POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
EMPLOYEE NAME: ID NUMBER:
LOCATION: Home Based GRADE:
JOB TITLE: TEAM: Remediation Unit
CONTACT NO. CONTACT EMAIL:
vanacee Nic Marriott ID NUMBER:
CONTACT NO. CONTACT EMAIL:
DATE GRIEVANCE RECEIVED: 19" December 2023
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
RELEVANT iraised a grievance on 19" December 2023 citing the following concerns:
1. Bullying and harassment on the part of Simon Recaldin including misogynistic and passive
aggressive behaviour
2. Concerns over the intention to replace all permanent employees pre-existing Simon's
appointment, with a team of contractors all of whom he has previously worked with
3. Concerns over value for money in the set up of the RU leadership team given the
appointment of numerous contractors within the function without clearly defined roles and
responsibilities / deliverables
The complaint consisted of the following specifics:
- Appointment and scope of role of James Rawling
- Appointment and scope of role of Nigel Clibbens, and difference in treatment including more
regular one to ones with Nigel, and Nigel being recognised for success but not being held
accountable for performance
- Simon not liking challenge and referring to ‘you challenge me so much you make me weary’
and excluding from forums e.g. exclusion from the Past Roles activity and Resourcing
Committee _. _
- Inappropriate reference to! GRO } and being used to justify
performance concerns when in fact this was more likély as a result of a significant personal
situation that exposedi=ssniduring that period to a higher likelihood;
- Removal of budget accountability from scope of
- Failure to recognise the Operational / GLO teams from Simon despite requests to do so and
despite recognition across other members of the team
- Response to sharing papers that had only been ‘discussed’ with DBT and the difference in
tone when it was established this was Nigel Clibbens
- Inconsistent treatment oft as a female employee in relation to resourcing, inability to
recruit and increased process fori===!vs Chris Russell
- Direct challenge from Simon regarding anonymous WOW feedback provided b' i Ht
which was bought up and addressed with her during her own Performance Review meeting
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 1
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
ge in job title on a Board paper intentionally sanctioned by Simon Recaldin to belittle
= Allegation of sexist language suggesting prior to a meeting with DBT that ‘you should let
Nigel speak as he has more gravitas th
- Approach to daily stand up calls to _—
- Passive aggressive behaviour from Simon including comments of ‘setting lup for
success’ and pushing for Nigel to attend all meetings ‘for the success of the project’ as well
as feedback that}. “i ‘unable to accept help’
- Simon sharing} ireason for absence in an email trail with others despite being asked to
it confidential
individual withiriwessvanr! team as a {
- Inappropriate feedback in PDR as a result of the management of Past Roles, and the
inappropriate nature of the convers: between Simon and Alicia where it was perceived
that Simon blamed the situation on: d agreed she had mismanaged the situation
- Sexist comment from Richard along the lines of ‘you look like you would be better at typing
than me’
- Inappropriate delay in the SRR compensation programme
stated during the grievance hearing and reconvened grievance hearing that her desired
outcomes were:
- To be able to return to work into a safe environment where she feels valued for the job she
does
- Amendment of her mid year performance review rating!
- Transfer back into her substantive position o'
METHODOLOGY
In accordance with the Grievance Policy, I have conducted formal grievance hearings and
investigation meetings with individuals who have been identified as potential witnesses. I have
interviewed 14 individuals, a blend of permanent colleagues and contractors. In accordance with the
Grievance Policy all individuals interviewed as part of the process have had visibility of their meeting
notes. Below outlines the timeline of events: —
Wednesday 3% January — Formal Grievance Hearing witt IRRELEVANT
Thursday 18" January/ Friday 19" January/ Monday 22" January — Grievance investigation
Hearing with Simon Recaldin (Remediation Unit Director)
Monday 22" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Chris Russell (Interim Data
Management Director)
Monday 22" January — Grievance Investigation meeting Julia Marwood (People Director)
Tuesday 23" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Pam Heap (Remediation Unit
Escalations Director)
Thursday 25* January - Grievance Investigation meeting with Neil Davey (Remediation Unit
Finance Director)
Thursday 25" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Tim Mcinnes (Strategy &
Transformation Director)
Thursday 25** January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Evelyn Hocking (Programme
Manager — Contractor)
Monday 29" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Ruth Griffiths (Project Manager
— Contractor)
Monday 29" January - Grievance Investigation meeting with Pavandeep Dhami (Technology
Finance Director)
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 2
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
Monday 29" January- Grievance Investigation meeting with Nigel Clibbens (Head of
Strategy & Reporting — Contractor)
Monday 29" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Jamie Tebbutt (Head of Finance
— Remediation Unit)
Tuesday 30" January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Victor Turner (Project
Accountant - Contractor)
Wednesday 31* January — Grievance Investigation meeting with Jackie Lawrence (Senior
Data Protection Manager)
In addition to the above interviews, the following documents were received and reviewed and have
been taken into consideration in coming to my decision as detailed below.
