When You Need an Independent Grievance Appeal Chair

There's a particular kind of phone call that tends to come on a Friday afternoon. An employee has appealed a grievance outcome. The original decision-maker is one of the directors. So is the other person named in the appeal. The HR function, if there is one, consists of a part-time administrator who handles contracts and holiday requests. And someone, somewhere, has mentioned the words employment tribunal.

This is not an unusual situation. It happens in small businesses, clinics, practices, and growing organisations across the UK every week. And the question it raises - who on earth chairs this appeal - is one that a surprising number of employers have no good answer to.

What is an independent grievance appeal chair?

When an employee raises a formal grievance, their employer is required under the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to allow them to appeal the outcome. The appeal should, wherever possible, be heard by someone who was not involved in the original decision.

In larger organisations this is straightforward. A more senior manager, a director from a different division, or an HR business partner steps in. The process stays internal and the independence, while imperfect, is usually sufficient.

In smaller organisations it is considerably more complicated. If the business has two directors and both are implicated in the grievance, there is no obvious internal candidate. If the grievance concerns the founder, or the owner, or the only senior person in the building, the same problem applies. The appeal cannot meaningfully be heard by someone with a direct stake in the outcome, a personal relationship with the parties, or a financial interest in the decision going a particular way.

This is where an independent external grievance appeal chair becomes not just useful but necessary.

When does independence actually matter?

Independence matters in every grievance appeal, but it matters most in three specific situations.

The first is where the grievance names senior people. If the appeal relates to the conduct, decisions, or behaviour of a director, owner, or founder, anyone inside the organisation who reports to that person - or who has a relationship with them - cannot credibly be seen as independent. The employee, and potentially their union representative or solicitor, will scrutinise who chairs the appeal and why. A weak appointment here creates procedural vulnerability before the hearing has even started.

The second is where the issues are legally complex. Grievances involving disability, reasonable adjustments, flexible working, or allegations of discrimination carry a higher risk of employment tribunal proceedings if the appeal outcome is unsatisfactory. In these cases the written outcome of the appeal may become a key document in any subsequent tribunal claim. The quality, reasoning, and independence of the chair matters enormously.

The third is where the relationship between the parties has broken down completely. When an employee has union representation, has instructed a solicitor, or has made clear that they intend to pursue the matter further, the appointment of an independent external chair signals that the employer is taking the process seriously. It does not guarantee a particular outcome, but it significantly reduces the risk of the process itself being challenged.

What does an independent appeal chair actually do?

It is worth being clear about what an independent chair is and is not. They are not a reinvestigator. They are not there to start from scratch, gather fresh evidence, or conduct a parallel investigation into the original grievance. Their role is to chair the appeal process: to review the evidence that has already been gathered, hear the appellant's case, ask questions to test the grounds of appeal, and determine whether the original outcome was fair, reasonable, and procedurally sound.

The question an appeal chair is asking is not what they would have decided had they handled the matter from the beginning. It is whether the original decision fell within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer given the evidence and circumstances at the time.

In practice this means reviewing the document bundle, preparing a hearing agenda, managing the hearing itself, and producing a written outcome setting out findings and reasons across all grounds raised. Where the appeal raises issues that genuinely require further enquiry - a specific factual point that cannot be resolved on the papers, or a procedural gap in the original process - the chair may need to speak with additional parties. But this is the exception rather than the rule.

The written outcome and why it matters

One of the most important things an independent appeal chair produces is a written outcome that can withstand scrutiny. This is not a brief letter confirming whether the appeal is upheld or dismissed. It is a document that addresses each ground of appeal in turn, sets out the evidence considered, explains the reasoning behind the findings, and reaches a conclusion that is proportionate and defensible.

Where the original grievance involved allegations of discrimination, disability, or other legally protected matters, the written outcome of the appeal may be disclosed in employment tribunal proceedings. A well-reasoned, carefully drafted outcome document is a significant asset in those circumstances. A poorly reasoned one, or worse, an outcome that appears to have been written to support a predetermined conclusion, is a significant liability.

This is one of the reasons that the independence of the chair matters not just procedurally but practically. An outcome written by someone with a genuine stake in the result will read differently to one written by someone with no interest in the outcome either way. Employment judges are experienced at telling the difference.

What to look for when appointing an independent chair

Not every HR consultant or employment adviser is well placed to act as an independent grievance appeal chair. The role requires specific experience: chairing formal hearings, managing a process under the ACAS Code, producing written decisions with findings and reasons, and handling legally complex or sensitive matters proportionately.

Relevant experience to look for includes a background in senior HR, employment law, or people advisory work. Chartered CIPD membership or equivalent professional standing is a useful indicator of credibility. The chair should have no prior connection to the organisation, the parties, or their representatives - and should be willing to confirm this in writing as part of their terms of engagement.

It is also worth asking whether the chair will produce a written outcome report for internal use as well as an outcome letter to the employee. Where there is any realistic prospect of tribunal proceedings, a more detailed internal record of findings and reasoning can be valuable. It is the kind of document that is straightforward to produce at the time and extremely difficult to reconstruct later.

How much does an independent grievance appeal chair cost?

Fees vary depending on the complexity of the case, the size of the document bundle, and whether witnesses or additional parties need to be heard. For a straightforward appeal with a manageable bundle and a single hearing, costs typically start from around £1,500. For more complex matters - multi-issue appeals, substantial bundles, disability or discrimination grounds, union representation - a fixed fee in the region of £2,500 to £3,500 is more realistic.

This is considerably less than the cost of employment tribunal proceedings, which for a defended claim typically runs to several thousand pounds in legal fees alone, before any award or settlement is considered. Viewed in that context, the cost of an independent chair is not an overhead. It is risk management.

A note for small businesses and growing organisations

If your business does not have an internal HR function, or if your HR resource is not senior enough to chair a formal appeal independently, this is not a gap that should be papered over with a well-meaning manager who happens to be available. The ACAS Code expects a fair process. Employment tribunals expect a fair process. And employees, particularly those who have taken the step of raising a formal grievance and appealing the outcome, are increasingly well-informed about what a fair process looks like.

Appointing an independent external chair is not an admission that something has gone wrong. It is a straightforward, proportionate response to a situation that many small organisations find themselves in through no fault of their own. The directors are named. The process needs to be clean. Someone independent needs to chair it.

That is exactly what this service exists to do.