Grievance Management
Client: Confidential (Boys’ Preparatory School)
Location: South East
Date: May 2008
The school had issued a final written warning against an employee (“Teresa”) on grounds of what the school described as “gross misconduct”. The offence in question was the use of bad language in front of pupils. The school had run a statutorily-compliant disciplinary procedure, and Teresa had been offered her right to appeal. Teresa had not yet responded to that right, but had raised a grievance complaint on the basis that the excessive sanction was evidence (“amongst other evidence”, as she asserted) of a campaign of bullying being levied against her by the bursar who, she believed, was seeking to dismiss her.
We consulted with all parties to the case. It appeared that Teresa had an unblemished conduct record, but her capability had been called into question on several undocumented occasions. Teresa had accepted that she had sworn within earshot of a pupil but said she had been unaware of the pupil’s presence and had immediately apologised both to the pupil and to the bursar when he raised the issue with her.
The bursar acknowledged to us that he was seeking to make budget cuts in the coming academic year and that this would include job losses. He identified Teresa as a ‘poor performer’ but when pushed to describe any procedures put in place to help manage Teresa’s poor performance he was unable to do so.
As two distinct potential claims were running concurrently we advised that the school should deal with each separately. Teresa’s grievance was heard by the headmaster, with his secretary taking notes and with us in attendance. Teresa was unable to substantiate her claim of bullying, but the school did acknowledge that the bursar had been acting beyond his remit in publicly assessing Teresa’s performance. Further, the school recognised that if performance were an issue then it should be managed appropriately with support from Teresa’s manager. In the absence of any evidence with regards the ‘campaign of bullying’ that Teresa had alleged, the school was unable to uphold her grievance. Teresa chose not to exercise her right to appeal.
Separately, an appeal was held in respect of the disciplinary action and the sanction of ‘final warning’. The appeal was held by the Chair of Governors, with the headmaster’s secretary again taking notes and with us in attendance. On this occasion, Teresa was accompanied by a colleague.
Teresa produced evidence (statements from other colleagues) which corroborated her record of good conduct. She also gave examples of where other members of staff had been known to use bad language (in one case, frequently and in front of pupils) without any form of sanction being applied.
The Chair of Governors considered the appeal in consultation with us and accepted that the sanction of ‘final written warning’ was indeed excessive and unfair. The warning was reduced to a lesser ‘verbal’ warning, and the disciplinary record was removed from Teresa’s file.
Subsequent to the conclusion of the grievance and the disciplinary appeal processes, we advised the school to revise the Staff Handbook (to include a reference to the sanctions for the use of bad language and other conduct infringements). We also recommended to the school that if performance were indeed an issue, that Teresa should be given development opportunities, and her performance should be monitored through objective measures. Similar action should be taken with all underperforming employees and, in the event of no improvement, the school would be able, if it became necessary, to justify any underperformance dismissals it might make.
Client Comment:
“You made us look at things in a different – better – way. I realise we have made some mistakes and I’m sure we won’t repeat them. Thank you for moving us forward with this. We all learned a great deal, and I think we can take some very positive things out of the whole experience.”
