How To Respond To A Grievance - Part 1

Welcome to Manager Tools.

Today's cast, how to respond to a grievance,

part one of four.

The questions this cast answers are, what is a grievance?

What are the typical steps in a grievance process?

And what should I do to defend myself

from a grievance against me?

If you want answers to these questions and more,

keep listening.

Have you ever privately thought,

my managers just don't have that je ne sais quoi?

Well, management is a workplace discipline,

just like being an IT coder.

It requires regular behaviors in order to get results

and retain the right professionals.

And we often hear from people who get promoted

just because they were the best whatever,

and then don't get trained on what it means

to be an effective manager.

Well, let us bring manager tools into your organization,

either onsite or virtually,

such that you can learn how to be effective.

You have good people.

Arm them with the right tools.

Contact Maggie by emailing her

at customerserviceatmanager-tools.com

to schedule a call so that she can discuss

how to support you, your organization,

and your managerial growth.

If you are being grieved,

responding can be stressful

if you've never had the experience.

You need to know what's going to happen

and how to ethically protect yourself.

Kate,

we don't get to do this very often,

recording manager tools together.

This is one of my all-time favorite casts

I've ever written.

It's been on the manager tools list of casts

to be delivered,

which is now down to about 2,500 for years.

And it was only bumped up to the top of the list

when one of our community members said,

hey, I'm being grieved.

And I think I wrote 4,000 words about grievances

so that we could cover this completely.

Although there will be a couple of other casts

about the aftermath of a grievance.

And also we're going to do something for executives

and their role when perhaps a manager

in their organization is being grieved.

So we've got an outline with five parts.

First, we're going to talk about what is a grievance.

A lot of people don't know,

and it's a bit of a gray area.

People use grievance and they don't really mean it

in the formal sense.

And so you have to be able to navigate.

That we'll talk about how grievances work.

There is a fairly standard process

across most first world countries.

There are some slight differences,

but not enough that an individual listener

couldn't find the information

about how his or her grievance process

is slightly different.

We'll then talk about what you do first,

and it's important.

And then how to respond to the process itself,

your role in the process

and what you're supposed to do.

And that is going to be a big part of this guidance

because most managers are not ready for the distinct role

that a grievance process has,

and it's risk for managers.

There's all kinds of people who will talk about,

oh, this is not a big deal.

Don't believe them.

It's a very big deal.

And then lastly, we have to make a point about,

you cannot assume despite the fact

that people will tell you this,

you cannot assume

confidentiality or fairness in the process at all.

Do not be a lamb to slaughter, okay?

You have got to recognize that you are defending yourself

and this idea that everything will be okay

because HR says it's confidential and fair, not true.

Absolutely not true.

In fact, the confidentiality thing is a joke.

You should assume it's common knowledge among everybody

who's being grieved and who grieved them

and what they grieved about.

And I wonder what's gonna happen.

So those are our five points.

Starting with what is a grievance?

Yeah.

So we're gonna define it formally,

but then we're gonna get into some of that gray area

that I mentioned.

So a grievance is a formal complaint

lodged by any employee and hypothetically, even contractors.

I've heard that too, although legally it should not be done.

And it's a complaint lodged against virtually any other,

and it's a complaint lodged against virtually any other,

employee, often a direct manager,

or it could be a process that in the employee's mind,

unfairly negatively affects that employee or a decision,

like somebody didn't get promoted

and they thought they should.

And so they're grieving the promotion process,

but of course you can't talk to a process.

So if you're a part of the process,

you could be part of the grievance.

Mm-hmm.

Or the company's practices themselves.

There have been several famous cases

of people grieving environmental practices of companies,

which then leads to who actually takes the brunt

of the grievances, because it always is a who.

A grievance can be filed by an employee at any level,

but the vast majority of them are filed

by individual contributors.

Now, that said, it's a common misconception that only,

individual contributors can file a grievance,

because anybody can.

It's not strictly true,

even though the odds are overwhelmingly,

it is from individual contributors.

