Grievance management is a key practice to ensure healthy relations among employees, and in a merged public sector scenario, there is a certain degree of uncertainty and realignment of cultures that might increase tension. Having some concerns voiced and dealt with openly and timeously shows that the organizations value employees’ voices, thereby strengthening psychological safety and trust in organizations. Worryingly, in the UK alone, 19% of all workers have experienced workplace bullying, which has been reported, and 52% have witnessed it and not reported it (ACAS 2023). Staff who believe their grievances are being listened to also report better job satisfaction and are more likely to respond positively to changes in how things are done. They will be more loyal factors, which is important to consider when merging workforces with very long tenures.
Adherence to the steps of implementation of the ACAS Code of Practice (2023) promotes the fairness of the process. An effective process of grievance usually involves:
- Recognition and Inquiry: Complaints must be documented, and an objective investigator should compile facts and talk to witnesses.
- Grievance Hearing/Right to Accompaniment: The worker should be asked to a formal hearing, told they have a right to bring a colleague or a union representative, and provided with a clear title plan (ACAS 2023).
- Outcome, Communication, and Appeal: Decisions should be communicated in writing, outlining findings, actions taken, and the rationale, alongside the right to appeal any outcome.
Implementing these steps minimises the risk of procedural irregularities that could lead to tribunal claims. Early resolution of grievances not only saves time and legal costs but also prevents minor issues from escalating into formal disputes. For example, prompt intervention in workload‑related complaints can avert stress‑related sickness absence, which in the public sector averages 9 days per employee annually (Simms 2024).
Conversely, poor grievance management, characterised by delays, opaque decision‑making, or lack of follow‑through, can damage employee morale and fuel cynicism. When staff observe that complaints are ignored or downplayed, they may resort to passive resistance (e.g., reduced effort) or active countermeasures (e.g., whistle‑blowing), both of which undermine productivity and service quality. High turnover and absenteeism often follow, as affected employees disengage or seek employment elsewhere, exacerbating staffing challenges during merger transitions (Simms 2024).
Moreover, effective grievance handling contributes to an organisation’s external reputation. In a public‑sector merger, demonstrating fair and thorough dispute resolution processes signals integrity and accountability. This strengthens the confidence level in the people’s minds and assists in winning and keeping high-calibre human resources. Installing emphatic, workforce-oriented grievance mechanisms is never through compulsory action but rather as a strategic inclination towards ensuring a well-aligned and high-performing organization.
Conclusion
This briefing document provides the combined public sector organisation’s people and leadership practice teams with a framework by which to manage the employment relationship in an acrimonious integration. Differentiating between employee involvement and participation, comparing union and non-union representation, and taking the relationship between voice and performance into account, teams can build inclusive conversation and lasting commitment. Understanding of conflict and misbehaviour distinctions, and recognition of emerging dispute patterns clarifies focused resolution and prevention strategy. Clarification of each role of conciliation, mediation, and arbitration ensures proper third-party intervention, and rigid adherence to unfair dismissal and grievance procedures ensures legal compliance and maintains confidence. Cumulatively, these evidence-based approaches will maintain workplace harmony, enhance performance, and protect reputation of the acquired business.
