Employer dismissed me, now wants to hear grievance. Please help!

[Tootiredtosleep]

So, I raised a grievance with my employer back in July this year, and a further grievance re a protected characteristic.

They acknowledged the first grievance and invited me to a meeting with the Director (who the grievance was about - it's a small company - no HR). I asked for a reasonable adjustment, could it be held in written form and this was not acknowledged.

The further grievance re the protected characteristic (race), was never acknowledged by the company.

However, they invited me to a disciplinary whilst I was on sick leave, for gross misconduct/fraud. I was subsequently sacked. They were wrong on all counts of what they accused me of. However, for one small thing I had no evidence, and it was upheld as 'reasonable belief'.

The last correspondence from them re my grievances was 27th July 2024.

I have now filed a case at the tribunal for race discrimination, sex discrimination (they contacted my ex husband to find out information) victimisation (raising disciplinary after I done a protected act) and failure to provide an employment contract.

All negotiations with ACAS have failed. They won't communicate.

However, some 5 months since they acknowledged my grievance, they have now written to me to say they would like to hear these grievances and want me to attend a meeting. This is one month after I have been dismissed. It wasn't mentioned in my dismissal letter.

I know I need to show the tribunal that I have exhausted the grievance procedure, but surely contacting me after all this time, when I am no longer an employee is wrong? Can anyone advise?

I have tried to keep it brief, but can provide further details.

I've seen the three month post termination employee GRIEVANCE AS WELL AS ET APPLICATION window set out in guidance.

You need to be careful what you put on this thread OP. If it goes to tribunal and it is found you have posted about it online you will not have a leg to stand on, especially when calling your boss misogynistic narcissist. And alleging they lied and cheated. It only takes one person to recognise the situation and screen shot these messages.

Not sure why you think posting about the case online will mean OP wouldn't have a leg to stand on in tribunal. It isn't relevant. If her boss was identifiable from this thread he may be able to sue her for libel, but that is a separate matter.

Please share that guidance then.

I would guess that THEY are belatedly trying to demonstrate that they followed the internal process to conclusion.

If your solicitor says it is safe to decline, maybe send a formal response that says “without prejudice, I will not accept the invitation to attend as it is my understanding that the date for concluding the grievance procedure has passed and this is no longer an internal process. “. But I would check any wording with your solicitor. Or ACAS.

But I would say this request demonstrates that they know they have fucked up.

If the potentially defamatory statement has been posted on social media by a former employee, you should write to the former employee demanding removal of the content and put them on notice of the causes of action that you have against them

These could include damages for breach of contract, or possibly an injunction, if the former employee’s contract of employment and/or any settlement agreement contain post-termination restrictions, such as clauses prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information or the making of derogatory comments

It's not going to stand her in good stead is it

I'm not going to share proprietary internal guidance but this an equivalent extract that a Google search provided that I think illustrates my point concerning employees raising grievances post-termination with an explanatory reference. I previously provided the ET case reference that is part and parcel of this situation.

I've not seen anything concerning the mirror situation in this case which is why I think it would be better to reply as I suggested rather than the OP stating they decline to attend. Hope this is helpful.

"This is because the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the legislation which allows for uplifts to be made for non-compliance with the Acas Code) expressly defines ‘employee’ to include someone who has left their employment – thus limiting the scope for employers to credibly maintain that they are not required to follow the Acas Code in respect of post-termination grievances."

fair enough, I will defer to your expertise. in my experience, organisation have grievance policies/procedures, and that includes a timeline. which, again ime, is a good thing because it keeps the process moving and makes sure a resolution is reached as soon as is possible

It makes zero difference to her claim against her ex-employer. And, as OP has not identified her ex-employer or said anything that would allow her ex-employer to be identified by anyone not familiar with her case, her ex-employer does not have any cause of action against her and nor does her ex-boss.

It's only defamation it's its untrue.

Thanks everyone. I've read each and every one of your emails. They are extremely helpful in this stressful situation.

@Zilla1 Thank you. I am going to reply along the lines of your suggestion and see what happens.

The ACAS code of practice and guidelines are useful reading https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures/html

https://www.acas.org.uk/disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures

companies don’t have to follow ACAS guidelines but it looks bad for them in a tribunal if they don’t without a very good reason.

