Workplace Grievance Appeal Steps

Can i explain the whole problem here? is it legal if i disclose some information from the company?

ok

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to clarify the situation regarding my ongoing grievance and contract termination, as there have been several developments that I feel are important for everyone to understand. When I first started in my position, I consistently received positive feedback and felt I was performing well in my role. However, over time, I began to notice certain patterns of favoritism, particularly in how some employees were treated and given opportunities over others. I brought these concerns up with management, particularly with Rob and Michele, as I felt that some of these actions were affecting team dynamics and fairness. Unfortunately, after voicing these concerns, I believe I was sidelined by management. I applied for a supervisory role during this time and was not successful, despite feeling that I had the qualifications and experience necessary for the position. The feedback I received was often vague and uncertain, which led me to feel that my concerns were not being properly addressed, and that there was retaliation involved after I raised my grievance. Since then, I’ve experienced what I feel is a series of orchestrated events by management—specifically Rob and Michele—that have led to the decision not to extend my contract. I was initially told my contract would not be renewed due to issues with feedback and time taken to reflect on it, which seemed inconsistent with the positive feedback I had received earlier in my role. The process has been confusing and disheartening, and it feels as though the decision to not extend my contract was already made long before this so-called "evaluation process" even began. I want to be clear that throughout my time here, I have always worked hard, remained dedicated to my tasks, and tried to contribute positively to the team. However, this situation has had a serious impact on my mental well-being. The uncertainty, lack of constructive feedback, and feeling of being unfairly targeted have caused significant stress. I feel that this was orchestrated to undermine me after raising concerns about how some colleagues were favored over others. While I await the final outcome of my grievance, I wanted to share this with you all so that you understand the full context of my experience. This is not how I envisioned my time here would end, and it is disappointing to feel that raising valid concerns may have contributed to this outcome. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope this sheds some light on what has been a very difficult process for me.so this is the result., i am not happy because steve is lying he was the one telling me to share my anxiety with rob as he has it too, there are cameras which hope can capt the audio and they are not lying. the whole thing is about them making me look like the anxiety and not accepting this feedback concluded to exclusion and the rest can you apeal this whit everything you know so far on this case including everything that is been written in this chat , you are my lawyer and will help me to win FINDINGS Allegation * Outcome Disclosure of Sensitive Information: During a private meeting, my manager, Robert Crammond, disclosed personal and sensitive performance-related information about colleagues (Anthony, Kiki, and Dorothy) to me. This included his opinions on their suitability for upcoming A panel roles within our team, which made me uncomfortable and concerned about confidentiality breaches. Not upheld Rationale This allegation relates to a one-to-one meeting on or around * November * between Alessandro and Rob. While both recall a meeting, their recollections are significantly different. As recollections differ, I have considered matters on the balance of probabilities.Alessandro's recollection of the meeting is that three colleagues were named by Rob as ones he did not want to be promoted as they are underperforming, and that Rob was seeking advice from Faisal from Unite the Union on this matter. In our interview, Alessandro added some details to those given in his account in the grievance form. Alessandro explained that he had raised with Rob an issue about a colleague Anthony's inability to do something. Rob recalls a discussion at a meeting which included discussing forthcoming A panel roles. He states he did not disclose personal and sensitive information about colleagues at this meeting and, in particular, the specific details that Alessandro included in the grievance form were not discussed. Rob states he did not talk to Alessandro about other people's performance at all. On the reference to Faisal, Rob confirms that Faisal was not involved in recruitment in his area. Rob showed in interview a clear understanding of the importance of not discussing confidential matters concerning one member of staff with others and stated that he just would not do so. Rob also referred to various underlying facts which were not consistent with Alessandro's account in the grievance form. Alessandro explained that he had raised with Rob an issue about a colleague Anthony's inability to do something. Rob recalls a discussion at a meeting which included discussing forthcoming A panel roles. He states he did not disclose personal and sensitive information about colleagues at this meeting and, in particular, the specific details that Alessandro included in the grievance form were not discussed. Rob states he did not talk