AIBU to think a manager investigating a complaint about their own department is a conflict of interest (especially in a charity)?

[quirinus]

AIBU to think a manager investigating a complaint about their own department is a conflict of interest, especially in a charity? I recently made a complaint to a charity and part of my complaint involved a potential conflict of interest concerning a staff member in one department.

When I submitted my complaint, I was told it would be investigated by a senior member of staff and then they would feed back to the CEO, who would respond to me. When I got the response from the CEO, I found out that the person who had actually investigated my complaint was the manager in charge of the very department I’d complained about. They are also a Trustee.

Not only that, but they’d completely misunderstood (and therefore dismissed) the conflict of interest issue I’d raised about staff in their team. I queried whether it was appropriate for the department manager to investigate a complaint about their own department, given they have a duty of loyalty to their staff and would naturally want to show their department is being run properly.

I was told it wasn’t a conflict of interest, with no explanation other than “it’s standard practice for a senior manager to investigate a complaint in their department.” This doesn’t sit right with me, especially for a charity, where governance and impartiality should be taken seriously.

AIBU to think this is a conflict of interest, or at the very least poor practice?

Also, if so, does anyone know if there’s any guidance or rules about this that I could refer to when I follow up?

Should add this is not a small charity. It is large and other staff would have been available to investigate if required.

It's the norm in my organisation (also a charity) for the first stage of a complaint to be dealt with by the manager just above the "issue", as they're the most likely to be able to get simple things fixed quickly. If it cannot be resolved by them and moves to a stage 2 complaint it is then passed to someone at a greater distance from it.

I think most complaint procedures have several levels, and the first level is often the person's own manager investigating.

I do think its best practice to have an independent layer in a complaints procedure where possible, but that might be the end stage.

The Charity Comission might have some advice.

Normal for someone in the department to investigate initially, they will know the most about how that department works and are therefore well placed to investigate and understand. They have to explain their investigation and any outcome to those above so it's not easy for them just to cover something up, and they'd be risking their job in doing so.
Usually it's only if the customer isn't happy with that response that it goes higher, and to someone more removed.

That's been the case in every charity and public sector body I've worked for. The exception would be if something very serious e.g. say if an allegation was made that a member of staff assaulted someone - then there's a different process.

Thank you both. When I look it up
online it says that it is not advised for this to happen in the charity sector, but no ‘hard and fast’ rules as such. My complaint touched on the oversight and management of the staff member with the conflict of interest. It seemed very odd to me that the manager almost wilfully misrepresented this very clearly laid out conflict concern. There is a stage 2 complaints procedure, but my understanding is that conflicts should be identified and managed at every level.

It is usual for the first stage of any complaint to be carried out by the manager of that department as they are the person at the coalfront so to speak. Ask for a copy of their complaints procedure and how to appeal any decision/escalate it if you are not happy with the outcome of your original complaint.

Why does the complaints policy or grievance policy state is the process? As others have said, it’s pretty usual for Stage 1 to involve investigation by a senior manager of the department in question, with Stage 2 being somebody outside the department. It would only be considered a conflict of interest if the complaint / grievance involved the person doing the investigating themselves.

Thank you. This is interesting. Maybe I need to focus on the fact that the very clear conflict with the staff member was overlooked by the senior manager investigating and the CEO.

Yes, and there’s my issue. My complaint was about the lack of managerial oversight of staff that led to a poor process in which conflicts of interest were allowed to occur within a department.

I'm head of a department, although not for a charity. If there is a complaint against one of my members of staff, I would always investigate first because I know their work, their workload, the context of the department and the individual involved. That means I have the required understanding, and the ability to be fair.

I would then report to HR.

If the complaint was of a level that could affect their employment, then an HR person would sit in on my investigation.

Loyalty to one member of staff would not come higher than the reputation of the company.

If it's the manager of the department then they'll have manager under them that manage staff so I wouldn't see this as a conflict

Would that be true if the original complaint more broadly was about how things were not properly handled / managed within your department?

I’m afraid I don’t follow this. The manager directly manages the department I have complained about.

Without knowing what the issue is, it's impossible for anyone to give you any solid advice. People are guessing and may be right but we couldn't possibly give a true legal perspective as there's not enough information here.

You said that the person looking after your complaint is just a departmental manager but is also a Trustee. That cant be right in a big charity?

Well, it depends what the complaint is. If you are complaining that you don’t think anyone has oversight of the department / it’s not properly managed, the manager of the department is actually in the perfect position to make a response along the lines of “the department’s performance is measured by the following KPIs, in the last six months, performance against KPI targets has been at 97%, with exceptions reported to the Board on a quarterly basis to ensure transparency and oversight. Every month we share exceptions with the ExCo, and within the department have regular lessons learned discussions at our team meetings.”

You thinking it’s a conflict of interest doesn’t necessarily make it so; but regardless, if you aren’t satisfied with your initial response, you can escalate it to the next stage.

So I used to manage a department of 60 staff but I had 6 team managers that managed 10 staff each. Any complaints about staff members, management oversight of staff members etc would come through me to investigate first as I managed their manager.

Thank you. That’s not the set up here.

I work in the NHS. My experience has been that informal complaints/queries are looked into by a manager and formal must be investigated by a manager of equal level elsewhere for formal investigations. If you look up the Peggie vs NHS Fife this is one of the issues, it wasn’t investigated by someone impartial initially.
If you feel it wasn’t properly investigated and you think it’s serious enough, you may need to whistleblow to a higher level.

You thinking it’s a conflict of interest doesn’t necessarily make it so; but regardless, if you aren’t satisfied with your initial response, you can escalate it to the next stage.
This.
Are you also a member of staff, or supporter of so donates, or person supported by this charity?
It really depends what your complaint is.
Is it something like the member of staff you're complaining about has the job of allocating funds/services, and has given stuff to a family member?

It’s pretty standard. Contact the ombudsman if you’re not happy.

It’s the norm for me. The manager conducts the initial investigation and if you’re not satisfied with the outcome you appeal and a third party reviews the initial investigation to see if it was a fair process

Who are you in this situation OP? You keep talking about “lack of managerial oversight” and “conflicts of interest” but ultimately, unless you’re employed by the organisation, managerial oversight and lines of management isn’t your concern. They don’t have to justify to you how their staff are managed.

If you are a service user or work service-adjacent, your complaint should focus on actual service failures or instances where you have not received the service you could reasonably expect to receive. Be clear with your examples. If the member of staff providing a service to you did not follow the charity’s published policies and procedures - that’s your complaint. If the member of staff providing a service to you gave you incorrect information and you want to make sure they are given training and this doesn’t happen again - that’s your complaint. Making a complaint about your belief that a manager isn’t managing their team correctly is unlikely to elicit the response you want.

Well, I’ve got an interesting update to this thread for all those saying that this is standard practice. After my complaint I submitted a SAR. It has now come back with some very interesting information including an email in which the manager in question tells the staff member at the centre of my complaint: ‘Please rest assured that we are not questioning your decision here, we just need to make sure that we have all the necessary documentation/ processes in place to make this decision appear right’. This was sent at the beginning of the investigation, and shows their true intentions.

That’s exactly why people talk about perceived independence as well as actual fairness. Even if no one intended bias, wording like that can understandably make someone feel the outcome was leaning in a particular direction before the process had really played out.

If you do follow this up formally, it might help to keep it framed around governance rather than intent — e.g. asking how the charity ensures investigations are independent and seen to be independent, especially where trustees or departmental managers are involved.

Referencing general Charity Commission guidance on managing conflicts of interest and complaints handling can keep the focus on process and transparency, rather than on any individual email or person.