Good luck.

I think caution and a second thought are always worth it when posting online, partly because even if nothing unlawful is being said, it could potentially give the other party a heads up as to your tactics etc.

But prh47bridge is a lawyer of many years sound support on MN so has credible knowledge.

I hope you het the correct result in the tribunal and take their sorry arses to the cleaners.

Please be careful about what you decide in the light of the advice given, because some of it displays a lack of legal knowledge, and some of it, e.g. the comments about “without prejudice”, is wrong. As someone has already said, you have a lawyer, you are entitled to argue with them about attending but you are paying them. If you don’t trust them, change your lawyer. The internet is a dangerous place for advice when you say that your job and your reputation are at stake.

You do not need to attend. You can attest, if applicable, that you have made every reasonable attempt to settle the matter but they a) fired you and b) have not entertained mediation attempts by ACAS.

This situation has resulted in endless stress for you, and as a result you are now seriously unwell, thus requiring medication. You are not in a fit state to engage in this meeting.

In all likelihood, they have realised they have messed up and are trying to back peddle. Do not help them back peddle. You don't have to. They are looking to fact find and gather information they could then use against you at tribunal. Do not let them do this. You can get a doctors note to say you are too unwell to attend if you have to.

If you should go, I suggest taking a brief statement with you. Perhaps just a list of events in chronological order, consisting of only things you have already told them. Do not offer them any new information. You can then read that statement and to any other questions give a blanket answer in line with 'no comment'. So for example 'this is not something I am prepared to answer at this time' or 'I am afraid I am not able to answer that question' or 'The advice of my counsel is that I do not engage further before the tribunal' etc etc.

Keep posting. We are here. You got this

@Theoscargoesto why is the Without Prejudice incorrect? I was definitely going to use this.

@Tootiredtosleep because 'without prejudice' doesn't mean anything on its own. For a communication or conversation to be without prejudice it needs to be agreed that it is so by both parties, it's not something that can be unilaterally imposed.

My advice (apart from getting legal representation) would be to email them asking if they would be open to a without prejudice discussion. If they agree then you could come to a settlement agreement, but this would have to be checked by your solicitor before being signed off. Note, without prejudice doesn't mean that the conversation is not recorded. It will still need to be documented, it just can't be used in legal proceedings should they occur.

On what grounds?

OP, you’re paying a solicitor. I’m not sure why you aren’t following it

Because she has been made to have mental health issues due to this employer's treatment of her, the person she'd have to have this grievance meeting with to investigate her complaints is the same person who has been bullying her and who the complaints are about! Do you think that's reasonable? I don't. The poster who said they're going to try to tie her in knots and bamboozle her into dropping the tribunal has it right IMO. I can't see this meeting going well for OP at all. If she was mentally sound maybe, but she isn't.

Thank you @recyclingisaPITA that is entirely correct.

The solicitor (paralegal) is advising me based on her knowledge of the law. She does not know my employer and how manipulative and self preserving he can be. He will do or say anything to get out of this. Given that he sacked me for something both he and I know isn't true,

They also take 5 days to get back to you, and when you have a time critical query, that's not ideal. Plus, she's been off sick, which has exasperated things. This is who my insurance company have passed my case to, so I am stuck with them, as I can't afford to pay myself.

She said her advice was to attend the meeting (again, she doesn't know my employer). However, it would not affect the claim already filed at tribunal and them representing me, if I didn't attend.

Given that I didn't even receive an acknowledgment to my main grievance in August, I think it's wholly unacceptable that they try to hear it now. They sacked me in October!

I haven’t read the full thread but don’t go alone 💐

In the U.K. there is a principle that documents, notes, emails etc that are relevant (support one side or the other, broadly) have to be produced to the court or tribunal and the other side. The exception is a document produced in a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute. That document/note of meeting or whatever is said to be produced “WP”. So your former employer emails and says, fed up with this, don’t accept liability, but I’ll offer you £2,000 to settle, for example. If the court knew, it might affect the judge’s view, so it’s kept between the parties (it may be relevant to costs at some stage). So whether something says “WP” or not, doesn’t matter: it’s about the intent. Some of the correspondence you are being invited to so label is not written in genuine attempt to resolve so, however it is labelled, it will be able to be referred to.