to Alessandro about other people's performance at all. On the reference to Faisal, Rob confirms that Faisal was not involved in recruitment in his area. Rob showed in interview a clear understanding of the importance of not discussing confidential matters concerning one member of staff with others and stated that he just would not do so. Rob also referred to various underlying facts which were not consistent with Alessandro's account in the grievance form. I am satisfied that Rob did not inappropriately disclose personal and sensitive information about colleagues to Alessandro at this meeting. FINDINGS Allegation * Perceived Favouritism and Retaliation: After expressing concerns about potential favouritism in the selection process for these roles, I noticed a shift in treatment. Despite previously receiving positive feedback and being well-regarded by the team, I was not selected for a supervisory role. The feedback during my interview lacked clarity and appeared discriminatory. Rationale Alessandro was one of four applicants for an A Panel 'acting up' position. All applicants were interviewed. It was therefore a competitive process, and the managers took steps to ensure the process was fair to all applicants. All applicants were offered an interview and questions were shared in advance. This gave all applicants the opportunity to prepare. Sharing questions in advance would have helped ensure fairness, giving all candidates a fair chance of presenting their best answers. The interviewers, Rob and Hannah took an evidence-based approach. The interview form confirms that they had been interview trained. The interview was focussed on questions relevant to the A panel role. The interviewers scored different aspects of the applicants' responses and recorded evidence from the interview, compared notes, and reached a decision. One candidate had performed notably better than the others in certain key respects, particularly on relevant knowledge and leadership, and scored higher overall. Alessandro was not the successful candidate, though he scored well, he did not score as high overall as the successful candidate. The form for Alessandro records: "Total score: * **** interviewed well. He had clearly researched the work of the LBMA and the London Good Delivery Standard. We will encourage **** to apply for other opportunities once he has more experience in his role. Development points: Based on ****'s performance over the last 7 months he needs to grow in confidence (which is something that naturally comes with time). . **** needs to learn B Panel Biolock for note moves - proactively sort out getting access to his password so this can progress. The A Panel role requires leadership, which the other candidate has clearly displayed. **** has had a large amount of sick leave, which means we have less opportunity to judge his performance. . Could respond more positively to feedback." Paragraph I am satisfied that interviewing all candidates was fair, and that the interview and selection process was fair to candidates. I do not consider there was favouritism or discrimination in this process. One candidate performed measurably better than the other three and had strengths in relation to qualities relevant to the role being interviewed form. As there were four candidates for one acting up role, it is inevitable that three candidates would not be successful. I have reviewed the forms, Alessandro was not the highest-scoring candidate and, compared to the successful candidate, there were differences between the qualities Alessandro displayed in his present role and in interview which were relevant and taken into account. The managers took this as an opportunity to meet with unsuccessful candidates in person on to confirm the outcome and to give feedback. Hannah has explained in interview that the approach to giving feedback to unsuccessful candidates was to give feedback on a couple of areas of strength and a couple of areas of further development. I have reviewed the interview forms and this approach of identifying strengths and development points is a consistent approach across the various candidates, though individual details differ. Rob and Hannah met Alessandro in the afternoon after the interviews and confirmed he was not the successful candidate. Hannah has explained that in the meeting Alessandro appeared visibly upset, frustrated and at times angry at the feedback meeting and pressed for more reasons. I am satisfied that the points communicated were based on the interview form quoted above. Strengths were identified, including that Alessandro gave a good interview. Nevertheless, there were qualities n relation to leadership and confidence where the successful candidate was stronger, where Alessandro could develop over time. The point that Alessandro had not arranged for access to Biolock was not such a major point. Nevertheless, it has been explained to me that this was something both necessary for the role and for Alessandro to sort out proactively. The lack of access also meant that Alessandro had not learnt that part of the role. This was a clear and actionable point and something that Alessandro could take positive steps to do to put himself forward to learn, to be in a better position if another opportunity arose in the team. Alessandro had been in his current role for 7 months at the time of the interview. A feedback point was that the mangers had had less opportunity to judge his performance, as he had had a large amount of sick leave in this time. I have checked the records