Quick advice for tomorrow AM please - Whistleblowing/Grievance - Company Non-Compliant with H&S Work Act

[MrsBertMacklin]

A colleague and I raised concerns at Easter that our employer doesn't have any tracking and control procedures or central documents that allow the management to ensure that their employees are going the necessary ref. health and safety management obligations to our clients.

Our professional bodies advise that if we become aware of any non-compliances, we have to notify them within 48 hours if the responsible party doesn't deal with them.

Colleague went through his accounts in depth last week (has been with the company for about 6 months) and found a lot of very serious non-compliances. He phoned me to blow off steam, advising he was going straight to our professional body to inform them.

I'm fairly familiar with our company's HR policies (very generic/standard ACAS) and I suggested that he might want to check the whistleblowing policy as this suggests that you have to give the employer an opportunity to resolve first, rather than going straight to the regulatory body.

He did this today: employer's reaction was to treat his report (which he clearly stated as being raised informally in line with whistleblowing policy) as a formal grievance and they've put him on gardening leave today and tomorrow.

They have scheduled a formal grievance hearing for tomorrow (approx. 28 hours after he raised the concerns).

Setting aside my opinion on what a daft managerial approach this is, can anyone advise whether this reaction is acceptable ref. ACAS guidelines on how to handle an employee wanting to whistleblow and secondarily, if the grievance route is valid, giving the employee 28 hours to prepare and putting on gardening leave? Thanks in advance.

[CookieDoughKid]

Wow. This has to be escalated immediately. Have a union to contact or an employment lawyer?

[flowery]

I'm not aware that there are any ACAS guidelines on handling a whistleblowing claim are there?

It's a bit unusual to call it a grievance hearing, but other than that it is good practice with regard to dealing with whistleblowing complaints is to do it quickly, ideally with a meeting with the whistleblower to hear their complaint and understand it in order that an investigation can be carried out. Within 28 hours sounds fine to me, especially if the concern is related to health and safety. Do I understand you correctly that he thinks they should wait longer before hearing his concerns? Why is that?

What does their whistleblowing policy actually say they will do in the event of a complaint?

Whether garden leave is appropriate depends on the nature of the concern and other circumstances really. A bit unusual though, have they explained why?

[MrsBertMacklin]

Thanks for the responses. Meeting went ahead today, still treated as a 'grievance' and when asked for the rationale on why this was the case, the answer was 'because we were advised to, but we don't know why, we'll get an answer on that'. I asked them further to that, why they had called a formal meeting because the grievance policy states that the employer will try to resolve matters informally first, which they haven't done and they reiterated their response.

Flowery just to answer your question, the company HR policies are very 'off the shelf' IYKWIM? No in-house HR, advice comes from an online/telephone advisory service as does all our paperwork. I'll have to check the wording again tomorrow, but my colleague followed it to the letter.

FabuLouse, that link's really useful thank you.

It is all a bit weird (only finished work at 2200 due to catching up on actual work in lieu of time spent in said meeting). Can't give much more ref. specifics as it will be very obvious if someone linked to us happens to come across it.

[flowery]

I asked them further to that, why they had called a formal meeting because the grievance policy states that the employer will try to resolve matters informally first

But surely when it's a health and safety whistleblowing matter, dealing with it informally wouldn't be appropriate? As I say, it's unusual to call it a grievance hearing, but if that means they take it seriously rather than someone having an informal chat, is that really a problem?

[ABlandAndDeadlyCourtesy]

They sound like people trying to do the right thing and follow procedure, but possibly not getting it 100% right or possibly having two slightly contradictory policies.

Is your colleague still on paid leave?

[flowery]

Not sure how that would be the case. The OP's colleague is protected from being dismissed or suffering a detriment as a result of whistleblowing, and as long as he has followed the whistleblowing procedure and made clear he feels it is a protected disclosure, there's no reason to think them treating it as a grievance would undermine that protection.

I wouldn't have advised them to call it a grievance, but a good way to deal with a whistleblowing claim is to hear and understand the concerns promptly, take them seriously, investigate and respond.

If you take the grievance label off the meeting and look at what actually happens, it is a way of making sure it is heard and recorded properly, and investigated properly, and responded to. Not to say they wouldn't if it was an informal chat, but a whistleblowing concerns is a serious thing and they could run the risk of being accused of not taking it seriously if they just had an informal chat with him.