Mr. Richards has the right to submit his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Stage 1 procedure in writing and dated to the next level of management. Further explaining why he is displeased with the decision made, within ten working days after the decision at Stage 1. Once the matter is raised at this level, the company is bound to review the findings at the previous level. Further investigation should be given to either validate or clarify the facts presented or objections made by either of the parties involved.
An opportunity to respond has to be presented to Mr. Richards. Resulting from the meeting the manager will confirm the outcome and set out his decision in writing. There is a strong possibility that the aggrieved will take the procedure to the next level. The procedure remains the same, the aggrieved indicates his grievance in writing explaining why he is unhappy with the outcome, within two weeks of the last decision. The next stage of appeal is Mr.
Jones; it may be advisable that a Divisional Manager from a different Department listen to Mr. Richards’ grievance, as he may feel he will be prejudiced as: The procedure remains the same. The Divisional Manager will review the grievance and again arrange for any further investigation to clarify facts and invite the aggrieved to a meeting within ten working days. Forty eight hours notice must still be given. Mr. Richards will be given an opportunity to respond after which the outcome will be confirmed and the decision set out in writing.
If after investigating, the Employment Tribunal concludes that the grievance is well founded, it is the responsibility of Delta Digital to come up with a workable solution to the problem. In the reorganisation of the company all the positions were filled and appointments made, therefore the company would either have to create a new position for Mr. Richards at Grade 7, or place him in an existing one. If he is placed the downgrading of another employee way cause another grievance procedure.
This may tarnish the organisation’s image to attract talented people to work for the company. Mr. Richards’s resulting win could raise a ‘hornet’s nest’ as other workers in the same situation may bring a procedure against the company. Therefore at this juncture in the process, it will be critical to work with the aggrieved, to find a realistic and workable solution. A possible solution could be the re-designing of Mr. Richards’ job to enhance his personal satisfaction.
As a result, an equitable compromise may be job enrichment3, which involves vertical job enlargement4. Delta Digital could attempt to enrich Mr. Richards’s job by incorporating motivating or growth factors such as increased responsibility and involvement opportunities for advancement and a sense of achievement. If a realistic solution is not found all promotions and downgrades could be revoked stating a restructuring of the selection procedures and criterion, based on recent events.
This may be costly and cause some disenchantment, but it will give the company a better opportunity to ensure that all positions, skills and competencies required were effectively and correctly done, ensuring the right qualifications and abilities for the various positions within the organisation. In this manner, a clear picture will emerge of the total job. Based on this job analysis both personnel and line management will be in a better position to structure a job interview and remove any perceived biases, while establishing training and development programmes that need to be implemented.
The legal dimension provides not only a basis for individual rights for employees, but also assists to strengthen the position of trade unions. As this is a test case, it provides the mechanism for setting a precedent for future cases to ensure that the company acts reasonably in similar circumstances. This win can also strengthen the perceived bargaining power of the Union or Bargaining Body which may accelerate further industrial actions, if the company ever errs. If it is established, that there is no foundation to the grievance, Mr.
Richards’s position will remain unchanged within the organisational structure. It will however be useful to the organisation to consider why was the grievance brought? Could there be a problem with personalities and communication within the organisation? So it is important to take this grievance seriously. The fault could lie with Delta Digital; when going through organisational change were the employees duly informed. A workforce and its productivity become vulnerable when faced with un-communicated change, the grievance procedure may be the outcome.