Malicious grievance against me

[DandelionPockets]

Hi all - looking for advice or solidarity because I'm really being put through it atm.

I manage a team of 5 in the transport industry, I've done this job for 6 years with a break in the middle for mat-leave. When I returned from mat-leave they had hired a new person. She has been a consistently poor performer (never answering emails or messages, never updating the internal database, ignoring supplier calls, asking other people to do her work. Some days it seems like she does about 30minutes of work all day. Constant escalations to me from colleagues because her not doing work has led to them not being able to do their jobs).

The person has protected characteristics and along with HR we documented reasonable adjustments we would make and I support these. I also document our 1:1s on email and give consistent feedback on expectations and performance. I ask her about each of those things she hasn't done in the 1:1s and ask her to do them by the next week's 1:1 and sometimes they are not done even after that.

So after 3 months of this I spoke with HR and my line manager to say we need to do a capability review, everyone agrees. We do the capability review and the outcome is a PIP with clear objectives. No formal warning as advised by our lawyers. She has 6 weeks to show she has improved before the next review. She brings a union rep who is extremely argumentative during the meeting, but myself and the HR manager do well.

After the capability hearing there is a flurry of emails from the employee to the Head of HR. One is a grievance against the HR manager, one is a grievance against me, a whole new list of adjustments they require (some are very very unreasonable). Quite stressful for me but I'm assured by HR and my line manager i've followed process perfectly and been a supportive line manager. All I know is that the grievance states that I have not been supportive of their protected characteristics and harassing them as I have not cancelled our scheduled 1:1 for next week and have been unfair in not giving more of a chance to improve outside of a formal process.

My manager and Head of HR are meeting with the employee next week to talk about the grievance against me as per the policy which I know means they need to treat it seriously even though it does make me feel uneasy as I've never ever had a direct report complain about me before.

So my questions are:

1. I should ask for details of the grievance and the minutes from the meeting where she outlines her complaint and evidence?
2. The grievance is likely to not be upheld as I haven't done anything wrong and it's a direct ploy to stop the formal PIP. Should I send a counter grievance following the outcome to say it was malicious?
3. Should I make sure to have a formal meeting with HR and my line manager to give my evidence/side of things. Should I start gathering evidence and witness statements myself?

I just want to make sure that I'm not being ridiculous but also standing up for myself with all this.

Thank you

I worked in HR for years and agree with a PP. Usually when you put someone on performance review, they either file a grievance in an attempt to make you back off or they go off sick. It is very stressful for you but she'll be gone soon.

@weegielass thank you for your points.

The adjustments she originally put forward were all accepted, none denied. They are easy to ensure consistency against, but you're right she may feel at times that's not the case but has not made me aware. The new set of adjustments are on the whole not reasonable as it means she can't fulfil her role if they were accepted. But we'll have a meeting about them I suppose and talk through options and what we can do to support.

I have had training at work on protected characteristics and the usual sort of HR stuff. I've managed someone before with ADHD and at that time I did my own reading on how to ensure they feel supported - there hasn't been a independent training for any managers on this. I think I do pretty well in treating each person individually rather than assuming all people with the same disability need the same things.

Appreciate the process may be long, luckily I've got a supportive manager who will have to take some of the burden too.

I hope you found a better working environment in the end.

Even if it is ADHD, one wonders how ADHD person is put to work with records which require constant updating and other tasks like that

you still haven't said what new adjustmens she's asked for - why not? and why aren't they reasonable? Also changing jobs/role, even to something at a higher level, can be a reasonable adjustment - see Archibald v Fife Council - have you considered that before putting her on a pip and seeking to manage her out? Is she asking to work from home? That can be a reasonable adjustment, and harder to refuse if people doing that job worked from home during covid.

You're on shaky ground if you haven't considered absolutely every avenue. I'm really intrigued by your side stepping of my question on WHY it isn't reasonable. You say she wouldn't be able to do her job if you do these adjustments but not why. It still comes across very much as your own (non legal) perception.

Do you have reasomable adjustment passports? Did the employee have one? How often was it reviewed / updated? Is there a reasonable adjsutment policy - separate and distinct from a generic E&D policy? Has this policy (and the EDI policy) been updated within the last 3 years. Do you record disability related absence separately from sickness and annual leave? Is it fully paid or is she at a disadvantage/unfairly discriminated for being off for disability related reasons?

These are the things that contributed to me winning ny own case as the answers were no. Obviously my case is different, but I'd really encourage you to look at where you and the organisation have fallen short. I may appear harsh but I'm actually trying to make you see where your defence could potentially be weak, so you can prepare, I have HR and TU background, as well as a workplace mediator so I try to get people to see the opposite side as well.

PS Was an Access to Work application and assessment made? If not, why not? I have supported, and worked with, those who have ADHD who had time management / task management software thirough ATW and ADHD coaching to help them learn workplace strategies. Once again, I'm trying to pinpoint where your defense is weak. If I'm getting your back up - good - it means I'm hitting a nerve and you did miss out some of these things!