Emails and Attachments:
6" Feb 2024 - Jamie Tebbitt ‘GLO Monthly Monitoring’
5t Feb 2024 — Emily Best — confirmation of 3 grievance cases relating to appeals of PDR
scores issued by }
8" Sept 2024 — Johann Appell ‘PM Development Project Assurance Report’
2" Feb 2024 — Matthew Atkinson — Legally Priviliged - Attachment contained legal advise re
SRR deductions of wage types — marked legally privileged dated 2023.06.30
2" Feb 2024 — Mel Park teams message confirming PM’s now suspended are paid gross
REM over an average 12 month period but referring to Tracy Marshall to check this
2" Feb 2024 — Tracy Marshall teams message confirming PM’s now suspended are paid
gross REM averaged over a 12 month period
30" Jan 2024 — Claire Hamilton — HMU Investigation Report
30% Jan 2024 — Neil Davey email titled Supporting Material containing 4 attachments
- Supplementary estimates
- HSS Risk
- Resource Forum
- Post Office: Scoping Documents
29" Jan 2024 -[. Panel Teach in on POL Shortfall
26" Jan 2024 —{IRRELEVANT : email — requesting interview of Jackie Lawrence
25" Jan 2024 — Pam Heap email ref Sarah Lambert
23" Jan 2024 — Simon Recaldin email including attachments:
- GLO working party and resourcing
- 2023-12-14 weekly SR MI pack
- 2023-09-21 weekly SR MI pack
- 2023-09-28 weekly SR MI pack
- 2024-01-04 weekly SR MI pack
- 2023-10-05 weekly SR MI pack
- 2023-11-23 weekly SR MI pack,
19" Jan 2024 — FWI IRRELEVANT! Appraisal — Everybodys Conversation document
email with x 4 attachments: IP process
9" Jan 2024 4 email — Re:GLO disclosure dated 26" June 2023
4
9" Jan 2024 — IRRELEVANT ‘email FW: Readout from DBT SteerCo on SRR temporary
postmaster case and scheme restart
9" Jan 2024 email FW: Objectives
9" Jan 2024 “t relates to impact of not having the ability to
recruit
9" Jan 2024 attachments: Everybodys Conversations andI IRRELEVANT ‘detailed 360 report
3"? Jan 2024 — FW: In confidence conflicts of interest (HM)
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 3
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
5" Feb 2024 —- FW GLO Bill
12" Feb 2024 - Victor Turner: Re: RU Investigation
I discussed the findings with jon 15" February and during this discussion in addition to
confirming the outcome, I explained that given the sensitivities relating to this case and to the
nervousness on the part of some of the witnesses, I would reference relevant sections in my findings
but would not be disclosing any supporting evidence in full.
FINDINGS
I will refer to findings in relation to each of the specific concerns detailed above.
1. Bullying and harassment on the part of Simon Recaldin including misogynistic and
passive aggressive behaviour
I have found no evidence supporting a view of sexist or misogynistic behaviour on the part of Simon
Recaldin. No witnesses corroborated this perspective and I was unable to validate any specific
examples raised by! relation to this over the course of the investigation. My findings are
despite both generic questioning of all witnesses on the culture of the function, whether they have
witnessed any inappropriate behaviour on the part of any of our RU leaders and also specific
questions on whether they have witnessed sexist behaviour and where relevant witnessed any
specific examples provided.
