A grievance against a manager or colleague: how it should be handled
The general grievance procedure assumes a complaint about a thing - pay, workload, a decision. When the complaint is about a person, three extra problems appear: who can fairly hear it, what the accused is told, and how everyone keeps working together while it runs. This guide is for the employer handling it - and for the person it names.
Route the grievance to someone who isn't its subject and doesn't report to them, give the person complained about enough to respond, keep interim steps neutral, and if discipline follows, run it as a separate process with a different chair. Most person-against-person grievances end not with a sacking but with expectations reset in writing - handled early and fairly, that is a good outcome, not a fudge.
When the grievance is against a manager
The routing problem comes first: the normal path - raise it with your manager - is broken by definition, and a procedure that only names the line manager has silently told people their manager is beyond complaint. A fair policy names an alternative route in advance: another manager, a director, the owner in a small company, or an external HR consultant where the business is too small to find a clean pair of hands. The one arrangement that can never be fair is the accused manager hearing, investigating or deciding a complaint about themselves - and that includes "informally resolving" it before it gets written down.
Two further wrinkles are specific to manager cases. Power: the complainant's pay reviews, work allocation and reference sit in the accused's hands, so the employer must be explicit - in writing - that raising a genuine grievance will not be held against them, and must watch the following months for anything that looks like it is. And function: the team still needs managing while the process runs. For most grievances the manager keeps managing with a specific decision (approvals, say, or the complainant's appraisal) temporarily routed elsewhere; standing the manager down entirely is an exceptional step for serious allegations, not a default - it prejudges the outcome in front of the whole team.
| Company | Who hears it | Who hears the appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Under ~10 people | The owner or a director the manager doesn't line-manage | External HR consultant if nobody clean is left |
| 10–50 people | Another manager or director outside the reporting line | Someone more senior, uninvolved so far |
| 50+ people | HR plus an uninvolved senior manager | A director who has not touched the case |
| Grievance about the owner | External HR consultant or mediator - there is no internal clean pair of hands | Agree the route with the consultant at the start |
When the grievance is against a colleague
Peer cases trade the power problem for a proximity problem: the two people usually sit near each other, share work, and will be asked - by teammates who have noticed the atmosphere - what is going on. The employer's job is to investigate without choosing sides in the meantime: if desks or shifts need separating while it runs, make the change neutral or ask for a volunteer, because "we moved the person you complained about" and "we moved you" each broadcast a verdict nobody has reached yet. Both people are entitled to a fair process: the complainant to a genuine investigation and an answer, the person complained about to know the substance of what is said and to respond to it before anything is concluded.
Serious allegations - harassment, discrimination, safety - change the gearing: the employer's duties do not wait for the grievance timetable, interim protection of the complainant takes priority, and the matter may need a proper investigation under the anti-harassment policy whatever the grievance paperwork says. If criminal conduct is alleged, take advice before interviewing anyone.
If a grievance has been raised against you
Being named in a grievance is horrible, and most guidance forgets you exist. The facts that help: a grievance is not a disciplinary charge - it is a complaint the employer must look into, and a large share end with no finding of fault, expectations clarified on both sides, or a mediated conversation. You should be given the substance of the complaint in enough detail to respond; do that in writing, factually, without characterising the complainant's motives. Bring evidence - messages, dates, witnesses - rather than adjectives.
Three things not to do: don't approach the complainant about it, even kindly - anything you say can read as pressure and will become part of the case; don't canvass the office for allies; don't resign in the heat of week one. And one right to know about: if the investigation does lead to disciplinary action against you, that is a separate process with its own meeting, at which the full disciplinary protections - including the statutory right to be accompanied - apply to you.
Can a grievance turn into a disciplinary?
Yes, and this is the junction where fair processes most often crash. If the investigation finds conduct that warrants it, the employer opens a disciplinary against the person complained about - but they are two procedures, not one. The grievance exists to answer the complainant; the disciplinary exists to deal fairly with the accused; and where the business has enough people, they should have different chairs, because one person deciding both has effectively decided the second before hearing it. Write both outcomes separately. The reverse junction exists too: an employee facing a disciplinary sometimes raises a grievance about the process itself - it usually does not pause the disciplinary, but it must still be genuinely considered, not filed as a tactic.
What about malicious grievances?
Rarer than accused people fear and than complainants are warned. The test is good faith, not accuracy: a complaint that investigation finds unfounded is not misconduct - people are allowed to be wrong about how a manager's behaviour was meant. A complaint shown to be knowingly false or brought to harass someone is different, and can itself be a disciplinary matter. Keep the bar high and say so in the policy - the fastest way to stop people reporting real problems is to make an honest mistake feel punishable, and a company where problems go unreported has not become a company without problems.
Keep the machinery boring
Person-against-person cases generate heat; the process should generate paper. Acknowledge quickly, investigate proportionately, hold the meetings the standard procedure requires (with the statutory right to be accompanied at the grievance meeting), decide, give an outcome with an appeal route, and file everything - the notes, the outcome letters, the interim decisions and who made them - somewhere findable. If the same manager's name appears in a second file a year later, the pattern is the finding; a company that keeps its ER records in one register (CoDash keeps one) can see that pattern, and one that keeps them in inboxes cannot.
Frequently asked questions
Who should hear a grievance raised against a manager?
Someone who is not the subject of it and does not report to them: another manager, a director, the owner in a small company, or an external HR consultant if the business is too small to find a clean pair of hands. The one arrangement that cannot be fair is the accused manager investigating a complaint about themselves.
Is the person a grievance is about told who complained?
Usually they learn enough to respond, which in a small team often reveals who raised it - promising the complainant total anonymity is a promise most investigations cannot keep, so a fair employer promises confidentiality with limits instead: information is shared only with the people who need it, and reprisals are treated as a disciplinary matter in their own right.
What should I do if a grievance has been raised against me?
Take part in the investigation calmly and honestly, put your account and any evidence in writing, and do not approach the complainant about it - even a friendly conversation can read as pressure. A grievance is not a disciplinary charge; many end with clarified expectations rather than any finding of fault. If it does lead to disciplinary action against you, that is a separate process in which you have the full set of rights, including being accompanied.
Can a grievance lead to disciplinary action?
Yes - if the investigation finds conduct that warrants it, the employer opens a disciplinary process against the person complained about. They are two separate procedures and should have different chairs where the business is big enough: the grievance answers the complainant, the disciplinary deals with the accused, and neither outcome is allowed to pre-write the other.
Worth reading alongside
Keep reading: All 71 HR guides · 31 free templates · 25 calculators
An ER register instead of an inbox
CoDash keeps grievance and disciplinary cases in one register - stages, dates, outcome letters and interim decisions - so the process generates a file, and a repeat pattern is visible when it matters.