Does raising a grievance ever achieve anything positive for the employee

[Snowchoc]

My son has raised one against a bullying boss. Son has no protected characteristics, but (from the one sided version I've heard) the boss does seem awful. I've also seen text messages she's sent him, sometimes up to 30 a day on his day off. I don't expect he's been perfect, but her behaviour does seem odd.

Anyway my advice, which he ignored, was that HR work for the company, not the employees, and really the best thing he could do was look for another job if he couldn't work with her.

He was determined she should get her comeuppance and put together a detailed grievance. He followed the policy and did a good his of the letter IMO, although I obviously don't know for sure if it was factual.

They took 11 weeks to respond, well outside of their own process and the investigation seems to have consisted of asking her about the allegations which she's denied. He gave dates, times and witnesses but they haven't followed up on any of that.

He's been moved to another branch, with a much longer commute and whilst they suggested there might be some money to compensate, that hasn't been forthcoming.

He's currently applying for other jobs, but is the lesson that there's never anything to be gained from using the grievance policy?

I worked for a small Charity and ended up raising a grievance. It was a waste of time, I should have just handed in my notice and left straight away as it would have been impossible to carry on working there.
it was handled by trustees, the people involved stuck together so it was my word against theirs.

It's true that HR are there to support the company, but that isn't always the same as supporting the manager/more senior person. A quick turnover of staff in junior roles because of a bullying manager is a headache for the company and one they would (probably) rather avoid.

@Snowchoc how long service does your son have?

I think that he's started the ball rolling, he should follow it up. He needs to submit an appeal on the grounds that the investigation is flawed, as no witnesses were interviewed.

Re whether it's worthwhile taking a grievance, well it depends. If you have a strong enough case, then it should be upheld. I sat on one a few years ago where the employee's grievance was concerning a decision taken by an Assistant Director, and I together with another Assistant Director, upheld her grievance.

In over 30 years at work I have never seen HR be on the side of ethics. At best, they will help negotiate a beneficial exit (agreed reference, certain number of months payout) to get rid of the junior party without any further action.

Join a Union if you want your rights to matter.

HR is there for the company, and in 99% of cases that is to protect the senior person so the company is not liable.

Even if you join a Union, the best you can hope for is a better exit deal

Neriah · Today 04:53

Theoretically, she hasn't been. He has been moved elsewhere so that she can't. Whilst @adriftinadenofvipers is correct that it would usually be seen as "good practice" to separate the people involved, all too often that isn't good practice at all - it's the outcome, and it's usually the complainant who is moved which often makes it an actual punishment for complaining.

I do share your scepticism re moving one person. After one case where two staff had a physical fight, one of them was moved out. Yes, it separated them. Would I do that again? No, because it suggested the one who was moved was 'more guilty' and that wasn't the case. Since then I recommend moving both, if possible.

I imagine here it would be more problematic to also move the manager.

The fact that they haven't bothered their backsides to investigate properly doesn't fill me with any confidence.

PrincessWildernessOfWherever · Today 20:58

In over 30 years at work I have never seen HR be on the side of ethics. At best, they will help negotiate a beneficial exit (agreed reference, certain number of months payout) to get rid of the junior party without any further action.

Join a Union if you want your rights to matter.

HR is there for the company, and in 99% of cases that is to protect the senior person so the company is not liable.

Even if you join a Union, the best you can hope for is a better exit deal

I find statements like this personally insulting. My integrity matters hugely to me, and I am always fair and impartial in what I do. I work in the public sector - there are no 'exit deals'.

I have a good working relationship with many union reps and have always found that, where HR and the union work together, you get a better outcome. Unions aren't the enemy of HR or vice versa! Both parties want the best outcome they can get. Working collaboratively means that the union can speak to their member and explain how they might need to do something differently. It's the combative union reps who achieve the poorest results. Thankfully there are fewer of the 'old style' reps now!

It's not whether 7 witnesses "stated bullying" that's the measure, it's whether the alleged behaviours constitute a breach of xx policy standard.

You are wrong. Harassment at work is a very specific thing and relates solely to behaviours relating to protected characteristics.

Speaking as a public sector union rep who fights for my members rights, there are loads of "exit deals" done in the public sector. Most often for the higher paid, but yes, also to just get rid of problem. I'm sorry if the fact that I fight for my members inconveniences you, but I find - as do my peers - that it gets the best results. But then, what HR think of as a good result is often not what we think. HR aren't our enemy, no. But we never make the mistake if thinking they are on the same side as us either. They are employed to represent the best interests of the employer.

I'm well aware that he may have brought much of this on himself

businesses nowadays have a difficult enough time of it and have little inclination to support an employee who to your description "bought it on himself".

To my earlier point, there are two sides to every story.

The best favour you can do for your son is help him to do a self-audit on how he can address aspects of his conduct that might have been causing the tensions and friction with his management. It may be too late for this employment, but at least he will learn for the future. We all make mistakes through our career, it's those who become self aware about what they can do better that will thrive.

im not excusing the manager's behaviour, but it's naive to think that an employer will always 100% adhere to the letter of policy which tends to be vague and unspecific. They'll stay just this side of the law. Contrary to popular belief, bullying (ie not associated with a protected characteristic) doesn't breach employment law, so it's difficult to pin down and call out successfully.

Locking horns isn't the answer, your DS probably shouldn't have heeded the advice of the manager, they could have been winding him up to set him up to fail, if they wanted to see the back of him.

Neriah · 16/02/2024 06:05

adriftinadenofvipers · 15/02/2024 21:06

Speaking as a public sector union rep who fights for my members rights, there are loads of "exit deals" done in the public sector. Most often for the higher paid, but yes, also to just get rid of problem. I'm sorry if the fact that I fight for my members inconveniences you, but I find - as do my peers - that it gets the best results. But then, what HR think of as a good result is often not what we think. HR aren't our enemy, no. But we never make the mistake if thinking they are on the same side as us either. They are employed to represent the best interests of the employer.

I am not senior enough to be privy to any 'exit deals' done within my organisation. I'm not aware though of many situations where any such deal could have applied. I've seen plenty of people get massive promotions way beyond their level of competence though, with no qualification required!

The fact that you "fight for your members" does not "inconvenience" me in the least. You sound like the old fashioned type of union rep who is bolshy just for the hell of it.

Luckily some of our union reps are more modern and enlightened and prepared to work with us rather than against us. It's not in anyone's interest to have a disgruntled and unhappy employee.

And yes, we are employed to "represent the best interests of the employer" but has it ever occurred to you that this also involves the "best interests of the employee" by making sure that employees are treated fairly, equitably and within the law?!

When I find an employer who think that employees should be treated fairly, equitably and within the law, I'll let you know. Until then I'll fight for my members. It's what they pay us to do. Maybe that isn't "modern" enough for you, but it's the right thing to do.

Horrible victim blaming. Employees are usually forced to give their personal mobile when applying for the job.

There's no point talking like this to bullies.

I think your son was very brave to make the complaint.
He thinks the workplace should be better and made steps to make it so.
HR work for the employer. They want everything nice and calm and will rarely sort stuff out.
He deserves better - he is right to look for a new job and shine somewhere else.

Also be aware of staff surveys - my advice is to never fail them in.

No it isn't victim blaming. Try reading all my posts, not just one, and read them in context.

Nobody can force you use a personal phone for work purposes. There's a handy feature called number blocking.

In a playground maybe not, but in a professional setting it is absolutely the way you speak to other employees. Courteously and factually. The worst thing you can do is lower yourself to their level, that instantly puts a person in a weaker position.

I agree with this. Worked in the public sector all my life and exit deals are definitely a thing for the most senior managers/ Directors.
In addition, managers who are incompetent are untouched but simply dealt with by being made redundant at the next restructuring and given massive packages. It’s a disgrace, both in terms of misuse of public funds and also in terms of the staff who are left suffering under an incompetent manager for years till the next suitable restructuring. All because managers don’t want the discomfort of addressing the performance of one of their own.

Furthermore, I notice that HR employee you mentioned said she is not on the side of the employer yet says she works with unions to get them to address the employee’s behaviour which rather makes it sound like she lays the problem with the complainant.

I had a similar experience to your son, OP. But within twelve months two other people had made similar complaints and the manager in question was demoted.
If noone complains, bad managers get away with it. If one person complains, she's seen as the problem by the company. But as soon as more than one complaint is received the manager becomes the bigger problem for the company and something will be done.
So I think your son did the right thing.