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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll