiming constructive dismissal ought first to enter a grievance to show that they had attempted some form of resolution. Having entered their grievance and having had it turned down they could then proceed with their claim. Following the Regulations this, of course, became a legal requirement.

Adversarial
The situation all too often became one of attack and defence. The employee digging up every upset suffered in their career and the employer closing management ranks and refusing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll