Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Governors' started by tom clancy, Apr 29, 2012.
It should be made clear in your school's Complaints and /or Grievance policies.
But when it isn't and it happens? And the FGB do not see the potential problems?
Is there anything more than the 2011 DfE complaint toolkit which effectively says 'ideally' ?
It would be remarkable if this is not clear in school policies as every model policy I have seen makes it unambiguous. But we are where we are.
In general terms, for governors to know that so and so has raised a complaint / grievance should not in itself be a problem, as long as the details of the issue are not known. Where it becomes a problem is when members of a panel, or potential members have sufficient knowledge as to disqualify them from sitting on the panel.
As far as most governing bodies are concerned there need to be sufficient eligible governors for the hearing panel and an appeals panel. Discussion or "chat" about a case should be strongly discouraged.
If the governors cannot see this for themselves, then maybe the chair or clerk should contact your LA governor support team for specific advice.
grrmummy, can you clarify - do you mean should the the nature of the issue be reported to full GB <u>after</u> the governors grievance panel/complaints committee has decided the matter, or do you mean should <u>before</u> the relevant panel/committee has met?
I would expect the individual school policy to state that while a complaint/grievance is being dealt with it should not be discussed by the full governing body. The prime reason for not discussing complaints/grievances in full governing body is that if the complaint requires a further hearing but has already been discussed at a full governing body meeting, then there will be no ‘untainted' governors to hear any appeal. The ACAS Code of Practice - disciplinary and grievance procedures (which forms guidance that will be taken into account by Employment Tribunals) states that "The appeal should be dealt with impartially and wherever possible, by a manager who has not previously been involved in the case." If a governing body did field a panel which had prior knowledge of the details of case it would leave itself open to challenge. Governing bodies need to know what is happening in their school in terms of the number of complaints/grievances or disciplinary cases (an increasing number should probably ring some alarm bells) and possibly brief descriptors of the nature of the issues, but I am not sure that even after resolution there is a need for full governing body to know the name of the individual who raised a complaint.