Disciplinary and grievance processes are the corporate yin and yang of workplace order. One enforces standards; the other guards against abuse. When held in balance, they sustain trust. When misused, they corrode it.
The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures sets the benchmark. Though not legally binding, Tribunals routinely consider compliance when assessing procedural fairness and deciding whether to uplift awards by up to 25 per cent.
While misuse of disciplinary procedures by employers is well recognised, the reverse, employees weaponising the grievance process, is less often discussed. This article explores how to recognise that behaviour and respond lawfully, proportionately, and with control.
Picture an employee who, over a decade, raises grievance after grievance about the same colleagues and managers. Each has been investigated, concluded, and appealed. None satisfy. New complaints emerge, echoing old ones, until the process itself becomes the grievance. At that point, it becomes almost impossible to separate genuine concern from calculated obstruction.
Employers naturally tire of the cycle, but they must resist dismissing it out of hand. Once it becomes clear that the grievance system is being used to retaliate or stall, the conduct itself may need to be treated as disciplinary.
When challenged, such employees often turn the microscope back on the employer, treating the Acas Code as hard law rather than what it actually is: guidance. Small imperfections are reframed as gross unfairness. The tactic shifts the focus from their behaviour to your process. It rarely works where the employer has acted fairly and documented decisions, but it can generate enough procedural noise to distract, delay, or drive settlement pressure.
It may seem paradoxical to discipline someone for raising a grievance, but it is not the act of complaining that matters; it is the manner. The threshold is vexatiousness, a pattern of behaviour that turns a right into an abuse.
In Hope v British Medical Association (EAT, 2021), a senior employee repeatedly raised grievances, refused to progress them, and ignored reasonable instructions to engage. His dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld. Both tribunals agreed that persistent misuse of the process, coupled with refusal to cooperate, destroyed trust and confidence. The principle is clear: obstructive use of the grievance procedure can justify dismissal if the employer acts reasonably and follows a fair process.
A grievance system must rest on a robust and consistent framework. Without it, even a routine complaint can spiral in the hands of a determined employee.
The legitimacy of a complaint often shows in its structure. A focused grievance naming incidents, people, and desired outcomes usually signals something tangible. A sprawling, emotive, or recycled complaint suggests something else: ongoing dissatisfaction dressed as procedure.
It is not an employer’s job to make sense of nonsense, but it is their duty to understand what is being alleged. Scrutinise early, clarify the scope, and confirm it in writing before the process begins. Personality clashes or momentary frustrations are often best handled informally or through mediation. Management time is too valuable to be consumed by grievances that could have been resolved through communication and proportion.
Another common tactic is volume. Multiple complaints land simultaneously, overwhelming HR and forcing reactive management. The countermeasure is control, not speed. Group related issues, exclude matters already investigated unless genuinely new evidence exists, and communicate decisions on scope and consolidation clearly and in writing.
With AI-assisted drafting tools, employees can now produce grievances that look convincing but crumble under scrutiny. The task is not cynicism but stress-testing: check internal logic, chronology, and factual basis.
Often, the goal is procedural brinkmanship. An employee cites your policy or the Acas suggestion that hearings be held within five working days and accuses delay when you prioritise rigour over speed. Timeliness matters, but thoroughness wins. A slow, documented process beats a fast, flawed one every time.
When a grievance collapses under scrutiny, some employees attempt to regain control by reporting sickness, often citing stress caused by the process itself. The intent is to delay, slow meetings, run down the procedural clock, and maintain the appearance of incapacity.
Genuine stress requires empathy, but sickness does not automatically halt proceedings. Focus on the employee’s ability to participate, not merely their ability to work. Occupational health input helps, though some practitioners err on the side of caution, especially in mental health cases. Their view is advisory, not determinative.
If medical opinion supports partial participation, shorter meetings, and written submissions, the process should continue. Repeated, conveniently timed absences without credible evidence may indicate avoidance and can be addressed as misconduct if properly evidenced.
Document everything: medical advice, timing, and the adjustments made. Patterns of absence aligned with accountability moments can form part of a wider case on conduct, capability, or trust and confidence. Managed fairly and with compassion, it shows that the process cannot be indefinitely deferred by avoidance.
A grievance procedure is meant to uphold fairness, not become its own grievance. Employers who apply the Acas Code consistently, record decisions carefully, and act proportionately can withstand even the most determined procedural assaults.
The key is balance: empathy without indulgence, patience without paralysis, and fairness without naivety. A disciplined process protects both the organisation and the principle of workplace justice itself.