Any HR professionals/ Employment lawyers

[charlotteshouse2008]

Hi there, I hope that the collective experience of Mumsnet might be able to advise me on this.

During a first grievance meeting, is it allowed for an employer to ask a very senior and very heavyweight external HR consultant to attend the meeting (under the guise of note taking). It seems that the employer then has the benefit of a senior and trained HR professional to witness the entire meeting and the provide them with subsequent specialist advice, whereas the employee only has the benefit of an inexpert colleague (not part of a trade union so cannot have a rep attend).

Should I be querying their choice of 'note taker' by suggesting it is potentially unfair and prejudicial bearing in mind her expertise beyond note taking.

Any advice gratefully accepted! Thanks

Well yes. Plenty of employers have very senior heavy weight internal HR provision anyway. The fact that the person in question happens to be external doesn't make it 'worse'.

I would probably be considered reasonably 'heavy weight' and attend hearings loads (or used to, and still do sometimes). Where I don't physically attend, I frequently advise before and after.

The employer will have access to good quality advice, whether the person attends the meeting or not - I'm not sure I see why them being in the meeting rather than advising the employer before and after would be any 'worse'?

The employer having good quality HR advice when conducting a hearing is frequently beneficial to the employee, as it means a fair process should be conducted. Often procedural issues in disciplinary procedures (or similar) occur because of the ignorance/inexperience of the manager conducting the hearing.

It essentially depends on what it says in your company policy. If it says who can and can't attend they should follow that.

Have you raised your concerns regarding this?

I had an external HR person in my grievance hearing. This was after I pointed out that my grievance included the behaviours of internal HR.

Having an external HR person should make things more fair, so I'm told, and also impartial, although in my case I'm rather skeptical as she's still getting paid by my employer.

No outcome yet in my case.

anyway, to answer your question, yes they can do this.

"Having an external HR person should make things more fair, so I'm told, and also impartial, although in my case I'm rather skeptical as she's still getting paid by my employer."

This is one of the reasons I (and our other consultants) sometimes do hearings. Although we are clearly being paid by the employer, we do have more independence than an internal HR person just purely because we have limited prior knowledge, not the same preconceived ideas or impressions, and are hearing things 'fresh'.

It really should be no more something to be concerned about than if an internal HR person attended, which is obviously very common, and could even be more beneficial.

Thanks all! That is all excellent advice and yes, you do raise good points about the impartiality of an external person.

Janebond007 - best of luck with your outcome!

A note taker is only there to take notes so their job title doesn’t mean anything really. They aren’t entitled to participate and make decisions.

It would be different if they were attending to advise on procedure as they might have a more active role but as PPs have said, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing!

I can’t imagine they will be there purely to take notes- if there is a query about procedure they will deal with it, and will observe procedure as well.

This is absolutely normal and fine. Managers are entitled to specialist advice as they are the ones defending any potential claim.

If you want specialist advice and support in a grievance meeting, join a union!