On the other hand,

it's also assumed that frontline managers

will not file a grievance.

And the reason for that is there,

as managers we're expected to have better relationships

with our peers and bosses,

and that we can work within normal channels, right?

Go talk to your boss,

or if needed,

need be do an open door policy to your boss's boss.

And if you need it, folks,

we have ample guidance on open door policies.

And for the record, I'll say it again,

I always get asked this.

Well, I tell my people, my door's always open.

Isn't that an open door policy?

No, folks, it's not.

Having an open door is a good thing,

but having an open door policy is something different.

Yes.

The other side that makes managers much more likely

to file a grievance is managers,

who represent the organization.

If you're grieving somebody above you,

you're essentially grieving the organization,

and there's a representative of the organization,

that person whom you're grieving personally,

but you both, even if it's your boss, are the organization.

You know, I think we have a cast from years ago, Kate,

called Welcome to They, right?

Yes, we do.

The classic example is individual contributors are like,

oh, they said this, or they want us to do that,

or they're planning this again, right?

And so, we tell them, okay, welcome to they, right?

Well, managers, because the manager's first responsibility

is to the company, and not to their team,

despite the popular management guidance

that your job is to take care of your team,

nothing can be further from truth.

Job of a manager is to deliver results and retain people,

but managers work for the company.

So, when we say welcome to they,

the moment you become a manager, you're they.

You're the one they're talking about.

You may feel close to your team,

but you still are a representative

of the company.

In fact, role power is the right, literally,

the legal right to speak for the company.

When managers speak, it can safely be assumed

by everybody they're speaking to on their team, of course,

that they are speaking for the company.

And the reason you're given that role power

from organizational theory and structure 101

is the company can't speak to everybody all the time

about everything.

There have to be representatives, actually,

in the legal term.

It's called an agent, and the company is a principal,

and you have the authority to speak for the company.

So, that therefore means you are the company.

So, the idea that one member of the company, the leadership,

the management structure of the firm,

is grieving another part of the company

is a little bit misleading.

It can be done, but generally speaking, it's much more rare.

Right, managers are granted agency.

Yes, exactly.

Exactly.

And so, their position is different.

Yeah, and managers don't realize

that when they tell an off-color joke,

it is as if the company CEO told an off-color joke.

And it's unfortunate because the common wisdom

in management is like,

well, you're really kind of a part of your team,

but you're not, no, no, you're really not.

You're no longer a part of the team.

Now, for the record, grievance is actually a term of art.

It's a specific thing.

And when somebody says there's a grievance,

that, by definition, implies that there

is an organizational process in existence

for complaints like this to be formally adjudicated.

Here's the problem with that, though,

when we get into the gray area.

Grievance is often used, particularly for people

who have had experience in union workplaces,

where if you're in a union workplace, which

we'll talk more about that, they're much more common, the use

of processes like this are much more common.

Grievance is used incorrectly to refer to any sort

of complaint made by any employee.

Now, a complaint is not necessarily a grievance.

A grievance, by definition, is a complaint.

It's essentially, legally, a cause of action

against the person or the organization

or its processes or practices, as we mentioned.

But as I mentioned, some HR professionals,

super well-intentioned and good, solid,

great HR people, but if they've worked previously

in an organization that did have a grievance process,

often because they're in a union shop,

they'll refer to any complaint they get in a workplace,

even though the workplace doesn't have

a formal grievance process, as a grievance.

And that is clumsy and misleading.

And for those managers who have been around others,

or they themselves have been grieved, it's scary, frankly.

We really shouldn't, people shouldn't say,

oh, there's a grievance, when in fact,

the company hasn't established a standard protocol.

And again, the protocols are very similar

and we'll go through all that.

They shouldn't use that language.

It's like the difference between saying,

I complained to my neighbor about something

in a neighborhood, or I called the police.

Yeah.

I mean, there's a difference, right?

Yeah, talking to your neighbor about something

is different.

Yeah.

Investing in the authority, right?

Yeah.

Or engaging with the authority.

Exactly.

