Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (9 January 2007)

Issues

(1) Standard Grievance Procedure
(2) Modified Grievance Procedure
(3) The Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations

Facts

Miss Pratt was employed as a cleaner by the local authority (“the Authority”) from 1986 until March 2005. She wrote to the Authority on 15 July 2005 complaining that she had been subjected to unlawful sex discrimination in respect of pay and conditions. She alleged that she had been paid less than her male colleagues and that she had been denied access to additional payments enjoyed by her male colleagues.

Miss Pratt was offered a choice between taking the Standard Grievance Procedure to consider her grievance or adopting the Modified Grievance Procedure, which is a shorter process and does not involve a meeting. She confirmed she would use the latter. Accordingly, the Authority wrote to her asking for further information about her grievance including details of the position she intended to use as a comparator for the purposes of the Equal Pay legislation.

In December of that year she presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal. Her claims related principally to the bonuses paid to colleagues other than those specified during the course of her grievance. When the Authority submitted its response to her claim it argued that the substance of the claim differed from the substance of the earlier grievance and therefore submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

A pre-hearing review took place in order to determine whether the employee was entitled to bring proceedings. The Tribunal confirmed that Miss Pratt’s letter had complied with the requirement of the Modified Grievance Procedure. The Authority appealed arguing that the letter was insufficient to comply with step 1 of the Modified Grievance Procedure because it did not set out the basis for that grievance in sufficient detail. It conceded that the letter would have been sufficient for the purposes of the Standard Grievance Procedure but for the purposes of a Modified Grievance Procedure it argued that something additional was required from the employee.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal. The EAT acknowledged that the statutory procedures had the potential to limit access to remedies for important rights belonging to employees and accordingly confirmed the statute ought not to be construed any more widely than was necessary. Whilst previous case law had confirmed that the statutory requirements of the standard procedure were minimal, something more substantial was required in respect of the Modified Grievance Procedure. In order for the purpose of the modified procedure to be fulfilled, the employee had to set out his statement in greater detail. Not only should the grievance itself be detailed but the essential reasons why he or she held the grievance should also be provided, so that the employer had sufficient detail with which to respond. The amount of detail required however would depend on the nature of the grievance itself.

The EAT felt that the Tribunal had not taken sufficient account of the differences between the requirements of the standard and modified procedures. It confirmed Ms Pratt’s letter had sufficiently set out the grievance for the purposes of the statutory grievance procedure but it was not sufficient for the purposes of the modified procedure.

Comments

This case highlights for employees that the Modified Grievance Procedure is often inappropriate for the proper hearing of their concerns. It also reminds employers that they should also be very wary when adopting the modified disciplinary procedure.

Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.