Leading employment lawyer discusses the benefits – and drawbacks – of potential changes to how problems are resolved.
Potential changes to how personal grievances are dealt with in the workplace look set to “re-address the balance” between employee and employer after it was seen to tilt too far to employers, an employment lawyer told HRD.
“I think it’s become commonplace for any and all grievances in some workplaces to be reported. That brings about its own problems but can create a ‘grievance culture’. I don’t think that’s the case as such, but I think by putting guardrails and thresholds in place you’re restoring the balance,” Helen Pryde, Special Counsel and Buddle Findlay, said.
“Requirements, as they stand, are fairly strict on employers – so there’s a degree of uncertainty around how these grievances are dealt with.”
A personal grievance is generally defined as an unfair dismissal or unjustified disadvantage and can be filed against an employer at any time if an employee believes they haven’t been treated fairly and they have been disadvantaged – or dismissed – in a manner considered unfair.
The changes, announced by the government earlier this year, set an income threshold above which a personal grievance could not be pursued and removes eligibility for remedies where the employee is at-fault.
The threshold will initially be set at $180,000 and will be updated annually, the government says, with another proposed change being looking at procedural errors in an employment process and whether they should go as far to negate the justification for a finding of serious misconduct.
Pryde belives this puts greater control in the hands of the employer.
Commenting on the policy as a whole, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, Brooke van Velden, said, “This policy will provide greater labour market flexibility, enabling businesses to ensure they have the best fit of skills and abilities for their organisation. It allows employers to give workers a go in high impact positions, without having to risk a costly and disruptive dismissal process if things don’t work out.”
Pryde told HRD the new changes will – potentially – tackle what has been described as a ‘grievance culture’ within the New Zealand workforce.
“There are some companies that this culture can be seen, for sure, because people can become very entrenched in their position – but I think the question comes down to if the issue is genuine or not. Is it a grievance culture or do workers just have an issue with workplace culture as a whole?”
“Some grievances can be dealt with through communication,” Pryde added, “so having these new ‘guardrails’ in place is actually quite beneficial in outlining specifically what a personal grievance is and how they are dealt with.”
Grievances that are low level and low merit, Pryde emphasised, can sometimes be settled under current legislation – further creating a grievance culture as some issues are exaggerated.
“Employers might just want it off their plate, but I suppose that can be contributory behaviour to a grievance culture because you’re almost normalising that any issue should be officially filed – when in actual fact there are other ways disagreements can be addressed, such as just talking it through.” Pryde said.
Pryde noted that whilst there are some benefits in changing the way personal grievances are handled in the workplace, there are also downsides that need to be considered.
“You could end up going too far the other way and foster a workplace that is distrustful, where employees are nervous about complaining about things. It may create a feeling that if they speak up, it will be ignored.”
Pryde noted that finding the right balance falls on a knife edge and is, therefore, very hard to find – but the impacts need to be considered to make that as easy as possible.