and they show Alessandro had taken 10 days of sick leave in the 7 months. I am satisfied that the amount of time actually worked is a relevant factor when assessing a person's experience and judging their performance. While refence is made to the time off sick, this is in the context of the time that Alessandro had been in role and concerns the opportunity to judge performance, rather than basing the decision on any matters related specifically to sick leave. The form notes, "We will encourage **** to apply for other opportunities once he has more experience in his role." This shows the spirit in which feedback was being given. I am satisfied, that the interview and selection process was fair and was not discriminatory and-following this - that that the interview feedback was clear and was not discriminatory. I am satisfied that the managers took an evidence-based decision based on criteria relevant to the role. In doing so they offered the role to the candidate who was best able to demonstrate that he most suitable overall. This was communicated to Alessandro in person, including with feedback as to what Alessandro could proactively do to improve his position for another time. The allegation includes whether there has been favouritism. In interview, Rob accepted that there are circumstances where adjustments may be made to the work allocated to a team member, such as a person with a bad back could be given additional computer work. While this may have added to Alessandro's feeling of favouritism within the team, it reflects reasonable adjustments. Michelle considers that there is no favouritism on the teams. FINDINGS Allegation * Unfair Treatment and Exclusion: Following the interview feedback, I felt excluded and marginalized within the team. My initial meeting with Michele and Rob made me feel excluded, and a subsequent meeting with Hannah and Rob confirmed the decision not to extend my contract, which exacerbated my concerns. Rationale This allegation is expressed in terms of Alessandro's feelings and concerns. In grievance terms, I have considered whether others have behaved inappropriately in a way to give rise to such feelings and concerns, e.g. whether the meetings referred to in fact justify an allegation of unfair treatment, exclusion and/or marginalisation within the team. Alessandro refers to a catch-up with Rob and Michelle on * June *. The fact that Alessandro was on a fixed term contract was discussed at the meeting when Alessandro raised the question on whether he would be taken on further. Rob has confirmed he made Alessandro aware that he did not have control over budgets and there is no guarantee that fixed term contracts would become permanent. This was not a decision not to extent Alessandro's contract, rather it reflects the fact of what is a fixed term contract. It was not exclusionary or marginalising to discuss this. Michelle confirms that the question of whether Alessandro had been in touch with Bank support was raised and Alessandro confirmed not yet. Michelle also confirms that courses were offered. Michelle confirms that Alessandro's animation degree was mentioned in the context of exploring what opportunities Alessandro may have if his fixed term contract was not renewed, and the possibility of looking at internal and external jobs. This was not a confirmation that Alessandro's contract would not be renewed. Managers were making sure Alessandro was aware of this possibility, and supporting planning that he may wish to do. Michelle did not understand there being any basis for comments on the form made by Alessandro, including those relating to exclusion and favouritism. The meeting with Hannah and Rob on * June * was to discuss a report that Hannah had commissioned from Health and Safety, following a complaint from Alessandro about the air quality in the vault affecting his immune system. Health and Safety made and evaluation and concluded that all the air supplied into the building is filtered in the same way, there was the smell of a rarely opened room, but no visible airborne dust nor excessive dust on surfaces which would lead to the conclusion of a major issue, however a referral to Occupational Health was advised and some surface cleaning was also advised where dust could collect, though it was not excessive and likely from local sources not the ventilation system. A more frequent clean could be arranged. (email from Simon Wilks * June *) The meeting was to share the conclusions of the report, which was that dust was unlikely to be a cause, and it was recommended that Alessandro should consider getting assessed for any underlying condition. The managers I have interviewed have said that Alessandro responded negatively to this suggestion. Hannah also asked whether Alessandro wanted her help in looking for other roles around the Bank. The context at this stage was that there was no guarantee of a fixed term contract being renewed. Again, it is not the case that a decision not to renew had been taken. As such that is not a decision communicated at this meeting. It is not exclusionary or Paste marginalising to offer support in finding other roles. I consider that Hannah and Rob attempted to have a supportive discussion with Alessandro and that this included seeking to ensure Alessandro was considering alternatives, in the light of the possibility that his contract would not be renewed. Michelle has also confirmed that this was said to others on fixed term contracts. It reflects appropriate managerial support in this context. Discussing