And grievances have a process

and an authority involved, it's formalized.

Yeah, and what's funny about that is,

some people use it intentionally to imply

an extra level of risk and process and so on.

And I hate to say it, but many of the people

who are interviewers or the investigators of the grievance,

again, we'll get into all that, they like that power.

They really do.

And so they use it to, frankly,

send shivers down people's spines if they know.

Now, I will say this, we're lucky.

Manager Tools community managers

are very unlikely to be grieved, but unlikely is not zero.

And if you're in a union organization,

you are much more likely to be grieved,

partially because they always have well-documented and, and,

well-documented and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

and, and, and, and, and, involved processes,

you're much more likely to get a grievance

if you're in a union shop,

because that's the way complaints are handled,

mainly because the union can be involved.

As a general rule, and be careful,

cause it's not perfect.

Grievance processes almost always exist

in organizations with union employees

and only unionized employees or union leadership

either on their behalf or separately

can file a grievance. And the grievance process and its use is another of the reasons that

manager tools does not favor unionization in organizations. The formality of the process,

which we'll get into, and its inherent adversarial nature, while at the same time

proclaiming fairness, can be an enormous distraction from the actual work of the

organization. And by that, I mean the manager in this case. Let's say Kate's my manager and

I'm an employee and I file a grievance against her. For the next two or three weeks, the most

significant thing both of us are going to be doing is handling the grievance, writing up the grievance,

me talking to people about who were there for the incident, and so on, and then Kate responding as

the person being named the person I'm grieving. What's interesting about that is most managers

don't know, and that's the reason for this cast, what a grievance is, and they don't think.

That they should basically drop everything. But as you'll see in our guidance about the process,

you've got to nearly drop everything and focus on defending yourself.

It's an interesting situation that managers find themselves in more, I think, than they imagine

they will, of personal conflict. Not always between themselves and a direct, rather,

they're directs having personal conflicts, et cetera. And I know,

many people, I think, who really their first experience truly adjudicating personal conflict

is at work. They haven't really had in their lives friendships or other places where they've

really had to work at that. And it's an adult skill, which, of course, many professional skills

are also adult skills. And I don't know that it's obvious, though, that many adults do not

spend a lot of time in their lives developing this skill. And certainly it's unfortunate that

we have to create processes. We haven't developed it enough as individuals, and so therefore the

company has to come up with a process. Yes, the organization has to create a process in order to

support, to be candid, regular adult behavior. Yes, exactly. And it speaks to the fact of unions

that, of course, they're not going to be able to do that. They're not going to be able to do that.

The unions would be the first place that this happens. Sure. Rather than in an organization

where people strive to work together well, because unions, I believe, to some extent,

create factions. Mm-hmm. They do. In a place where people strive to work together well without

factions as much, it is less likely to happen. Yeah. Now, folks, to be fair, you may be in a

union organization and you may be surprised we're talking down about unions, but there are many

unions that are incredibly well-run and they have incredibly great relationships with their

corporate leadership, and that's a good thing. Yes. There's nothing wrong with that. We just

happen to think that unions create an interesting third-party, three-party economic system within

what is supposed to be a two-party economic system, the individual and the organization.

Also, the three-party economics of it makes the grievance process a little bit scarier, I think.

Oh, I agree.

It has so many...

It has such a larger impact to the two people involved.

Yeah.

Because the backing of the union for the grievance, it's almost like you have two sides

and now they have all these people behind them, but in fact...

Oh, yeah. And you don't.

Yes.

You as the manager don't.

Yes.

The company doesn't come to your defense at all.

Yes. It inflates the effect of the insult or whatever occurred, the incident, I believe.

Yeah, exactly.

Not that...

The grievance, because that's a formal contained, there's that kind of thing. But wow, to be

confronted with a grievance and to know that the entire union is backing the other person

would be intense, overwhelming.

Yeah. And there's a double problem there, because people don't understand the significance. And

part of the reason why this cast, we're going to be so strident in this cast, folks, and having

been involved in grievances before, I was never grieved, but having coached people through

grievances, the first thing is that they don't understand the seriousness of it.

