Employment Grievance Procedure Illustrated With Emilio Botin Abbey Santander Shares Price

The employment grievance procedure is illustrated with the high-profile case Chagger

v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), where the Employment Tribunal made findings of unfair dismissal and unlawful race discrimination and (following Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group's refusal to comply with the Employment Tribunal's re-employment order, to remedy the situation without financial compensation) ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander share price to pay the record financial compensation of 2.8 million to Mr Chagger to cover his loss. Abbey Santander price (the UK retail bank about to be re-branded as Santander shares price soon, and being part of the enormous Banco Santander Central Hispano Group) dismissed Mr Chagger from employment in 2006, claiming his termination was the outcome of 'a fair redundancy exercise'. Mr Chagger claimed that the real reasons behind his termination were unfairness and racial discrimination; he was of Indian origin. Balbinder Chagger worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking earning approximately 100,000 per year and reporting into Nigel Hopkins.

An employment grievance procedure concerns a grievance (being a concern, issue or complaint) regarding employment that the employee raises to the attention of the employer. The grievance may be in respect of such matters as employment terms and conditions, health and safety, work relations, bullying and harassment, new working practices, working environment, organisational change, and equal opportunities. Wherever possible, the employee should try to resolve the grievance informally with management. Failing that, a grievance procedure is available to deal with employee's grievance formally. The formal grievance procedure is intended to encourage fairness, consistency and speed in the handling of the grievance.

The grievance procedure is initiated when the employee informs the employer of the grounds of his grievance in writing. The employer then invites the employee to a grievance-hearing meeting to discuss the grievance. The employee will normally have the right to be accompanied to the grievance-hearing meeting. Management should investigate before the grievance-hearing meeting whether similar grievances have been raised before, how they have been resolved and any follow up action that has been necessary. This allows consistency of treatment. At the grievance-hearing meeting, the employee re-states his grievance and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is responsible for deciding the outcome of the grievance. Thus, the employer is given a first opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory end. For this reason, care and thought should go into resolving the grievance. Management may need to explore possibilities with other managers about the resolution of the grievance, or may wish to take advice on how to proceed further. Once a decision has been arrived at, the employer will notify the employee of it in writing, along with information on the right to appeal (including any time-limit for lodging the appeal, often being 5 days).

If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer's decision, then he may appeal against the decision. The employee informs the employer of the grounds of his appeal in writing. The employer then invites the employee to an appeal-hearing meeting to discuss the appeal. Again, the employer is responsible for deciding the outcome of the appeal. Thus, the employer is given a second opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory end. For this reason, the employer should thoroughly explore the relevant issues and pay particular attention to any new evidence that has been introduced and ensure that the employee has had the chance to comment on it. Once a decision has been arrived at, the employer will notify the employee of it in writing, making it clear that the decision is final and the procedure has been completed.

The Employment Tribunal that heard the Santander Abbey case found that Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his termination directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, through the company's grievance and appeals procedures. The Tribunal also found that there existed a culture at Abbey Santander of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger's issues, and his issues were simply dismissed out of hand by each and every manager who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal also found that Santander Abbey had failed to give serious consideration to allegations of race discrimination and to investigate them promptly. The effect of the factors the Tribunal found was the undermining of the principles of fairness, consistency and speed that grievance procedures should be founded upon.

If the employee remains dissatisfied with the employer's handling of the grievance and appeal, then he may take the matter to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The Employment Tribunal system is the final way of determining whether or not the employer has behaved appropriately. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes concerning redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and discrimination.

In 2006, Mr Chagger escalated his issues of unfair dismissal and race discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Chagger had in fact been dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In 2008, Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed against the Employment Tribunal's finding of racial discrimination. The EAT rejected the appeal and upheld the original Employment Tribunal's finding that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger. Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this appeal and ordered the compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, the case was escalated to the Court of Appeal (UK's second highest court). The case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009, according to the Court's List of Hearings. The Court's judgement was not available when writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers' chambers, who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, had reported before the hearing had occurred that the hearing would only be about compensation and not also about the wrong of racial discrimination committed. It appears, therefore, that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT's order to remit the compensation award to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

by: Simon King

POST COMMENT

Mama's Baby, Papa's Probably Tenant Eviction Solicitors: Growing In Popularity Law Firm Criminal Solutions Claim Compensation For Any Injury Now! Avail Tenant Eviction Service: Evict Problem Tenants Quickly And Easily Some Suggestions To Deal With Nuisance Tenants Abpla Board Certified Medical Malpractice Attorneys Legal Ways to Make Money Online The State Of Virginia Marriage Records How To Secure Bail Bond Services Workman's Compensation In Iowa: Are You Being Paid The Right Weekly Amount? Free Consultations To Ensure You Receive Quality Advice From Solicitors Birmingham How To Start A Solo Law Practice