Employment Grievance Procedure illustrated with Emilio Botin Abbey Santander

Employment Grievance Procedure illustrated with Emilio Botin Abbey Santander

The employment grievance procedure is illustrated with the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National percent & Hopkins (2006), where the Employment Tribunal created findings of unfair dismissal and unlawful race discrimination and (following Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group's refusal to accommodates the Employment Tribunal's re-employment order, to remedy the case without financial compensation) ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander share price to pay the record money compensation of ?2.8 million to Mr Chagger to hide his loss. Abbey Santander value (the UK retail bank about to be re-branded as Santander shares worth soon, and being part of the enormous Banco Santander Central Hispano Cluster) dismissed Mr Chagger from employment in 2006, claiming his termination was the end result of 'a fair redundancy exercise'. Mr Chagger claimed that the $64000 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 ?a hundred,000 per year and reporting into Nigel Hopkins. An employment grievance procedure concerns a grievance (being a priority, issue or grievance) relating to employment that the worker 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 operating practices, working setting, organisational change, and equal opportunities. Wherever doable, the worker should attempt to resolve the grievance informally with management. Failing that, a grievance procedure is obtainable to accommodate employee's grievance formally. The formal grievance procedure is meant 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 debate the grievance. The employee will normally have the proper to be accompanied to the grievance-hearing meeting. Management ought to investigate before the grievance-hearing meeting whether or not similar grievances are raised before, how they need been resolved and any follow up action that has been necessary. This enables consistency of treatment. At the grievance-hearing meeting, the worker re-states his grievance and how he would really like to work out it resolved. The employer is responsible for deciding the end result of the grievance. Thus, the employer is given a first opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory end. For that reason, care and thought ought to go into resolving the grievance. Management could would like to explore prospects with alternative managers about the resolution of the grievance, or may want to require advice on how to proceed further. Once a call has been got wind of, the employer will notify the worker of it in writing, together with information on the proper to appeal (as well as any time-limit for lodging the charm, often being five days). If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer's decision, then he could charm against the decision. The worker informs the employer of the grounds of his appeal in writing. The employer then invitations the worker to an attractiveness-hearing meeting to discuss the appeal. Again, the employer is accountable for deciding the result of the appeal. Therefore, the employer is given a second chance to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory end. For this reason, the employer should completely explore the relevant problems and pay explicit attention to any new proof that has been introduced and ensure that the employee has had the possibility to inquire into it. Once a call has been fell upon, the employer can notify the worker of it in writing, creating it clear that the choice is final and therefore 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 merely dismissed out of hand by every and each manager who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal additionally found that Santander Abbey had failed to administer serious consideration to allegations of race discrimination and to analyze them promptly. The result 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 charm, then he may take the matter to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The Employment Tribunal system is the ultimate means of determining whether or not the employer has behaved appropriately. Employment Tribunals can hear disputes regarding 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 located that Mr Chagger had of course been dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by each 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 initial Employment Tribunal's finding that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger. Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had conjointly appealed against the record-breaking ?2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this charm 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 seven and 8 July 2009, in keeping with the Court's List of Hearings. The Court's judgement wasn't on the market when putting this on ink 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 solely be regarding compensation and not conjointly concerning the wrong of racial discrimination committed. It seems, therefore, that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT, which Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT's order to remit the compensation award to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

POST COMMENT

Collecting Unemployment and Severance Packages How to Find Employment after Bankruptcy or Credit Problems Employment Solicitors Employment At Will And Unemployment Compensation Claims Call Center Industry As Answer To Unemployment Quick loans for the unemployed: Fund is sure in unemployment Unemployment is on the Rise Mystery Shopper Canada Employment Agency Advantage General Counsel Employment Running your own employment agency Aao Rules That Mbbs Degree Qualifies Under The Employment-based Second Preference MPB Today Solves Unemployment Crisis Unsecured Loans for Unemployed People: Tackle your unemployment with ease!