Mm-hmm.

And it's already serious, and then that makes it worse, because now they're back-footed,

and that's not good.

If it exists, it's serious.

Yeah, exactly.

And so we need you to know.

Yeah. There is an exception to the rule of union organizations only. We didn't say that,

but I know some of you probably think, oh, I'm not in a union, it's fine. About the fact that

union organizations have grievance processes as...

If there's a union, there's a grievance process. But that doesn't mean if there's not a union,

there's not a grievance process. There are national, governmental, institutional,

and in some cases, industrial standards, which say, yeah, if you're in that industry,

there's a grievance process. For instance, generally, most UK and UK Commonwealth and

EU governments require a grievance procedure as a function of law, even for non-USA,

unionized workforces. Even if you're a small startup company, you are required to have a

grievance process. That means if you're in those countries, all companies, again, are required by

law, not just internally, their own doing to make things efficient relative to conflict negotiations

or resolution, but they're required to have it regardless, a grievance process, and they're

usually standardized to the laws of your country. But I can tell you the laws across virtually all

first world countries that have governmental requirements, the processes are very much alike.

And we've created, we'll walk you through that here in just a minute. Now, regrettably, some

companies that aren't required to have it apply fairly standard union grievance processes to

non-union employees. Now,

to be honest, guys, this is a bit of a quibble, because other than the unionized standards

assuming union support of union employees in the process, and again, as we mentioned earlier,

a non-union employee would not have that support. Our view, the managerial's view, is the use of

grievance in a non-union environment is an unnecessary use of the more harsh term,

assuming your company doesn't have a process.

And grievance, by definition, implies legal implications that often don't exist. But the

use of the word would cause an intelligent managerial's manager to go, oh, okay, this is

quite serious. And if there's not a process, then you're probably not being grieved. Now, in the US,

grievance procedures are only applied to union employees, and private companies are not required

by law to have one. So, that means, generally, you're not required to have one. So, that means,

generally, if you're in the US, in a non-union workplace, it's unlikely you will be grieved in

the formal sense of the word, unless your company has a grievance process. Now, US governmental

workplaces, even those without unionization, also have grievance procedures. Many places in academia,

higher learning, universities, colleges, and so on, also have grievance procedures.

Now, going back to the difference between a complaint and a grievance,

that doesn't mean the complaints can't be lodged against you or your company by somebody.

Often, complaint procedures amount to someone going to HR with a complaint or using the open

door policy and so on. So, if that seems a little murky, it is, but you should be able to use what

we just said to say, okay, I know, first of all, I ought to go look to find out whether there's a

grievance process. Certainly, it's knowable. Right. It's easily knowable. But if you're in

a non-union environment, and somebody is in a non-union environment, and you're not able to

there's a grievance, you've got to find out whether there's a process. And if there's not a

process, it's probably not a grievance. But quite frankly, we would recommend you still apply this

guidance because if somebody's using that word, they may think that they have more power than the

company has actually allowed them to have as the person running the process. And it'd be better

for you to be safe rather than sorry. If you have a good relationship with someone in HR,

you could probably call and say, hey, just wondering, learned about this thing. Do we have

this process here? What does it look like? Certainly, something that managers could

do to educate themselves to understand their organization. Right. And in our guidance here

in a little bit, we're going to tell you, the first thing you do is find out, right, immediately

after you notify your boss. We're hosting so many virtual events in September covering

a ton of stuff. We're going to tell you a ton of stuff. We're going to tell you a ton of stuff.

Come to our Effective Manager event starting September 16th at 10 a.m. Eastern. Or there's

an Effective Communicator event on September 18th, also starting at 10 a.m. Eastern. And on September

25th, we don't do this often, but we've got a remote manager event starting at 1 p.m. Eastern.

And we're so excited to tell you that we are planning to host an EMC in October, virtually,

with Spanish translation. You can sign up for these events at manager-tools.com forward slash

training.