The inconsistent approach to resourcing resulting in different treatment of: ‘ito Chris Russell was
the result of finance intervention due to not having a signed contract for funding relevant to GLO. A
number of resources had already been signed off at risk and Neil Davey provided a statement to
confirm he was the decision maker in refusing approval in this case despite repeated pressure from
Simon Recaldin to provide the support as asking for. Simon's push for this resource to be
approved was also despite his concerns that he was not getting to the bottom of true resourcing
requirements, a concern shared by other witnesses present during daily stand up calls (including at
least two POL employees outside of the RU contractors within the leadership team).
I believe the behaviour demonstrated by Simon falls short of bullying and in some cases is the result
of genuine concerns over! erformance that are exacerbated by feedback from other Senior
employees on Simon first joining the business and have been referenced by other witnesses. There is
evidence to demonstrate that Simon has defended ‘against challenge from stakeholders outside
of RU in a manner consistent with how he treats the Contractors within his leadership team. He also
refused to mark down iseuveriend of year performance rating on first joining the business, despite
pressure from his Manager given their concerns ov suevant; performance.
However, there are specific examples provided by/weserthat the investigation has validated and I am
concerned at the impact of the environment that has een created in RU, oniv ind others, that.
has been referred to by multiple witnesses as ‘clique’, ‘insiders and outsiders’ when it comes to the
Contractor team Simon has resourced versus existing POL employees and POL support function
employees. I do not believe this environment is appropriate or conducive to effective performance.
Additionally, witness statements have supported a view that Simon and some of the contractor
population within the RU leadership are not open to challenge and do behave in a passive aggressive
manner when challenged, with examples provided of defensiveness, eye rolling, visible frustration
and then excluding relevant parties from further involvement in issues.
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 4
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
I am further concerned by what I believe to be a lack of self-awareness on Simon's part of the impact
of his behaviour and leadership approach. In addition to the culture of us and them within his own
leadership team, one specific example of this is the approach to challengingm=" uring her
performance review meeting based on anonymous feedback she had provided to Simon in support
of his own review, which he accepted he had done and which I believe was ill judged and
inappropriate.
Another example is the open discussion of performance issues With jmsievpe
to around 18 grievances’ in the context of her picking up i="! area, This is wholly inaccurate with
only 3 grievances being raised all of which related to PDR scores of individuals within the team of
the two Team Leaders who were off work sick (predominantly as a result of the handling of the Past
Roles issue within the team). This type of narrative that has been discussed With [ienetevant eers,
whether believed to be true by Simon or not, undermines: asad ‘0 others and is based on inaccurate
assumptions.
2. Concerns over the intention to replace all permanent employees pre-exi:
appointment, with a team of contractors all of whom he has previously worked with
I do not believe that Simon has demonstrated an intent to replace all permanent employees with
contractors he has previously worked with. My investigation determined that Simon was given a
mandate on joining the business, and part of his recruitment was based on the desire from the
business for him to bring in experienced Remediation resources to underpin the function with
experience and capability in this space. The allegation is also inconsistent with treatment of other
permanent members of the RU team.
There is a perception of Simon recruiting ‘mates’. The investigation has found no evidence to support
any relationship between Simon and the contractors recruited into the function beyond long standing
professional relationships. However, examples have been provided of very close personal
relationships between some of the contractors themselves.
I believe that Simon has genuine concerns Over eretevan "performance that has resulted in the approach
he has taken to bring in additional resources to Support. However, I do feel that the execution of this
support and the management of performance concerns has been ineffective.
3. Concerns over value for money in the set-up of the RU leadership team given the
appointment of numerous contractors within the function without clearly defined roles
and responsibilities / deliverables
Whilst Simon is operating based on a mandate to equip the function with experienced and capable
Remediation resources, the investigation has highlighted that the execution of this has been reactive
and not well planned against a formal organisational design or resource plan.
There are ongoing concerns from numerous witnesses about the extent to which all resources within
the Lead team are fully utilised, and regarding clarity of deliverables, roles and responsibilities.
Whether the business gets value for money out of how the leadership team has been constructed
and resourced has been raised as a question by a number of witnesses and this is an area that I
believe requires further review.
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 5
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
Concerns have also consistently been raised regarding the management of the RU Resource
Committee which has heavy Contractor involvement in extensions and review of rates of other
contractors. This process also requires further review.
In relation to the specifics my findings are as follows:
- Appointment and scope of role of James Rawling
James was appointed with no clear scope of role or deliverables other than to take a look and help
The ability to reallocate James when the appointment and scope of role was challenged indicates the
requirement was unclear and unnecessary at the point of appointment and the use of words like ‘he
is no threat to you’ from Simon, which he accepted he said, is likely to have resulted in concern from
wear that this was the case.
A witness has confirmed that towards the end of his contract with Post Office and prior to leaving of
his own volition, James himself was frustrated and uncomfortable that he was underutilised both in
relation to the level of activity he was involved in in comparison to his experience and in the volume
of work.
- Appointment and scope of role of Nigel Clibbens, and difference in treatment including
more regular one to ones with Nigel, and Nigel being recognised for success but not
being held accountable for performance
Similar to James, Nigel was appointed with no clear deliverables or scope of role and the extent to
which his responsibilities have changed over the course of his contract is a further indicator of this,
including the desire to use him as Finance Director within the function rather than utilising the POL
Finance support function. Whilst I accept that roles and requirements do evolve over time and in light
of changing business needs, evidence points to a lack of a clear organisational design or resource
plan in how activity should be delivered within the function.
Despite using statements such as ‘he is no threat to you’ the lack of clarity of deliverables and Nigel
himself stating that he is there to help whethermamilikes it or not, is not conducive to effective
workinga2277* Simon was unable to articulate a clear scope for Nigel despite
an ask fromis=rto do so and I do believe this served to undermingmms role and her relationship
with Simon.
There is evidence to suggest that whilst Nigel played a role and was in place to supportimss
time the mistake was identified with SRR, Nigel was not held to account in the same way AS fener]
and instead went on to lead the remediation of the issue.
- Simon not liking challenge and referring to ‘you challenge me so much you make me
weary’ and excluding from forums e.g. exclusion from the Past Roles activity and
Resourcing Committee
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 6
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
Witness statements have supported a view that Simon and some of the contractor population within
the RU leadership are not open to challenge and do behave in a passive aggressive manner when
contractors within tl eam — with a lens of concern forjsseaet but without all relevant
information. I accept Tiperspective and acknowledge that Simon’ 's assumptions around stress at.
work contributing to illness was misplaced. However, I do not believe it is not an unreasonable
conclusion to draw in the context of a stressful working environment and an individual working long
hours and believe it would be appropriate for Simon to query this one to one with fmsasar
It was not appropriate on Simon's part to assume this evidenced a performance concern. However
this could have been mitigated with increased openness fromim«regarding her personal situation,
and Simon may have assumed in his role of Line Manager that !"'would be open around such
issues. I do however accept it is /srae7i right not to disclose personal circumstances particularly in the
context of a relationship with her line manager that was already strained.
- Removal of budget accountability from scope ot IRRELEVANT I
There seems to be no apparent rationale other than for an offer of help, that was not requested, as to
why budget accountability would be removed from the scope of role of a Senior Leader within I the
which was articulated openly by a witness as part of the investigation. Simon also articulated the
need for pace in the activity and already had concerns over progress against the context of a red
scorecard.
-
However, there was no formal feedback put to/*"*"lat the time to support this and no offer of
guidance or counsel that I have been made aware of for how to address any perceived concerns. I
therefore believe that it was inappropriate to reallocate accountability of an individual into a
Contractor on this basis without any formal employment process being followed.
