What Constitutes Grievances?

In Ward v University of Essex, the Employment Appeal Tribunal gave further guideline on what constitutes grievances.

The Facts

Dr A Ward, a lecturer, was requested to attend a disciplinary hearing by the university. On 4 September 2006, she wrote a lengthy reply to the letter calling her to the hearing. At the end of this letter she stated that she would be interested in discussing a settlement package as she had other opportunities that she wished to pursue. Agreement was reached and a compromise agreement was entered into. Her employment ended on 30 September 2006. After the compromise agreement was signed, Dr Ward wrote another letter to the University, dated 13 October 2006, expressing concern that she believed she was being bad-mouthed and threatening to bring libel claims. She referred specifically to the obligations of confidentiality in the compromise agreement, which she believed were not being adhered to. The compromise agreement was held to be invalid. Dr Ward was therefore free to bring a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, provided she had satisfied the requirement to raise a grievance and allowed 28 days to elapse. The issue was whether she had raised a grievance and whether either or both of the 4 September and 13 October letters constituted a ‘grievance’ within the statutory grievance procedures (s32(6) of the Employment Act 2002). The Employment Tribunal held that she had not submitted a ‘grievance’ and therefore was not able to bring her claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed for the following reasons.

4 SEPTEMBER LETTER Dr Ward’s 4 September letter was written in response to her being called to a disciplinary hearing did not prevent it from being a grievance letter. The substance, rather than the particular form, would decide whether a grievance is raised. The 4 September letter suggested reaching a financial settlement did not mean that it ‘lost its potency’ as a grievance. If settlement could not be reached it would still stand as a grievance. In this case, the compromise agreement was held to be void. It was as though no settlement had been reached, the grievance aspect of the letter still stood.

13 OCTOBER LETTER The EAT held that the 13 October letter on its own was sufficient to qualify as a grievance, as it covered the main points that Dr Ward subsequently put in her claim to the tribunal. This letter was of course written after her employment had ended.

Remarks

This case highlights that a written response from an employee to disciplinary action may constitute a grievance. It also highlights that the substance rather than the particular form will decide whether grievances were raised.