Employment Relationship Management in the Public Sector

This 5HR01 Employment relationship Example provides a comprehensive overview of key principles and practices in employment relationship management, tailored for the leadership, management, and people practice teams of the newly merged public sector organisation. This 5HR01 Employment relationship management Assignment Example addresses the request for knowledge and understanding of employee representation, conflict resolution, and the lawful management of discipline and grievance matters. The content is grounded in academic research, CIPD guidance, and UK legislative frameworks to support the development of a positive and effective employment relations climate within the organisation.

Section 1: Employee Voice, Engagement and Representation

AC 1.1 Differentiate between employee involvement and employee participation and how they build relationships.

Employee involvement and employee participation are distinct but related concepts that are fundamental to building strong employment relationships. Employee involvement is a process where employees are encouraged to contribute their ideas and suggestions to improve the work they do, but management retains the ultimate decision-making power (Gollan and Wilkinson, 2020). It is often direct and informal, utilising methods such as team briefings, suggestion schemes, and quality circles. The primary aim is to tap into the knowledge and experience of frontline employees to enhance operational efficiency and quality.

In contrast, employee participation represents a higher level of influence, where employees, often through their representatives, have a more formal and significant role in the decision-making process itself (Bratton and Gold, 2017). This can range from consultation, where management seeks and considers employee views before making a decision, to co-determination, where decisions are made jointly. Forms of participation are typically indirect and structured, including collective bargaining with trade unions or the use of works councils.

Both involvement and participation are crucial for building positive workplace relationships. Involvement fosters a sense of value and recognition among employees, showing that their opinions are respected. This can lead to increased job satisfaction and commitment (Purcell, 2014). Participation, by giving employees a genuine stake in organisational decisions, builds a deeper level of trust and partnership between the workforce and management. It creates a more democratic work environment where power is shared, which can reduce conflict and enhance mutual respect (Roberson, Gerkin and Hill, 2024). By implementing a combination of both involvement and participation strategies, the organisation can build a climate of trust and collaboration, which is essential for navigating the complexities of a post-merger integration.

AC 1.2 Compare forms of union and non-union employee representation.

Employee representation provides a collective voice for the workforce and can be categorised into union and non-union forms. Union representation, the traditional model in the UK, involves independent, employee-funded organisations (trade unions) that are formally recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. Unions such as UNISON and GMB are prevalent in the public sector. They negotiate on behalf of their members on a wide range of issues including pay, working conditions, and disciplinary matters, and are protected by a robust legal framework, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The relationship can sometimes be adversarial, but it provides a clear, structured, and legally regulated channel for communication and dispute resolution.

Non-union representation, on the other hand, encompasses a variety of employer-initiated mechanisms. These can include joint consultative committees (JCCs) or employee forums, where elected employee representatives meet with management to discuss workplace issues. Other forms include staff associations, which may be similar to unions but are often not independent of the employer, and ad-hoc employee representatives for specific purposes like redundancy or TUPE consultations. As noted by ACAS (2021), these forms are often more flexible and can be tailored to the specific context of the organisation. However, they typically have less power than unions, lack the same legal protections, and their effectiveness can be highly dependent on the goodwill of management.

A key comparison is presented in the table below:

Feature	Union Representation	Non-Union Representation
Independence	High – independent of the employer	Low – often initiated and influenced by the employer
Legal Status	Legally protected, with statutory rights	Limited legal protection, relies on voluntary agreements
Power Base	Collective strength of membership, right to industrial action	Derived from management’s willingness to consult
Focus	Collective bargaining on pay and terms, individual representation	Consultation on workplace issues, information sharing
Relationship	Can be adversarial or partnership-based	Generally collaborative, but can be tokenistic

For the newly merged organisation, a dual approach may be most effective. Recognising and working constructively with established public-sector unions is essential, while also developing non-union channels to engage with all employees, including those who are not union members, can ensure a broader range of voices are heard.

AC 1.3 Evaluate the relationship between employee voice and organisational performance.

Employee voice, defined by the CIPD (2025) as the ability of employees to express their views and influence matters affecting them at work, has a demonstrably positive relationship with organisational performance. The premise is that employees who feel heard are more engaged, motivated, and committed, which in turn drives better organisational outcomes. Research consistently shows that organisations with effective voice mechanisms benefit from higher levels of productivity, innovation, and employee retention (Kim, MacDuffie and Pil, 2010).

