The Intricacies of the Statutory Dispute Resolution Procedures
by Emma
There have been two recent cases, one in the EAT and the other in the Court of Appeal considering various issues about the statutory dispute resolution procedures.
The Court of Appeal case (see here) found for the employee and held that a letter raising a grievance sent within the 3 month period following dismissal amounted to a non-statutory appeal against dismissal and thus extended the limitation period for bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. The Court of Appeal applied a broad definition to the term “grievance” on the basis that an employee will not approach the process with the technical knowledge of an employment lawyer.
The EAT decision (see here) considered the applicability of the modified grievance procedure and the level of detail required in a grievance raised using the modified procedure. Where the modified procedure is used the grievance is dealt with in writing only and the legislation requires the employee not only to set out the grievance but the basis for it (this is more detail that the standard procedure requires). It found (upholding the Employment Tribunal’s decision) that where a grievance under the modified procedure did not identify the basis of the claims which were subsequently lodged with the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims advanced.
Aren’t we pleased that these statutory procedures are going to be dispensed with (even, or perhaps particularly, we employment lawyers ….)?
Similar Posts:
