Grievance during disciplinary process in manufacturing

Employee Passport / Manufacturing / HR

A grievance during a disciplinary process needs a clear plan, not an automatic decision to stop everything or carry on regardless. In a manufacturing business, the same concern may involve different shifts, supervisors and versions of a work record. Start by identifying what must be established before a fair decision can be made.

Decide whether the issues overlap

Ask what the grievance challenges. Is it about the evidence, the investigator’s involvement or a separate workplace issue? Paragraph 46 of the current Acas Code allows a temporary pause to address a grievance and says related matters may sometimes be handled together. Record the reason for your chosen approach. Do not treat either option as the rule for every case.

Acas is consulting on an updated Code. A consultation draft is not the operative Code; check the current position when making a decision.

Build a shift-team evidence plan

Our practical recommendation is to create one chronology before arranging further meetings. Record when the concern arose, which shift was involved, what instructions applied and which records actually exist. Do not assume that a supervisor on the next shift saw the same events.

For each relevant record, note its date, source and version. Explain any gaps rather than filling them with assumptions. If a handover note is disputed, keep the original and record the response separately. An allegation copied into two files does not become a finding.

Plan meetings around access to the people and evidence needed. Production cover can be arranged without asking a manager to decide a complaint about their own conduct. Keep operational cover separate from responsibility for the investigation.

Choose suitable people and a clear remit

Acas investigation guidance recommends an investigator who is not involved, where possible, and clear terms of reference. Where separate people cannot be used, consider how to make the procedure as impartial as possible. Explain who investigates, who receives the findings and who has authority to decide the next step.

Keep the employee informed about the timetable and any delay. A pause in one process should not mean losing track of the other. Confidentiality needs clear boundaries, while respecting access to a workplace or trade union representative.

Keep two questions separate

The grievance asks whether the complaint is supported and what response is appropriate. The disciplinary process asks whether there is a case to answer and what decision is justified. A grievance outcome does not automatically settle the disciplinary question, and raising a grievance is not proof of misconduct.

Before the next meeting, check that your working plan records:

• The issues, evidence gaps and relevant policies.
• Why a process will pause, continue or run alongside the other.
• The investigator and decision-maker, with any conflicts addressed.
• What the employee will be told and the next review date.
• Who records the outcome and any further action.

These are practical planning prompts, not a finding about an individual case. Apply the relevant procedure and take advice where the facts or contractual position are uncertain.

Connect advice with follow-through

Our manufacturing support brings the operational context into the discussion. Use appropriate case and task records to keep responsibilities visible, with permissions agreed for the information involved. Software records do not replace a fair investigation or an authorised decision.

For help planning an overlapping process, contact Employee Passport with your policies and current timeline. We can help you identify the next step without assuming an outcome.

Employee Passport editorial team. Great Britain guidance; primary sources checked 16 October 2026. This article develops an anonymised handover question, not a client case-study outcome. Any generated accompanying image is illustrative and does not show a real client or adviser.