Grievance/HR

[Drcoldhands]

I raised a grievance back at the start of September due to bullying, and the person I raised it against promptly raised one back again. The firm's HR department went into meltdown because they couldn't cope with dealing with it (small firm), and the result was after nothing happening for a very long time they brought an external company in to do it.

Last week I had my meeting with them. It went as well as I could expect. They listened, they didn't comment, I handed over what evidence I had, which wasn't much, and a couple of witness statements. It seemed professional, which is as good as it's going to get. I suspect the other person will say similar though.

After I got out I remembered that although I had mentioned that I had three other people that were willing to witness specific instances, I hadn't given their names nor contact details. They were all keep to talk rather than write down, and I had been told that they would do that.
The firm had said to contact them if there was anything else so I emailed them the names and email addresses (with their permission). I got this rather rigid response stating that they didn't have to take witness statements unless they deemed it necessary and the witnesses were reputable.

I kind of felt this was a bit odd because surely they can't tell if the witnesses are reputable unless they speak to them.
If they haven't spoken to the witnesses then they surely can't discount what I said because there's no evidence, because they won't have looked at the evidence?

I'm hoping if any HR/people who have been through a grievance know if this is a standard response, to explain if they don't feel it necessary to talk to them, rather than a statement that they have no intention of doing so.

(Even better if it means that they've decided I'm right without talking to the witnesses, but I think that's too much to hope for as I know at least one person who would be quite happy to lie through their teeth for the other person)

Thanks.

I think it sounds like they think you’ve asked your mates, or you phrased it in such a way that you were instructing them, rather than saying if you wish.

I put it something along the lines of "I forgot to give the names of the people who are willing to do witness statements. They are...."

Two of them are named as witnesses to specific events in my original grievance, so if anything might have expected them to ask to speak to them anyway. Our firm is small enough it would be hard to find someone who wouldn't count as a "mate" iyswim.

So were they actually saying that they wouldn’t be taking statements from the witnesses? Or just stating that they weren’t obliged to?

It might help to have a bit more context about the grievance to assess whether this is reasonable, but in general I would suggest waiting for the investigation to be complete before assessing whether their process was reasonable.

@AchillesHeelys saying they didn't need to, rather than wouldn't. I was hoping it was a kind of standard disclaimer if that makes sense.

Grievance is over 3 years worth of bullying by two people, often working together to make me look bad or spoil what I'm doing, combined with petty actions and refusing to speak to me. One of the witnesses is saying how they'll come into a room and say hello by name to everyone except me for example, or showing someone round introduce all except me.
However if there's Senior management around they go all sweet and speak to me.
.

I think best practice would suggest that they interview your witnesses. If they don’t and you escalate to a tribunal then they would have to explain why they refused to follow the process and that could ultimately go in your favour depending on other factors.

That’s what I’m wondering, is it just a standard disclaimer. They would need to have a pretty strong rationale for not interviewing your witnesses, I think you probably need to let the process play out first and if it doesn’t go in your favour then that could be grounds for appeal.

This is difficult, because they are accusing you of bullying them, so have justifation for not greeting you although not with visitors. Do you habe evidence of how they made you look bad or spoil what you were doing?

They aren't accusing me of bullying, it's me accusing them. They're accusing me of not doing what they want and stalking them on the CCTV.
I have no worries on that because I can prove against all I apparently didn't do and the CCTV only covers two rooms and the main area and she never goes in those rooms.

I think it is a standard response. They might think that by going back to give them the witnesses details, you are expecting them to contact them.

They are telling you that they might or might not and the reasons why. It's a generic response so that your expectations are not raised.

I’m so confused, so you wrote “raised a grievance back at the start of September due to bullying, and the person I raised it against promptly raised one back again*

you can’t raise a grievance for someone not doing what you want. I guess you can about stalking on cctv. But how do you stalk someone on cctv?

@Frasers
Their grievance against me was revenge. The issues raised varied between easily disproved, nothing to do with me and none of their business if I had done it. (which I hadn't)

My grievance was bullying, theirs wasn't, sorry I didn't make it clear.

They're claiming I stalk them on CCTV because the CCTV screen is in the main office where I (and others) work, and because if they set the alarm, which they don't, then I (and others) could tell if we looked on the alarm system.
The CCTV covers the main area and two rooms m, which they would be in rarely
I don't have access to CCTV when I'm out of the office, nor does anyone else.

I hope that's clearer

Sounds like this is a slam dunk op. I’d not be concerned, you’ve given the witness, I’d just sit back and let it play out now.

Thanks all. I chatted with the person who's been supporting me and roughly that's what he said (I sent the email over to him so he's seen what was actually written).
I've just got everything crossed that they have genuinely gone in as neutral and aren't basically been told to pretend they are but support the other person. I don't think that's the case, but that's my back of the mind worry, because the line managers always have supported me in meetings we've had, just come out and back tracked every time.

I think if it just is brought out into the open with it being acknowledging that she is being a bully then that will make a lot of difference to me - and probably to them because they are a lot about their image.
Cross fingers and all that!

Interested to know how you get on OP.

If your grievance is upheld, you may get asked (if you haven’t already) what you are hoping to happen as a result. This would be good for you reflect on whilst you wait. Not that they are compelled to do as you say, but it’s good for you to be clear on what you think is appropriate action.

Currently nervously waiting and reading far too much into people's expressions, even if they have nothing to do with it.
Wondering if I hear first is that a bad sign, or might they be told first, and what that means. Or will they tell us both together? Yes, I'm an overthinker.

Do they tell the person who hasn't got what they want and then the other? Or do they tell the person who's "won" and swear them to secrecy? Agh!

I have already said what I'd like to see, as they asked in the meeting. I was warned beforehand that "shot at dawn" was not an option and tended to go down badly if suggested. So I didn't. 😜
I think they're also meant to be recommending how to move forward, so they may have ideas that we don't. As long as they don't suggest team building exercises. 😁

how did this end up going op?