So, next on the agenda is how grievances work. And despite the differences in industries and

cultures and countries and so on, grievances are handled in a fairly standard way. And here's how

it generally goes, okay? Most grievances follow a three- or four-step process. The first step

is an employee, usually unionized, but not always,

files, and then the next step is an employee, usually unionized, but not always,

usually a written request for assistance with a complaint they have with the organization,

policies or procedures, or an individual. Typically, the person or office they file

their grievance with is published in a grievance process and standards document that you can find,

as we mentioned, on your intranet. It might be, for instance, an argument that somebody was

unfairly punished, or they were denied a raise, or a promotion,

although there are often exceptions for the performance evaluation system trumping the

grievance process, although those tend to be pretty rare. Or maybe they were exposed to

unsafe working conditions. Now, it may be that you, as the manager responsible for the working

conditions, would be grieved, but in fact, it might also be that they're grieving the entire

company. You would be involved, but there may not be as much risk to you in that situation.

And certainly, the professional zeitgeist is having conversations about

who is held responsible for what an organization does.

And remember, we already said the manager.

Well, yes. And recently, France has decided that CEOs, in some cases, are responsible for

the companies. And those lines get blurry. And so, it is not without surprise that a manager

would find themselves in this position. Exactly.

And unsafe conditions historically include...

Physical danger, as things have changed a bit, that has expanded in a lot of cases to include

feelings of fear, or mistrust, or mental health issues, such as anxiety, or worry about repercussions,

or lack of professional progression. Grievances have expanded over the years as employees

mistakenly believe that they have a right not to be stressed by too much work, or even have to face

negative performance feedback in their environment.

Yeah.

And it's unfortunate that a formal process with legal implications could be called upon to handle

the stress of a working situation.

Right.

And that it would be something that you would then have to be involved in.

If Kate and I worked in a company with a grievance process, and she was my manager, and I felt

mentally stressed by the fact that she...

She gave me negative performance feedback, she could grieve me. Now, this creates all kinds of

problems for companies. Because companies are constantly saying, as a job, as a manager,

you've got to give feedback, you've got to be professional, you've got to be polite, and so on.

And we'll give an example of that here in a little bit.

People who experience burnout, who feel that they are experiencing burnout, could make a grievance.

Yeah.

And as a person who has, in the past, felt that I was near capacity,

and then realized that was actually only a feeling, I was not truly near capacity.

Right.

I can see negative implications of this being based on someone's perceptions.

Yes.

And just some perceptions, not all perceptions. Specifically, ones where you believe your

situation is caused by another person. Which, to be frank, I would suggest being at capacity or

not managing your capacity well is also upon the employee.

The individual. Yeah, exactly.

Certainly. So, we have to just think.

Organizations run with that very principle as an assumption that, of course, everyone is

responsible for their own workload, and so on. Yeah.

And your own ability to do it, right?

Right. Exactly.

So, first, we have the written.

Right. Generally, the filing of a written grievance.

The filing, right?

95% of the cases I've been involved in, it's in writing. And I'll just mention,

it might take a couple of weeks from the incident for them to take the time to talk to other,

and to write it all up, and draft it, and then finally decide,

are they going to go through with it or not?

Which is dangerous in that perceptions change, especially when you're talking to other people.

There's not just your lack of memory of the incident. There's the way other people,

when presented with your story, respond. Their perception of it leads you to believe it's worse

than it was, or better than it was. Wouldn't hurt, right?

Yeah. And their perception of it, their response affects their, if you're talking to a peer,

if I'm talking to Mike, my peer, and both of us report to Kate, that affects Mike's relationship

with Kate as well. Because now Kate is, I think she's going to be grieved. And just by saying

that, in most organizations, just by saying that, you can talk about fairness and confidentiality

all you want, but I can assure you the assumption is the manager was wrong.

And that doesn't just affect how,

you know, how you're going to respond to that.

Yeah.

If the peer feels about the manager, it would affect then how the grievance process is going

to go.

Yep.

Because there is then no one without an opinion about it.

Right. Exactly.