- Failure to recognise the: from Simon despite requests to do so
and despite recognition across other members of the team
Simon acknowledged during his meeting that he likes to drive pace and is very delivery focussed in
mindset which at times means his recognition is not as good as it should be. He explained that he
treats all teams within the function consistently in this regard but that it may appear less frequent in
I area due to the size of the team. Feedback from witnesses does tend to suggest that there is
jess recognition infimreievartiareas and that she does appear to be treated differently at times, however
it is important to note that where this is implied, the reason for that difference in treatment is
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 7
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
understood by witnesses to be because of issues;
GRO
- Response to sharing papers that had only been ‘discussed’ with DBT and the difference
in tone when it was established this was Nigel Clibbens
The tone of emails in relation to this issue from Simon is initially high challenge and this does appear
to change when Nigel acknowledges he shared the documents and made the decision. However, it is
impossible to determine whether the same response would have been provided from Simon had
recruit and increased process for}"“ivs Chris Russell
The inconsistent approach to resourcing resulting in different treatment Offmemrito Chris Russell was
the result of finance intervention due to not having a signed contract for funding relevant to i
number of resources had already been signed off at risk and Neil Davey provided a statement to
confirm he was the decision maker in refusing approval in this case despite repeated pressure from
Simon Recaldin to provide the support’ ‘as asking for. Simon's push for this resource to be
approved was also despite his concerns that he was not getting to the bottom of true resourcing
requirements, a concern shared by other witnesses present during daily stand up calls (including at
least two POL employees outside of the RU contractors within the leadership team).
- Direct challenge from Simon regarding anonymous WOW feedback provided by)==
which was bought up and addressed with her during her own!
meeting
Simon acknowledged during this meeting that he did address the feedback me anonymously
provided during her PDR and there is reference to the breakdown in their relationship within!
Everbodys Conversations document. The WOW feedback process was communicated as an
anonymous process to reassure employees that they could provide honest and open feedback
without fear of reprisals. In this context it was inappropriate and ill-judged for Simon to raise this
if “jat all and not least within her own PDR meeting and I do believe the manner in which it
was raised was passive aggressive in nature.
- Change in job title on a Board paper intentionally sanctioned by Simon Recaldin to belittle
The investigation found no evidence to support this specific allegation. Evelyn Hocking confirmed
that thi
en
IRRELEVANT
ind would therefore have a different job title. This was ultimately corrected when
challenged but I believe stemmed from a lack of understanding of the nature o1
Iimrevevanti as temporary.
rt of one of the team because at that point,
Irole and it was therefore perceived that !"="""had moved across
«imove across
- Allegation of sexist language suggesting prior to a meeting with DBT that ‘you should let
Nigel speak as he has more gravitas than you’
The investigation found no evidence to support this specific allegation.
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 8
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
- Approach to daily stand up calls to IRRELEVANT
There is evidence that this approach is standard when wanting to deal with issues across the RU and
was applied no differently to the If ‘than it has been in other areas of the function. Several
witnesses were asked whether the tone and approach during these meetings was ever
inappropriate, to which the large majority said it was not. There was a general acceptance that the
meetings were high challenge and that frustrations were visible on the part of Simon and others at
times. However, there was also a view that fenuwmcame across as unprepared, inconsistent and
unable to answer questions regarding numbers and requirements and that this, along with repeated
failures on consecutive days to deliver specific actions, led to these frustrations. It is of course
possible that the nature of the! GRO “during these meetings.
did cross the line into inappropriate on a single occasion and that it should have been handled in a
1:1. Another witness felt that whilst the meeting wasn't necessarily inappropriate, it was ill judged
and badged as support when in fact it came across as overly challenging and directed solely 4
I believe this demonstrates poor judgement from Simon in not changing the approach to the support
being offered / to get the bottom of requirements when it wasn't working and was resulting in
frustration and tension.
contractors). MI has also been provided by Simon which shows regular red status in relation to &
compared to forecast and it is expected that Simon would need to intervene in such a scenario.
- Simon sharing}:
to keep it confidential
Whilst the timing and wording of the email from Simon was unfortunate, having addressed this with
him I am confident that his email had nothing to do wit “labsence but instead referred to the
pressure being removed in its entirety due to the psychological impact of the deadline on activity
being given flexibility.