@weegielass I just don't want to give too many details on here is all. Effectively the reasonable adjustments would mean the things she needs to do for her role would have to be done by someone else. I have already asked HR if we can look at whether she'd be suitable for other roles but I'm waiting their feedback on that one.

Thanks for your input, it is helpful to see how things could be picked apart! On a lot of it I would have to defer to HR as I tend to follow their advice.

I feel for you OP and however hard it is, it is clear that you have been fair throughout and followed policy.
I hope you are receiving support from your line manager.
This will pass.
Please take care of yourself

@weegielass would an onus be on the employee to be telling you the current support and adjustments were not enough btw for the things you mention? As her manager I asked if everyone was sufficient and she said yes, but ultimately her performance remains extremely poor. Or would you expect the line manager ager to say, I don't believe you that it's sufficient as your work has not improved so we're going to make our own adjustments and see if that works. Always seemed like HR wanted the employee to lead those things rather than impose things.

I work for the railway and a colleague took the company to an employment tribunal because they hadn’t applied reasonable adjustments correctly.

His role was working trackside, often when the juice was still on.
It’s bloody dangerous.
We regularly still have people die because they’ve been hit by a train.

He had developed a hearing problem and wore a hearing aid. So far, so good.
Every year or so, his cohort has to have a medical, which includes a hearing test.
He couldn’t hear the correct decibel level without his hearing aid.
He took 8 tests, all with the same results.
His role is absolutely safety critical, which includes his own safety.

They offered him a different position, on the same salary, etc, but he hated it, and ultimately left the company.

I felt sorry for him, but he simply couldn’t perform that part of his job without his hearing aid.

Happy to share some advice on this.

It's common for an employee to say everything is fine, but that doesn't always mean the adjustments are working perfectly. this can happen for a few reasons:

1. they don't know what they can ask for. they might be unaware of better options available, or maybe their union has only recently highlighted new things they could consider hence the new adjustments.
2. they don't want to cause a fuss or 'rock the boat' by asking for more.

Another key factor is that the adjustment itself might be acceptable, but the way it's consistently applied in day-to-day practice is failing. for instance, the formal adjustment (like captions on videos) may be perfectly fine, but sometimes a new video is created where the captions are forgotten, and the employee has to remind them. it's these operational failures—where the adjustment exists but isn't consistently executed—that leave an employee unsupported.

Under the equality act 2010, employers have a continuous legal responsibility to review and make 'reasonable adjustments.' this isn't a one-off chat; it needs to be ongoing. A truly supportive manager should:

1. work together, not dictate: they should start with open questions like, "how are the current adjustments working in practice?" or "i'm worried this support isn’t quite enough; what changes would you suggest?"
2. run dedicated check-ups: these reviews should be private, separate meetings (not just a five-minute add-on to a normal 1:1), and happen regularly—at least every six months, or sooner if things change.
3. mention resources: if an adjustment seems expensive or complicated, the manager should encourage the employee to look into access to work (a2w). this uk government scheme can help fund (in full or in part) things like staff awareness training, support workers, specialist software, counsellijng, coaching or travel costs. the employee applies themselves. I suggest you google Access to Work and ADHD coaching for information.
4. write it down: everything agreed should be formally recorded, ideally in a reasonable adjustment passport. this helps keep things consistent even if the manager or the employee’s role changes.

if the employee and manager genuinely can't agree on a specific adjustment, the sensible next step is to refer to occupational health (oh) for impartial, professional advice.

the equality act doesn't give a simple definition of "reasonable." it depends on factors like the company's size, its resources, how much the adjustment costs, and whether it will actually solve the problem. What is reasonable for coca cola won't be reasonable for your local corner shop but equally the corner shop shouldn't do nothing - most adjustments are simple and free, eg turning down a radio to reduce noise or closing a window to make a room warmer.

while the employer decides what is initially reasonable, if there’s a serious disagreement, an employment tribunal is the final authority. they would look at the facts and decide if the employer did enough to meet their legal responsibility.

@ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews is this the case? I've heard of it before as I'm also deaf (and my own work requires me to keep abreast of tribunal cases).

Mr A Knowles v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd).

"Mr Knowles, who had moderate hearing loss, failed a mandatory hearing test without his hearing aids, which was a requirement for his role. He was subsequently transferred to a lower-satisfaction role. The tribunal found that Network Rail had applied practices that put him at a disadvantage and should have considered the reasonable adjustment of allowing him to take the test with his hearing aids (which he would have passed), or adjusted their policy to permit trackside work if the standard could be met with aids."

@weegielass thank you for that, appreciate you spending time on replying. It's helped me to see I have been supportive and feel better about my position in all of this.

I had years of being targeted by multiple grievances by a pathetic man.

My advice is to trust the process. You’ve done nothing wrong.

I wouldn’t issue a counter grievance. This person unfortunately has a right to raise her concerns and they will hopefully not be upheld. The counter grievance will serve to do what? It won’t be upheld, it will be re acknowledged that you shouldn’t have had the grievance brought against you. It’s additional stress you don’t need.

Your situation is not fun and I’m so sorry for you. You will get through and be a better manager for it.

That’s the one. Yep.

I can't advice on process, but I have managed a variety of staff before, including underperforming and hostile.