Effective employee voice contributes to performance in several ways. Firstly, it acts as a vital source of feedback and ideas for improvement. Employees on the front line often have unique insights into operational inefficiencies and potential innovations. By creating channels for this voice to be heard, organisations can improve processes, products, and services (Wilkinson et al., 2017). Secondly, voice enhances employee engagement. When employees believe their opinions matter and can influence decisions, they experience higher levels of job satisfaction and psychological ownership, leading to increased discretionary effort and a greater willingness to contribute to organisational goals (Jha et al., 2019).

Furthermore, a strong culture of employee voice helps to build trust and a positive psychological contract. This reduces the likelihood of costly disputes and employee turnover. A study by Kim et al. (2024) found a direct correlation between employee voice opportunities and enhanced organisational performance, mediated by factors such as trust and a supportive culture.

However, the effectiveness of employee voice is contingent on it being genuine. ‘Pseudo-voice’ mechanisms, where employees are asked for their opinions but no action is taken, can be more damaging than having no voice at all, leading to cynicism and disengagement (Van De Voorde, Paauwe and Van Veldhoven, 2012). Therefore, for the merged organisation to leverage the benefits of employee voice, it must ensure that it creates a ‘speak-up’ culture where feedback is actively sought, listened to, and acted upon, thereby driving both employee well-being and organisational success.

AC 1.4 Explain the concept of better working lives and how this can be designed.

The concept of ‘better working lives’, championed by the CIPD, extends beyond simple job satisfaction to encompass a holistic view of the quality of an individual’s working experience. It is about creating ‘good work’ that is not only productive for the organisation but also beneficial for the employee’s overall wellbeing and personal fulfilment. The CIPD’s Good Work Index (2025) outlines seven key dimensions that constitute good work: pay and benefits, contracts and security, work-life balance, job design, relationships at work, employee voice, and health and wellbeing.

A better working life is designed by focusing on the quality of jobs. This involves moving beyond a purely transactional view of employment to one that is relational and human-centred. Key design principles include:

1. Fair and Decent Work: This starts with fair pay and benefits, and secure contracts that provide financial stability. In the public sector context, this also means ensuring transparency and equity in reward systems.
2. Autonomy and Control: Designing jobs that provide employees with a degree of autonomy over how they perform their work is crucial. This sense of control is a key driver of intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).
3. Development and Growth: Good work provides opportunities for employees to develop their skills, learn new things, and see a clear path for career progression. This is particularly important in a post-merger environment where new roles and career pathways may be emerging.
4. Supportive Relationships: The quality of relationships with managers and colleagues is a critical component of a better working life. This requires training managers in people skills and fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual respect.
5. Health and Wellbeing: A proactive approach to both physical and mental health is essential. This includes managing workloads, providing access to support services, and creating a psychologically safe environment where employees feel able to discuss health concerns.

By embedding these principles into its people management strategy, the newly merged organisation can design a work environment that not only attracts and retains talent but also fosters a high-performing and resilient workforce. This commitment to better working lives will be a cornerstone of building a positive and successful integrated organisation.

Section 2: Conflict and Dispute Resolution

AC 2.1 Distinguish between organisational conflict and misbehaviour.

Organisational conflict and employee misbehaviour are both forms of negative workplace conduct, but they are distinct in their nature, origins, and implications for management. Organisational conflict refers to disagreements or disputes that arise between individuals or groups within the organisation due to perceived or actual incompatibilities. These conflicts often stem from differences in goals, values, interests, or competition for resources (Rahim, 2017). Conflict can be functional (constructive), leading to improved decision-making and innovation, or dysfunctional (destructive), harming relationships and performance. It can manifest formally, through official disputes and grievances, or informally, through interpersonal tensions and disagreements.

In contrast, employee misbehaviour (or counterproductive work behaviour) involves intentional actions by an employee that violate significant organisational norms and are perceived as detrimental to the organisation or its stakeholders (Vardi and Weitz, 2004). Unlike conflict, which is about disagreement, misbehaviour is about transgression. Examples include theft, sabotage, absenteeism, insubordination, and bullying. Misbehaviour is almost always dysfunctional and is typically unorganised and individualistic, often stemming from personal grievances, dissatisfaction, or a perceived lack of justice in the workplace.

