The government should ‘go back to the drawing board’ in its review of the statutory dispute resolution procedures says the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
A new study from the CIPD, Managing conflict at work, has reinforced the message that the dispute resolution procedures have made managing conflict at work more complex and failed to reduce the burden on employment tribunals.
The report reveals that conflict at work costs the average employer of the 798 surveyed around 350 days of management time every year, as well as annual costs associated with employment tribunal claims of about £20,000, rising to over £210,000 for those employing 10,000 or more people.
Around one-third (29 per cent) of employers believe disputes are less likely to be resolved informally following the introduction of the statutory dispute resolution procedures in October 2004, which introduced standard minimum three-step disciplinary and grievance procedures.
The survey also reveals that many employers report increases in the number of formal disciplinary and grievance cases since the introduction of the statutory procedures. The statutory grievance procedure has caused considerable problems, with 42 per cent of employers now more likely to resort to legal advice to ensure they don’t fall foul of the regulations when dealing with staff complaints.
Ben Willmott, CIPD employee relations adviser and author of the report, says: “The statutory dispute resolution procedures have led to a formalisation in how conflict is managed because employers are afraid of falling foul of the law. But an early intervention and informal resolution by managers is usually much more effective.
“The Department for Trade and Industry should consider going back to the drawing board when they review the statutory procedures later this year. They have failed to reduce the burden on the employment tribunal system, adding to the complexity of tribunal hearings, as well as creating additional problems for employers by making managing conflict at work more bureaucratic.
“Employers must provide the relevant training for line managers and invest in mediation if they are serious about reducing the damage caused by conflict at work in terms of wasted management time and the high costs associated with tribunal claims. Workplace disputes also generate very significant hidden costs through their negative impact on employee morale and motivation, absence levels, staff retention and employer brand.
“While most organisations train managers to use disciplinary and grievance procedures too many are failing to recognise the value of mediation and training in dealing with conflict more generally.”
As HR Zone reported last month, the government has announced it is to review not just the disciplinary procedures but employment law generally. Now a lawyer has suggested that unfair dismissal should be scrapped.
Writing in his blog, Mark Ellis, of EllisWhittam, says: “Employment laws that give aggrieved employees the right to claim huge compensation from employers might be just redemption in the eyes of the aggrieved employee – but shouldn’t we consider the bigger picture?
“Should an employee whom an entrepreneurial (job and wealth creating) employer deems to be wrong for the job have any right of comeback if he/she is sacked? Are the feelings and the personal hardship suffered by an individual employee more important than the success and happiness of UK plc?”
Responses to the questions Mr Ellis has posed include one from a commercial director saying: “I… spend at least half my time dealing with onerous employment law procedure rather than developing the business. It seems as though each week a new employer’s obligation crops up with accompanying red tape.”
But another points out: “If employers could be trusted to be fair then there would be no need for these measures but, as with everything related to a profit driven organisation, it is about keeping the money and exploiting the market.”