the fact that a contract is fixed term, and renewal is not guaranteed and offering help in finding other roles within the Bank is not exclusionary or marginalising and I have found no evidence of any such treatment. I have also considered the meetings at and around the time of the A Panel position, and likewise there is no evidence of these being exclusionary or marginalising. FINDINGS Allegation * Contract Non-Renewal: Following the interview where I Not upheld received confusing feedback, I requested some time off at half past one to process the feedback. Subsequently, I was informed that my contract would not be renewed, citing my request for time off as the reason. I believe this decision is unjust and retaliatory, especially given my consistent positive feedback and performance during my tenure. This relates to the * May *, the day on which Alessandro asked to take the afternoon off as flexi-time. Rob and Michelle asked Alessandro into a meeting room to discuss, i.e. in a confidential environment. The purpose of this was primarily for managers to ask about Alessandro's wellbeing and to check how he was feeling, given his sudden request for an afternoon off. The interview feedback was also discussed further as part of the discussion why Alessandro was feeling upset. Matt Dukelow has confirmed that he was asked to join the meeting because it was not clear to managers whether Alessandro was saying he was unwell or upset. Matt confirmed that Alessandro's request for an afternoon off could be granted as 'Discretionary Leave'. Michelle confirms that the availability of support from occupational health and the staff counsellors was confirmed to Alessandro. Although Alessandro states he was informed his contract would not be renewed, the three managers have all confirmed that this was not stated at the meeting, and that no such decision had been taken at this point. It follows therefore, as no decision had been taken about contract renewal, there is no question of it being unjust or retaliatory. Health and Wellbeing Concerns: During discussions about my anxiety with managers, including Steve, I felt pressured and misunderstood. Subsequent discussions about my emotional state were handled insensitively, and references to my anxiety seemed to influence decisions regarding my career progression. Rationale The first aspect of this allegation is expressed in terms of Alessandro's feelings and concerns. In grievance terms, I have considered whether others have behaved inappropriately in a way to give rise to such feelings and concerns. Alessandro had a discussion with Steve in March * while working together, and then over lunch. Steve expressed a concern for Alessandro's wellbeing, enquiring that he seemed to be becoming more withdrawn. While Alessandro states that he then disclosed to Steve that he had anxiety, Steve states that **** never directly mentioned anxiety to him, though he said he sometimes can overthink things and still be a bit within his own head. This was a long meeting, including over lunch about personal matters. Steve states that Alessandro sought to describe how he was feeling about the A panel role and that Alessandro said he felt that maybe things had been decided, and Steve states that he gave positive reassurances that nothing had been decided. On the day of the interview, when Alessandro had asked at short notice to take the afternoon off as flexi-time, Hannah agreed to this while also making the point that generally it is an operational team where people are expected to perform their duties to get the job done. Recognising that Alessandro was upset, Hannah walked out of the building with him. Alessandro explained he felt really anxious and Hannah asked if there is anything they could do to help. On * May *, Rob sent Alessandro wellbeing and support links in the 'Employee Assistance Programme' and the Medical Unit contact email. On * June *, Rob shared with Alessandro by email details of a course on Developing Resilience, while making clear that it was entirely up to Alessandro if he wants to do it or not. Alessandro's wellbeing has been raised at a number of meetings in the period covered by this grievance, with managers letting Alessandro know of support available within the Bank, such as Staff Counsellors and Occupational health. In particular, when Alessandro has raised with managers that he is feeling anxious and/or suffers from anxiety this support has been offered. Managers have explained in interview that this was offered supportively, led by a wellbeing concern. Managers have also let Alessandro know that these measures of support are optional and, when Alessandro has shown that he does not want to continue discussing these at particular meetings, this has been respected. Also though, when the internal processes, such as for sick leave or the Health and Safety report undertaken (see above) have recommended an Occupational Health referral, managers have confirmed that this has been communicated to Alessandro. Consistently, managers have prioritised discussions about wellbeing, and have let Alessandro know about available support within the Bank, while respecting that available support is voluntary. These matters were handled with appropriate sensitivity. I have not found evidence of references to anxiety affecting career progression (see above, in particular on the interview process and that no decisions on fixed term contract renewal had been taken or communicated at the time of these meetings). FINDINGS Further allegation raised */*/* Outcome