The primary distinction lies in intent and focus. Conflict is a state of disagreement between parties, which may not involve any rule-breaking. Misbehaviour, however, is a deliberate violation of established rules and norms. From a management perspective, conflict requires resolution strategies like negotiation or mediation to find a mutually acceptable outcome. Misbehaviour, being a breach of the employment contract, necessitates a disciplinary response to correct the behaviour and deter future occurrences. While unresolved conflict can sometimes escalate into misbehaviour, it is crucial for the people practice team to distinguish between the two to apply the appropriate intervention.

AC 2.2 Assess emerging trends in the types of conflict and industrial sanctions.

The landscape of workplace conflict and industrial sanctions is continually evolving, shaped by economic, social, and technological changes. A significant emerging trend is the rise of individual, non-collective conflict. While traditional industrial disputes have seen a long-term decline, there has been a corresponding increase in individual grievances and employment tribunal claims. The ACAS annual report for 2024-2025 highlighted a record number of individual dispute cases, often centred on issues like unfair dismissal, discrimination, and disputes over flexible working arrangements (ACAS, 2025).

Another trend is the changing nature of conflict itself. With more diverse and remote workforces, conflicts related to inclusion, identity, and communication are becoming more prevalent. Disputes arising from social media use, political disagreements, and perceived microaggressions are creating new challenges for managers (CIPD, 2024). The shift to hybrid working has also generated new points of friction, including concerns about fairness and equity between remote and office-based staff, and difficulties in maintaining team cohesion.

In terms of industrial sanctions, while large-scale national strikes have become less common than in previous decades, there has been a recent resurgence of industrial action, particularly in the public sector, driven by pay disputes and the cost-of-living crisis. The tactics are also evolving. There is a greater use of localised and targeted action, such as short, rolling strikes in specific departments or locations, designed to cause maximum disruption with minimum loss of pay for employees.

Furthermore, the use of social media and digital platforms has become a powerful tool for organising and mobilising support for industrial action, enabling faster and more widespread campaigns (Wilkinson, Dundon and Grugulis, 2021). The government’s introduction of legislation to ensure minimum service levels during strikes in key public services represents a significant recent development in the regulation of industrial sanctions, aiming to curb the impact of such actions.

AC 2.3 Distinguish between third-party conciliation, mediation and arbitration.

When direct negotiations fail to resolve a dispute, third-party intervention can be an effective alternative to litigation. Conciliation, mediation, and arbitration are the three primary forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), each with distinct characteristics.

Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process where an impartial and neutral third party, the mediator, facilitates a conversation between the disputing parties to help them find their own solution. The mediator does not make judgments or impose a decision; their role is to manage the process, improve communication, and help the parties explore options for a mutually acceptable agreement (Boulle and Nesic, 2010). The key principle is party autonomy – the power to settle remains entirely with the disputants. It is a flexible, informal process focused on preserving relationships.

Conciliation is similar to mediation but can be slightly more interventionist. A conciliator, like a mediator, aims to help the parties reach a settlement. However, the conciliator may take a more active role in the process, suggesting potential solutions and advising on the merits of the case. In the UK employment context, conciliation is most closely associated with Acas, which has a statutory duty to offer conciliation in most employment tribunal claims. The Acas conciliator’s role is to broker a deal, which may involve highlighting the legal strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case to encourage a settlement.

Arbitration is a more formal and quasi-judicial process. Here, the parties agree to submit their dispute to a neutral third party, the arbitrator, who acts like a private judge. The arbitrator hears evidence and arguments from both sides and then makes a decision, known as an ‘award’, which is legally binding and enforceable by the courts (Blackaby, Partasides and Redfern, 2015). Unlike mediation and conciliation, the parties cede control over the outcome to the arbitrator. The process is adversarial, though typically faster and less formal than a court hearing. Acas also offers an arbitration scheme for certain types of unfair dismissal claims as an alternative to an employment tribunal.