I do not believe that the score off! was given on a single incident and I am confident having
discussed at length with Simon that he had genuine concerns that he had
discussed with HR prior to the PDR meeting. The tone of the meeting and the behaviour of both
parties was inevitably impacted by the discussion of the WOW feedbac
Simon and him addressing this in that forum, which I do not believe was helpful in creating an open
environment for two-way discussion and an opportunity to hear each others point of view.
Whilst there are examples provided that would create a cause for concern with regards t
there is also misunderstanding in some of Simon's narrative in at least one instance
‘relating to the taxation of payments, which was addressed separately b ith Simon but was
not responded to.
The process around Past Roles has been complex and has been ongoing with numerous discussions
at GE and only recently a confirmed process for managing this. No process or policy existed
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE
©
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
regarding recruitment in relation to the risk of optics relating to those involved in activity subject to
the Inquiry and the decision in resourcing at the time was more about ensuring the team had access
to the knowledge and experience of individuals that could inform what happened in the past and
enable effective management going forward. Whilst with hindsight this may have been
inappropriate, and I would expect an understanding on the extent of the risk this generates for the
business and for these individuals from now, it feels unreasonable to hold I
historical decisions across the board that were made in a different operating co
When it came to BT, it is understood by witnesses and by me in advance of this process, that HR
failings were a significant contributing factor in how this situation unfolded and this may not be
sufficiently reflected in Simon's understanding of the situation.
The investigation has been unable to evidence why a different approach to the conversation with
Alicia was taken to those led by Pam in the Operational area. Witnesses present in the discussion
where it was agreed this conversation would happen felt that the remit of the discussion was to
explain the perceived risk as opposed to discussing redeployment directly and Simon also articulated
this perspective. Despite this, I do not believe it was necessary for Simon to leave Alicia with the
impression that=as~rwas to blame for the impact on her of the situation and feel this could have
the process — particularly without any prior discussion from Simon wit
seeking to understand her perspective.
The reallocation of accountabilities and workload, the environment of us and them, the response of __
and Simon, the significant impact of which o1
conducive to a}
- Sexist comment from Richard along the lines of ‘you look like you would be better at
typing than me’
The investigation found no evidence to support this specific allegation. The witness referred to in
eretevar Grievance meeting was unable to recall such a comment.
- Inappropriate delay in the SRR compensation programme
There is evidence that practices in relation to SRR following a significant delay in making payments,
now differ from practices established within HSS and BAU and at odds with legal advice and the
view I have seen direct from DBT on the compensation principles that should apply and the approach
they are willing to fund, ie. mitigate operational expenses and where there is a question mark take a
view in the favour of the Postmaster. Given concerns raised by multiple stakeholders as to the
timeliness of the scheme and the approach now being taken, and in light of my initial findings above,
this has now been escalated to A&C! for further investigation.
DECISION
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE 10
POL00458448
POL00458448
FORM
Based on the above I partially uphold the grievance and support the required outcome"
in her grievance hearing and reconvened grievance meeting which are:
IRRELEVANT
1. Transition back into the full scope of the} I
2. Amendment of the half year PDR score! GRO I
3. Return to being valued in role in a safe working environment
In seeking to ensure point 3, further recommendations are detailed below on actions required to
further investigate / address the findings detailed within this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Plan to be established between
the full scope of her substantive _____ IRRELEVANT :
to be given as part of this to managing the interim incumbent and the appropriate handover
2.
clarity of expectations of all parties such that anyy” GRO
identified and appropriately managed
3.
4.
the conclusion of this exercise!" ill maintain a touchpoint with myself in the format ofa
buddy / independent point of escalation or mediation as required
5. Escalation of concerns raised regarding the delay in the SRR scheme for further investigation
by the A&CI function
6. Full review by an independent HR lead of the RU organisational design starting with the
construction of the leadership team scope, roles and responsibilities and deliverables
7. Full review by an independent HR lead of all contractors within RU aligned to the above OD
review, starting with the RU leadership assessing deliverables, expected duration of role,
length of service and IR35 status
8. Review by an independent HR lead of the RU resource committee terms of reference and
approach to management of the process.
9. Further recommendations / action affecting other employees / contractors referenced within
the grievance will be documented and managed with them separately as appropriate
MANAGER
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT_TEMPLATE qd