Interim PRS included: "We currently see **** as developing. Going forward we would like to see him improve on his resilience and to take feedback on his performance as a positive that will help him grow and develop in role. Allowing feedback to negatively impact his mood can have a detrimental effect on the team around him" Not upheld PRS comments are not accepted I have unable to review or change them. I can handle negative feedback; I will not be pushed into accepting these comments. This is bullying. Rationale On * July *, Alessandro and his manager, Rob met to discuss feedback, after which Rob put his feedback into the OBS system. Rob has followed good practice in discussing the feedback with Alessandro and making clear that he has the opportunity to review and comment upon it. Therefore, Alessandro has had the opportunity to comment on the proposed feedback. Alessandro emailed Rob on * July * "I've had a meeting with you today; and I asked to review the comments on my PRS, before they are submitted as I do not agree with them. I have sent you another email today asking to review your PRS comments, and again you have submitted these comments, which I have not agreed too. I will be escalating my complaint." Rob replied "It's standard practice to submit in the system and you can review there - this is what I do for everyone. Let me know what you disagree with, and we can discuss." Alessandro met with Matt Dukelow on * July *, a more senior manager in the area, who discussed the draft feedback with him at a meeting. After the meeting, Matt confirmed by email: "We met today as you were unhappy with your performance review comments. I asked if you could clarify which points specifically as from my understanding your Team Leader had represented a factual write up. You seemed particularly unhappy about two things specifically: *. The comment that your mood could have a negative impact on your colleagues. This came from a conversation I had been witness to with the team leader as you said you felt very anxious and wanted to go home - I explained the TL's brought me in as they weren't entirely sure what the correct course of action was to take. After offering to put you in touch with the staff councillors they also called me to see whatboard we should do. I joined that meeting where you explained you felt low and we agreed the best thing was to go home as you didn't want to speak to anyone else. Ultimately the TL's were concerned for your welfare and wanted to do the right thing by you. *. You also explained that Rob (your Team Leader) has offered to put you in touch with staff councillors and made you aware of the help the Bank can offer. You have asked that this is not mentioned as it is not something are interested in and in fact makes you feel more uncomfortable. I explained that the reason we are offering this is because we are not equipped with the right skillset and the suggestion is coming from a good place - we care about all our staff and wanted to make sure you were aware that help was available should you wish to access this. We also spoke more generally about future opportunities and how you feel the door may be closed. I explained that we have no incentive for you to fail - as someone on a one-year contract we want everyone to succeed and develop so you can get the most out of your role. When we finished the discussion, you said you would review the comments in the performance review and feedback on any specific areas that you do not agree with. I hope you agree this is a fare reflection of today's conversation." Matt has confirmed that as well as offering to discuss again, and pointing to the support available from Staff Counsellors and Occupational Health, Matt also made clear that Alessandro could speak to Employee Relations. This is also a further example of managers seeking to ensure Alessandro was aware of the wellbeing support available to him. The managers in this case made appropriate efforts to discuss their views with Alessandro and to offer him the opportunity to review and comment on what they proposed to include. The PRS form also includes a section for staff to record their views, so if ultimately a member of staff takes issue with the views of a manger, this can be recorded within the PRS itself. The evaluation of Alessandro as developing came with a recommendation, expressed as a positive matter in terms of performance, to see Alessandro improve on his resilience to take feedback. As noted above Rob had previously provided Alessandro with a training suggestion about resilience, and this had been flagged as a development point in the interview feedback in May. This was expressed as a positive that would help Alessandro grow and develop in role. The possible detrimental effect on the team of Alessandro allowing feedback to negatively impact on his mood was also recorded. Those I interviewed confirmed that this had previously come up in conversation with Alessandro. I find no evidence of bullying. On the contrary, developmental feedback was offered in a way that could allow Alessandro to take steps to identify how to improve. I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you were looking for in relation to your grievance, but I hope that the information set out in this grievance outcome explains why I have reached these conclusions following my investigation of all relevant materials. You have the right to appeal this decision provided that you do so in writing

can you do that for me taking in consideration all the details that i gave you?