Don't take her grievance as a personal hit - it's not about you, but diverting blame to protect herself. Ime with staff like this, if she doesn't get the PIP removed & you all silenced, she'll leave. She's hoping to make you all do her job for her, out of fear of a grievance & leave her alone.

I'm expecting a similar grievance at work shortly, although a same level colleague. I've been there a year & just granted WFH when needed (bosses hate it). She will never get it, despite being there 15 years. Difference is I've proved I work & she doesn't. I'll still be targeted using a grievance, as it's all they have to use. Just just keep doing what you're doing, you'll be fine & she'll likely leave.

Why on earth would you promote her to a better job when she has shown she can’t do this one well? That makes no sense.

archibald v fife council - they could potentially do another job, including one at a higher level if that's what's available.

Hello, I have been through a similar experience and was very stressed by it. Take comfort that most grievances are not upheld. Prepare for the meetings and get screengrabs of everything. Map out your timelines of events. I was not allowed to see the actual complaint ever, which sort of drove my even crazier. However in the end the case was closed with no further action. I didn't pursue a malicious grievance complaint in retaliation as the person moved on, however their complaint was entirely vindictive and this was someone I had helped a lot. A robust process should show them for what they are. If you want to chat more directly drop me a PM. You'll be fine.

Please don't panic. I know the process is frustrating but it's it's one step at a time, and HR needs to make sure all the t's are crossed and it's dotted to minimise risk.

People go two ways on a PIP. Accept there are issues, take up the agreed support/training etc, crack on and successfully pass the PIP.

Or...know that essentially they aren't capable of the job but feel they should be allowed to continue to underperform, so clutch at straws to derail the process by going off with stress, inventing grievances, accusing their manager of all sorts, demanding unreasonable adjustments. It doesn't work. In fact it usually damages their case as when it gets to a capability hearing it's all so so obvious...

Sometimes I think union reps give their members very poor advice that's counter productive for the employee.

@Loloblue sorry you had to go through this too. From the hours of reading I've now done on the process, I thought they have to go you details of the grievance if you ask for it? And I have also started a VERY detailed timeline with screenshots.

@Redflagsabounded thank you. Interesting what you say about the union rep giving poor advice because I have thought that in this instance as it's just all attack e.g. sending in escalations of emails not being answered by HR within a couple of hours. But then I now assume they have just decided to do whatever they can to get a good offer on £ to leave.

I was told I would only be able to see the original complaint if it progressed to a hearing and it didn't. I expect there was a lot of stuff in there that would have inflamed the situation. I was also surprised as I assumed I'd be able to see it and had googled the same as you. It seemed really unfair to have someone say whatever they wanted and not be able to read directly. However now it's over with I feel fairly ambivalent - it may have been better for me not to get even more worked up! I'm really sorry you're dealing with this. Don't expect it to be fast either. They draw this stuff out to cool it off (well they did with mine). X

Completely agree

Are things like ticking stuff off something that an employer should be expected to suggest/implement, or something an employee should be expected to know about/find out about and implement themselves?

Its true that grievances are rarely upheld, or maybe only the 'minor' elements will be upheld. The system is skewed because companies face a dilemma:

1. If they uphold the grievance, they are effectively admitting fault. This immediately exposes the organisation to legal risk, creating an easy path for the employee to secure compensation or win a case at Tribunal. A company will almost always try to avoid making this admission.
2. If they don't uphold the grievance, their hope is to discourage the employee. By getting a formal internal dismissal, the employee may be led to believe their case lacks merit, making them feel like they won't win and deterring them from taking the matter further to Tribunal.

Therefore, if the internal grievance is not upheld, it does not mean the employee's claims are untrue, that they are making it up etc. It simply shows the organisation is protecting its financial and legal position.

This is where the PIP becomes crucial. For a disabled employee with ADHD who has already raised a grievance and requested additional reasonable adjustments, any subsequent dismissal or failure under the PIP would look highly suspicious. The employee's strategy is likely to claim victimisation (retaliation for raising a protected complaint) if the PIP results in a negative outcome. This is a very strong legal angle designed to challenge the PIP and secure the necessary adjustments. Refusing the adjustments could lead also to a claim of 'failure to make reasonable adjustments'.

On top of all that, if the company then offers a large settlement to make the employee go away, they have to be incredibly careful. If that offer comes across as, "We'd rather pay you off than meet our legal obligation to provide you with those reasonable adjustments," that in itself could be seen as an act of discrimination or victimisation, giving the employee another very strong angle for a Tribunal claim. Essentially, the company is playing legal risk chess.

Its very easy to say 'oh she doesn't have a case, she's being malicious etc' but hopefully you can again see where your position could be the weaker one.

I think it depends on the person and your relationship with them. Some people are fine with accepting suggestions, others would prefer to do their own research after being pointed to a resource for example.

If you have a lot of experience of using organisational tips for yourself or experience of things that help people with ADHD, and are in a relationship with the staff member where you could offer coaching, I would always offer and ask them to try it and see what works for them.

I think in general, in my experience, some disabled people are unsure what would help, or what they can ask for, and are surprised with what someone else could think of that might genuinely help.