Why small businesses need an independent grievance hearing chair

A grievance lands in your inbox. It's formal. It names a manager. It references specific incidents. And now you need to work out who's going to hear it.

In most small businesses, the answer is whoever's available and senior enough. But availability and seniority aren't the same as suitability. And suitability is what a tribunal will look at if the grievance outcome gets challenged.

The impartiality problem

The ACAS Code of Practice says the person hearing a grievance should be impartial and not involved in the matters being raised. That sounds simple enough. But in a business with 15, 30, or even 50 people, it's rarely straightforward.

The grievance is about a senior manager. The only person more senior is the MD. But the MD has been involved in the situation informally. Or the MD has a close working relationship with the person being complained about. Or the MD is named in the grievance.

Suddenly there's nobody left.

This is the most common reason businesses bring in an independent hearing chair. Not because the grievance is complex. Because the internal structure makes it impossible to find someone impartial.

What an independent chair actually does

An independent grievance hearing chair runs the hearing, questions both parties, considers the evidence, and writes the outcome letter. They're not there as an observer or a note-taker. They're the decision-maker.

They'll have read the grievance, any investigation report, witness statements, and relevant policies before the hearing. They'll prepare questions that address each element of the complaint. And the outcome letter will set out findings on each point raised, with reasons, not just a one-line conclusion.

That level of rigour matters. The outcome letter is the document a tribunal will read most carefully if the employee later brings a claim. A letter that says "your grievance is not upheld" without explaining why, addressing each complaint, or setting out what evidence was considered is a letter that creates problems.

It's also about the employee's confidence in the process

Grievances are difficult for everyone involved. The person raising the complaint has usually spent weeks or months deciding whether to put it in writing. If they then walk into a hearing chaired by someone they don't trust to be neutral, the process fails before it starts.

An independent chair signals that the business is taking the complaint seriously. That matters for the outcome, for the working relationship, and for retention. People don't leave because of the grievance. They leave because they felt the process was a stitch-up.

Don't forget the appeal

If the grievance isn't upheld, the employee has the right to appeal. And the appeal needs to be heard by someone who wasn't involved in the original hearing.

If the MD heard the grievance, who hears the appeal? If you've used your only other senior manager as a witness, they're out too.

Planning the full process from the start, including who hears the appeal, avoids the scramble that happens when an appeal lands and there's nobody suitable left. If you're bringing in an independent chair for the hearing, it's often worth having a separate person lined up for the appeal.

Who this is for

I chair independent grievance hearings for small and growing businesses across Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, Hull, Liverpool, Nottingham and Derby. Most of the organisations I work with are in the 10-100 employee range. They have good managers, but the situation has made it impossible for anyone internal to hear it fairly.

If you've got a formal grievance and you're not sure who should deal with it, a quick conversation before you start the process is usually worth more than trying to unpick it later.