Disciplinary and grievance procedures can quickly become complex, demanding a strategic response that ensures procedural fairness, legal compliance, and organisational integrity. This is particularly true when an employee raises multiple grievances or where disciplinary and grievance processes become intertwined.
Multiple grievances
A recurring challenge for public sector employers is managing multiple or overlapping grievance processes. Employers may find themselves handling an appeal against an initial grievance outcome, only for it to be superseded by a new grievance that raises related or entirely new issues—including concerns about the original process. In such cases, and to minimise the strain on resources, it may be helpful to pause the appeal and conduct a thorough hearing of the new grievance, which could render the appeal unnecessary. Offering a combined appeal that addresses issues raised across related grievances can also be a pragmatic way to streamline the process. As always, it is essential to obtain the employee’s agreement to any deviation from the standard procedure or policy.
Related grievance and disciplinary processes
Employees may also raise grievances during disciplinary proceedings, sometimes as a genuine concern about fairness or bias, or as a means to delay or disrupt the process. Employers must assess whether the grievance is directly related to the disciplinary issue. If it is, it may be appropriate to address both matters within a single process. If the grievance does not materially impact the disciplinary process, it may be appropriate to continue with the disciplinary proceedings and address the grievance separately.
The ACAS Code of Practice (Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures | Acas) provides useful guidance in situations where disciplinary and grievance issues overlap. Employers may, but are not required to, temporarily suspend a disciplinary process to deal with a grievance if the grievance is relevant to the disciplinary matter. This is particularly relevant in the public sector, where allegations of bias, discrimination, or procedural irregularity can have reputational and legal consequences beyond the immediate employment relationship.
In such contexts, public bodies must also consider their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires them to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between people with different protected characteristics. This duty reinforces the importance of fair and transparent processes, especially where disciplinary or grievance matters may impact individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
Practical considerations
Employers should document their reasoning and ensure that any decision to proceed or pause is based on a fair and balanced assessment of the circumstances. Clear and consistent communication is essential throughout disciplinary and grievance procedures. Employers should also ensure that employees understand the process, their rights, and any decisions being made. Where possible, written confirmation should be obtained to demonstrate that the employee has been kept informed and has consented to any adjustments. This is particularly important for public sector employers, where scrutiny from trade unions, regulators, and the public can be significant.
Employee absence, particularly due to stress or illness, is also a frequent complication in disciplinary and grievance matters. While employers must be sensitive to genuine health concerns, they must also ensure that processes are not indefinitely delayed. In such cases, written submissions can be a practical and legally sound alternative to in-person hearings. This allows the employee to participate meaningfully without the need for physical attendance. Employers should always seek the employee’s consent to proceed in this way and document all communications carefully.
In some cases, an employee’s conduct may undermine the employment relationship to such an extent that dismissal is justified. Employers can rely on the implied term of mutual trust and confidence as a basis for a “some other substantial reason” (SOSR) dismissal as recognised in Gallacher v Abellio Scotrail Ltd ( EATS002719SS Gallagher v Abellio Scotrail Ltd.docx). This may apply where an employee raises repeated, unfounded grievances, refuses to engage with processes, or behaves in a way that disrupts the workplace. SOSR dismissals must be handled with care, but they remain a valid and powerful option when supported by clear evidence and a fair process.
Comment
Disciplinary and grievance procedures in the public sector require a strategic and legally robust approach. By managing overlapping issues carefully, using written submissions where appropriate, and maintaining clear communication, employers can navigate these challenges effectively.
Our team has significant expertise in supporting public sector organisations through these complex scenarios, ensuring compliance, fairness, and confidence at every stage. If you need any assistance with regard to grievance and disciplinary procedures, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
