Employer HR sabotaging my grievance

glentoran99

SaveSomeMore wrote: »

I raised a quite high profile grievance against my employer (which would shame them quite badly and cost them a hell of a lot in money to rectify as it actually affects many employees, not just myself). My union is appalled and on my side but my employer stubbornly rejects any wrongdoing.

I had an initial hearing which was rejected without any defence or evidence of investigation being provided (just a sparse and poor "we disagree, appeal if you want") and I have circumstantial evidence suggesting HR have been deliberately trying to scupper my grievance and appeal (causing unnecessary delays, hiring complete novice/inexperienced hearing managers/staff, deliberately playing ignorant claiming not to understand what I ask, breaching official grievance policy with timescales, bending the rules with their own HR policy, making threatening statements about their "vast" legal team to put me off etc).

I'm at a loss what to do really. I cannot afford solicitors or a tribunal, and it is clear to me I'm not going to get a fair and impartial appeal hearing. Plus because of them causing delays and this going on for more than a year now my chances of even getting a tribunal or claiming constructive dismissal are slimmer. Plus I'd be scared of consequences in bringing a tribunal (as it would definitely go public), being marked out as a traitor or difficult (to my current or future employers).

What they are doing is unquestionably wrong, and most probably illegal (I'v done the research and at best they are being very flexible with the law) but as they are such a big company I feel powerless. The problem is as my grievance is largely about HR practice/decisioning, and as HR handle all grievances, how can I trust impartiality? I can hardly raise another grievance against their work!

For closure even if not for resolution (I don't even care about the money now, even though it is thousands at stake, it is the principle that angers me), I'm considering writing a letter just outlining my situation to one of the executive board to bypass HR, as he has some knowledge of me due to good work that I have gone the extra mile on which has got me locally recognised (all in spite of my grievance going on in the background!). Could this get me in big trouble though? The company "claim" to have a strong ethics commitment, surely worst case scenario I could argue I was just under the mistaken belief I was doing the right thing for the business (making it more ethical/suggesting improvements)?

what are you paying your union for, that should be covered!

FBaby

You seem to be going around circles though. Either you want to expose them for illegal/dodgy practice, in which case, you need to accept that you might need to take things either up or public (do they have a whistle blowing policy?) or you accept that you are going nowhere with your grievance.

What did you actually asked as a matter of resolution of your grievance? Ultimately, raising a grievance only means that they will consider your claim and whether as a result they are prepared to give you what you ask for.

sangie595

glentoran99 wrote: »

what are you paying your union for, that should be covered!

And it is - if there is a case. But if there isn't a case, or, as I said earlier, a complainant (the OP seems to not wish to take the tribunal route) then the union have nothing. It is easy for something to be "wrong" but not unlawful.

glentoran99

he has said the union are supporting him, and reason for no solicitor or tribunal is he/she cant afford, should have to pay anything

sangie595

glentoran99 wrote: »

he has said the union are supporting him, and reason for no solicitor or tribunal is he/she cant afford, should have to pay anything

Supporting a grievance is not the same thing as having a legal case either. Unions support lots of grievances but they are not always about employers acting outside the law - often they are nothing to do with that. And he has also said that he is reluctant to take it to a tribunal anyway. The OP also put the phrase in a context - they cannot afford the costs AND they are unlikely to get a fair appeal hearing. A tribunal is not interested in whether you get a fair grievance hearing or appeal. Getting a fair hearing isn't a legal right. The issue is whether there is merit in the subject of the grievance. We cannot criticise a union for not providing legal representation when we have absolutely no idea whether it has been asked for or even what the case might be. The OP seems quite conflicted in what they want - they both want a solution and they also want to not rock the boat. Both things are not possible.

daytona0

Can it really be that big an issue as to warrant YOU, and none of the other employees it allegedly affects I might add, to take the whole company on?

I just don't understand why you are so passionate about this when:

1. You aren't even 100% sure ("'I've done the research and at best they are being very flexible with the law")

2. You are biting the hand which feeds you

SeduLOUs

glentoran99 wrote: »

he has said the union are supporting him, and reason for no solicitor or tribunal is he/she cant afford, should have to pay anything

Membership of a union would normally cover your legal fees, provide you with a solicitor, and pay for any issue/hearing fees at a tribunal IF the union supports your action.

SaveSomeMore_2

Thanks for your responses. I think I'll have to drop it and find employment elsewhere.

You are right I am very conflicted on this. Whilst I do want "justice", I'd be scared of the outcomes of a tribunal, and now constructive dismissal claims are limited to one years salary max (pennies for my employer) I'd be scared of the risk (for my future) of rocking the boat that much.

Nebulous2 wrote: »

What has HR put in writing about your grievance?

The outcome letter actually stated that they had decided not to investigate certain points at all (with no reasoning provided), and that they disagreed with all others (again no reasoning provided). It was not a full outcome at all. No rational, no defence, nothing.

sangie595 wrote: »

And it is - if there is a case. But if there isn't a case, or, as I said earlier, a complainant (the OP seems to not wish to take the tribunal route) then the union have nothing. It is easy for something to be "wrong" but not unlawful.

My union's legal team are also of the belief that this is illegal practice.

One of the problems though is recent tribunals and case law in this area have showed tribunals siding with employers, by going for very unusual interpretations of the employment law (i.e. choosing to go completely against the ethos of the legislation effectively rendering it without any validity - a recent example rendering an entire employee right outlined quite clearly in legislation as non-existent and providing no benefit to the employee). This has received criticism from the legal community, but it is what it is. As such I'd question my chances of success against the ET.

sangie595

SeduLOUs wrote: »

Membership of a union would normally cover your legal fees, provide you with a solicitor, and pay for any issue/hearing fees at a tribunal IF the union supports your action.

Sorry, but no it wouldn't. Unions only pay for such things if it meets their threshold of probability of winning - if they supported every case a member wants to take, credible or not as a case, they would be bankrupt within months.

But the OP has answered the points - the union lawyers do not think they will win a legal case even though they are not convinced the practice (whatever it is) is lawful, and the OP is not willing to make a claim anyway. Without a claimant it will be rather difficult to construct any case at all - whilst unions will and do take test cases (which have a lower probability of winning but the risk is balanced by the principle) they would have to be miracle workers to take a claim without a claimant. And I have to agree with one poster - if this affects so many people, and is worth a lot of money, surely the union must have another member who is willing to make a claim? If something impacts on so many workers, it seems odd that absolutely nobody is willing to fight for their money. It's usually the thing most people are willing to fight for. Justice isn't worth anything, but cash is.

patman99

Make sure that you keep a copy of all your evidence at home and when you do leave, send copies to the relevent authorities and the media.

If your employer is doing stuff that 'bends the Law' then they need to be independently audited to see what goes and then, if neccessary, punished.