The EAT has held that a statutory grievance is still a statutory grievance, even when the grievance itself states that it is not.
The Claimant presented a grievance which expressly stated that it was informal, and that a failure to address it would result in a formal grievance, under the 2004 Regulations, being lodged. This never happened
The EAT held that the letter was nevertheless a valid grievance under the Employment Act 2002. Elias P stated that "The issue is not whether the grievance lodged is stated to be a statutory grievance. The only question is whether it satisfies the requirements laid down for a Step 1 grievance letter. This merely requires that the grievance is set out in writing and sent to the employer. That has been done. We do not see that the classification placed on it by [Mr Procek] can affect that conclusion."
Countering the argument that it would be unfair on the employer to face a statutory uplift in compensation when he did not realise that the grievance (which he ignored) was a "statutory grievance", the President pointed out that the tribunal had a discretion under s31(4) of the 2002 Act to conclude that it would not be "just and equitable" to apply any uplift.
Procek v Oakford Farms Ltd
Thanks to www.emplaw.co.uk, for giving me permission to use this abridged version of their own summary