In summary:

Feature	Mediation	Conciliation	Arbitration
Process	Informal, flexible, facilitative	Informal, evaluative	Formal, adversarial
Third-Party Role	Facilitates communication	Facilitates and suggests solutions	Makes a binding decision
Outcome	Mutually agreed settlement (non-binding until contracted)	Mutually agreed settlement (often legally binding)	Legally binding award
Control	Parties retain full control	Parties retain control, with guidance	Parties cede control to arbitrator

Section 3: Lawful Management of Disciplinary and Grievance Matters

AC 3.1 Explain the principles of legislation relating to unfair dismissal in respect of capability and misconduct issues.

The legal framework for unfair dismissal in the UK is primarily governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). This legislation establishes the right for a qualifying employee (generally with two years of continuous service) not to be unfairly dismissed. The law requires that a dismissal is both substantively and procedurally fair. For a dismissal to be substantively fair, the employer must demonstrate that it was for one of the five potentially fair reasons set out in Section 98 of the ERA 1996. Two of the most common reasons are capability and conduct (misconduct).

Dismissal for Capability: This relates to an employee’s ability to perform their job to the required standard. Capability issues can be due to a lack of skill, aptitude, or qualifications, or can be related to ill health. For a dismissal on grounds of capability to be fair, the employer must show that they have followed a fair procedure.

This typically involves setting clear and reasonable performance standards, providing feedback and support (such as training or coaching), giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to improve, and issuing warnings about the consequences of failing to do so. In cases of ill health, the employer is expected to consider medical evidence, explore reasonable adjustments, and consult with the employee before making a decision to dismiss (ACAS, 2022).

Dismissal for Misconduct: This relates to an employee’s behaviour. A distinction is made between ordinary misconduct and gross misconduct. Ordinary misconduct (e.g., persistent lateness, minor breaches of policy) would typically warrant a series of warnings (verbal, written, final written) before dismissal. Gross misconduct is behaviour so serious that it justifies summary dismissal without notice or pay in lieu of notice (e.g., theft, fraud, violence, serious insubordination).

Even in cases of gross misconduct, a fair procedure is essential. The core principles of procedural fairness, heavily influenced by the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, require the employer to: conduct a reasonable investigation; inform the employee of the allegations in writing; hold a disciplinary hearing where the employee can state their case and be accompanied; and provide a right of appeal. A failure to follow a fair and reasonable procedure can render an otherwise fair dismissal unfair.

AC 3.2 Analyse key causes of employee grievances.

Employee grievances are formal complaints raised by employees when they feel they have been treated unfairly. Analysing their root causes is crucial for proactive employment relationship management. Research by XpertHR (2023) and the CIPD (2024) consistently identifies three primary clusters of causes:

• Bullying and Harassment: This is frequently the most cited cause of formal grievances. It can encompass a wide range of behaviours, from overt intimidation and verbal abuse to more subtle microaggressions and social exclusion. The grievance often arises when an employee feels that management has failed to address the behaviour, or when the alleged perpetrator is the manager themselves. The impact on an individual’s mental health and wellbeing can be severe, making it a critical issue to manage.
• Relationships with Managers: The quality of the relationship between an employee and their line manager is a significant factor in workplace harmony. Grievances in this area often stem from perceptions of unfair treatment, such as favouritism in the allocation of work or opportunities, a lack of support, excessive monitoring, or an authoritarian management style. A breakdown in this relationship can lead to feelings of stress, demotivation, and injustice, often culminating in a formal grievance as a last resort for the employee to feel heard.
• Terms and Conditions of Employment: Disputes over the employment contract are another major source of grievances. These can be triggered by issues relating to pay and benefits (e.g., errors in pay, disputes over bonuses or grading), working hours (e.g., changes to shift patterns, refusal of flexible working requests), or workload. In a post-merger context, attempts to harmonise terms and conditions between the two legacy organisations can be a particularly potent source of grievances if not handled sensitively and with clear communication and consultation.

Underpinning these immediate causes are often deeper organisational issues, such as a poor communication culture, inconsistent application of policies, and a lack of training for line managers in people management skills. Addressing these systemic factors is key to reducing the frequency of grievances.

AC 3.3 Advise on the importance of handling grievances effectively.

