Consultation on Dispute Resolution Procedures
As you may be aware, DTI recently published a consultation document on "Resolving disputes at the workplace". The paper builds on the recommendations in the review of dispute resolution by Michael Gibbons, which was published at the same time. CIPD was actively involved in the Gibbons review and strongly supports its main recommendations. The CIPD will be responding in due course to the 28 questions on pages 28 to 30 of the consultation paper and the Central London Branch was delighted to receive comments which members wanted to make on all or any of these questions.
The first question we tacked was: "Should the statutory dispute resolution procedures be repealed?"
We responded as follows:
The majority of respondents said “Not in their entirety.” The structure is useful and in disciplinary cases, at least, it is good to comply with a basic procedure. The basic steps that everyone has come to know should be retained for disciplinary issues only. It is however very difficult to apply to redundancy situations (the requirement to send a letter first).
On the other hand, it is clear that the Grievance procedures are being abused. Trade Unions and lawyers are telling employees to use the procedures in order to tick the boxes prior to taking the tribunal or legal route, with no intention to resolve the work place issue. It is completely wrong for an employer to be found to be automatically in the wrong because they have not been able to follow a procedure. Employees are claiming that text messages, post-its, exit interviews and other very informal communication means constitute grievances. There was also unanimous opposition to post employment grievances. The majority of those consulted said they were dealing with far more workplace grievances now than before the regs were introduced and were “swamped by procedures”. Making the procedures statutory has opened up every word and sentence to interpretation and reinterpretation by lawyers, which was not the original intention. The respondents concluded that the stages should be kept but there was a need to more closely define what constitutes a grievance.
The situation is not necessarily helping the employees themselves who are being damaged by being obliged to use procedurally heavy means to get their grievances addressed
It is also not helping small employers who are facing the bulk of claims without having the resources or expertise to address them properly.
this response, combined with a more detailed answer to the DTI's questions on this consultation was forwarded to the DTI in advance of the closing date for this consultation, on 18th June.
Contact our Policy Advisor