Discipline and Grievance

The statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures that came into force in October 2004 have now been abolished, or have they?

Employers and employees alike may have given thanks that the ritualistic tick box approach of the statutory procedures has been abolished but, in reality, their effect may be with us for some time. For a start, tribunals will still have cases going through the system for some considerable time that were founded in the statutory regime. However, it is conceivable that cases presented after 6 April 2009 will still need to be decided by the old rules.

We look at dismissals and grievances separately.

Dismissals

What matters is when the employer contemplated taking disciplinary action. If the employer contemplates disciplinary action before 6 April 2009, the statutory procedures will apply regardless of the date of dismissal. If a step 1 or step 2 letter has been sent prior to 6 April 2009, then any tribunal action will have to judge the dismissal under the statutory procedures. More complicated perhaps, is the situation with redundancies. Is the dismissal contemplated at the start of the consultation period or at the end when the dismissals occur? A good case can be made for arguing that the notification at risk is the relevant trigger. For this reason, we repeat the old step 1, 2 and 3 procedures below.

Grievances

If the matter or event complained of occurred before 6 April 2009, any tribunal hearing will have to be conducted according to the old rules. If the matter complained about is ongoing conduct that started before 6 April 2009 and the grievance is made before 5 July 2009, the old rules will apply. However, confusion will reign in circumstances such as a grievance about discrimination being made before April 2009 but where the discrimination continues. An employee might have complained in March 2009 but finally say enough is enough in March 2010. At this juncture, nobody knows whether the old rules would apply or not. We therefore set out the old rules.


The New Procedures


Essentially, we go back to a position which is governed by the Acas code of practice. Additionally, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has produced guidelines for avoiding and resolving discipline and grievance issues at work.

Dismissal

The Acas code does not cover redundancies or the non-renewal of fixed terms contracts. These are dealt with under a separate Acas booklet on redundancy handling. Acas recommends that employers and employees should deal with issues promptly and not delay meetings.



In general terms, a large part of the statutory procedures are carried over into the Acas code of practice. The major difference is that this is not prescriptive. Under the old procedures failure to carry out the process in a tick box fashion would leave the employer with a finding of automatic unfair dismissal. The old scenario would leave the employer exposed to an increase of 50% in the compensation. There is still some scope for a tribunal to increase compensation by 25% if the Acas code of practice is not followed. We assume that there would need to be some serious failure for that to happen. Again, some regard would be given to the size and administrative resources of the employer; something that was noticeably absent from the statutory procedures.

Grievance

The employee is encouraged to try and resolve grievances informally, but if not able to do this, should raise the matter formally and without unreasonable delay. This should be done in writing so that the employer can understand what the complaint amounts to. As before, the employer should invite the employee to a meeting, allow the employee to be accompanied and provide for a right of appeal.

Where a grievance is raised during the disciplinary process, Acas suggests that the disciplinary process should be temporarily suspended to deal with the grievance unless they are essentially the same subject matter.

As under the pre 2004 situation, the employer will be able to argue a Polkey reduction. That is simply legal shorthand for the employer being able to say that it is acknowledged that the due processes were not followed but the same result would have come about, or that there was some contributory fault.