Handling employee grievances effectively is not merely a procedural necessity; it is a cornerstone of good employment relations and has profound implications for organisational health. The importance of an effective grievance handling process can be viewed from multiple perspectives: legal, ethical, and commercial.

From a legal perspective, a clear and fair grievance procedure is essential for compliance with the Acas Code of Practice. An unreasonable failure to follow the Code can lead to an uplift of up to 25% in compensation awarded at an employment tribunal. Effectively handling grievances can resolve issues internally, preventing them from escalating into costly and time-consuming legal claims for constructive or unfair dismissal. It provides a formal mechanism for the organisation to address and rectify potential breaches of employment law before they become litigious.

From an ethical perspective, providing a safe and accessible channel for employees to raise concerns is a fundamental aspect of being a responsible employer. It demonstrates that the organisation values its employees and is committed to treating them with fairness and respect. A culture where grievances are suppressed or handled poorly is often a toxic one, leading to a breakdown in trust and a negative psychological contract. Effective grievance handling reinforces a culture of justice and psychological safety, where employees feel empowered to speak up without fear of reprisal.

From a commercial perspective, the benefits are substantial. Unresolved conflict is a significant drain on organisational resources. It leads to increased stress, lower morale, reduced productivity, and higher levels of sickness absence and employee turnover (CIPD, 2024). By addressing grievances promptly and fairly, the organisation can mitigate these negative impacts. It can also uncover underlying problems within the organisation, such as poor management practices or systemic issues, providing valuable feedback that can be used to drive organisational improvement. In a post-merger scenario, a robust and trusted grievance process is particularly vital for building trust and fostering a unified culture across the newly integrated workforce.

In conclusion, effective grievance handling is not a burden but an opportunity. It is an essential tool for managing legal risk, upholding ethical standards, and building a positive, engaged, and high-performing organisation.

References

ACAS (2021) Non-union representation in the workplace. Available at: https://www.acas.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/non-union-representation-in-the-workplace.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

ACAS (2022) Discipline and grievances at work: The Acas guide. Available at: https://www.acas.org.uk/discipline-and-grievances-at-work-the-acas-guide (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

ACAS (2025) Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25. Available at: https://www.acas.org.uk (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

Blackaby, N., Partasides, C. and Redfern, A. (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. 6th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boulle, L. and Nesic, M. (2010) Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice. 3rd edn. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional.

Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2017) Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 6th edn. London: Palgrave.

CIPD (2024) Managing conflict in the modern workplace. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/managing-conflict-in-the-workplace-2_tcm18-70655.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

CIPD (2025) Employee voice. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/voice-factsheet/ (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

CIPD (2025) Good Work Index 2025. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/goodwork/ (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

Gollan, P.J. and Wilkinson, A. (2020) ‘The future of employee voice’, in Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R.B. (eds) Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. 2nd edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 541-555.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) ‘Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), pp. 250-279.

Jha, N., Potnuru, R.K.G., Sareen, P. and Shaju, S. (2019) ‘Employee voice, engagement and organizational effectiveness: a mediated model’, European Journal of Training and Development, 43(7/8), pp. 697-718.

Kim, J., MacDuffie, J.P. and Pil, F.K. (2010) ‘Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative influence’, Human Relations, 63(3), pp. 371-394.

Kim, T., et al. (2024) ‘Employee Voice Opportunities Enhance Organizational Performance’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(1), pp. 148-175.

Purcell, J. (2014) ‘The impact of corporate strategy on human resource management’, in Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139-157.

Rahim, M.A. (2017) Managing Conflict in Organizations. 4th edn. London: Routledge.

Roberson, Q.M., Gerkin, E. and Hill, D. (2024) ‘The social architecture of employee voice: A social network perspective’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(1), pp. 1-20.

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2012) ‘Employee well-being and the HRM–performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), pp. 391-417.

Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004) Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T. and Grugulis, I. (2021) ‘Re-assessing the practice of employee voice: a sociological perspective’, Human Resource Management Journal, 31(4), pp. 877-891.

Wilkinson, A., et al. (2017) The Oxford Handbook of Voice and Involvement at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

XpertHR (2023) Employee Grievances Survey 2023. Available at: https://www.xperthr.co.uk/ (Accessed: 14 October 2025).