Okay. So we have the filing of the written. Then the next step is the organization has

a time-limited period to respond. It's actually usually pretty quick, one to two weeks. So a lag

time at the beginning, probably for the person to put everything together, get it all written and

filed, then a one to two week time.

Right.

This response is usually accompanied by an investigation by the receiving office. In the case where you, as a manager, were specifically grieved, this would mean you being notified of the grievance and being interviewed, often by HR, to determine facts of the situation.

Yes.

Facts is a strong word.

I use the word interviewed purposefully there because that's what they'll say.

I need to interview you about this. I'd like to have a conversation with you about this. But the better word is investigate.

Mm-hmm.

Because this person has police authority. They are granted as a function of the process, if you're in a grievance process, to decide who was right and who was wrong and what the punishment will be. They are judge and jury. And of course, in the first world, judges aren't juries and juries aren't judges.

Right.

But in this case, it is. And in many cases, we're not.

Regrettably, the HR person who knows the process, because anybody would know the process from looking in company policy manuals and so on, they know the process, but they have no experience investigating.

Yeah.

And again, the bias tends to be toward the manager being wrong, which is deeply unfortunate and a fundamental problem, a fundamental flaw in organizational responses to these types of situations.

Right.

Yes, so they interview them to determine what the facts are, right?

Yes.

And regarding notification, it's not necessary that you would have any notification of the

grievance before it was filed or received and the process of response was.

This has already started.

Yeah.

It's already filed.

They're down the path without you.

Sometimes you'll know, usually you will not know unless you're a contact for a response.

If you're a manager tools manager, as you said, it's unlikely that this would happen.

And if it did, I would suggest some manager tools managers would find out from their team

or somebody before they find out from HR.

I think he's going to get ready to file a complaint.

I heard a story, that kind of thing.

By the way, be on the lookout.

Yeah.

So you might not get notified and then you're going to get investigated.

If the investigation is not satisfactory to the person filing the grievance,

there are possibilities for appeal or request for further arbitration,

investigation and arbitration, I would assume.

Yeah.

Usually with an external qualified arbiter whose decision would then be final.

Yeah.

And this is rare.

But it does happen.

It is possible.

Something to be aware of.

Yeah.

Now, folks, I'll tell you something.

If this sounds dangerous, if you haven't gotten that from our introduction so far,

and we haven't even gotten to the meat of the cast, it is.

If a union employee has grieved you, they will have their union representative and resources

supporting the claim, irrespective of those people and resources lacking firsthand knowledge

of the details of what happened.

And you will likely have no support, not even in your chain of leadership.

And the union leadership has experience in the process.

And you likely do not.

Reading about the process is not experience with the process.

The process relies on an investigator talking to the person formally filing the grievance,

as well as anyone else they name, and talking to you.

Again, usually in the form of what we're calling an interview.

And to anyone else you may choose to name.

Exactly.

So there is many conversations.

Yes.

And yet yours.

Will be hypothetically the last, and you will probably provide less input, because as you'll see,

your input can be circumscribed to only the questions you get asked.

You don't necessarily, in the process, it's not obvious in most processes,

you get to present your case.

They got to present a case, and they made it as persuasive as possible.

But now, you're just getting to answer questions.

So you can see where the bias is.

Which is weird, because the company ought to be thinking about protecting their employees.

But as we have said before, while we don't hate HR, we love great HR,

but there's a lot of inexperienced HR people.

They recognize the power they have, and their bias will be toward taking care of the employee.

Because there are people in HR who believe that HR's unofficial role is to sort of be,

even in a non-union environment,

the union rep for the employee.

And I hate to say it, but I've heard conversations about people saying,

in HR, I got to scalp, you know, a manager.

I showed them, and the grievance went against them, and so they're not up for promotion during the next cycle or whatever.

And the process is essentially enormously flawed.

But you could still be in it, and so you have to play the game, even if the rules aren't fair.

And that's why we're here.

Yeah.

That's it for this week, folks.

Come back next week.

We'll see you next week for a continuation of this topic.