# FORMAL GRIEVANCE LETTER
## Worked fictional document
Date: 14 February 2027
Private and confidential — formal grievance under the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
To: Priya Nair, People Director, Meridian Civic Analytics Limited, 18 Colmore Square, Birmingham B4 6AA From: Hannah Elise Morgan, Senior Data Partnerships Manager, 42 Larchfield Road, Birmingham B29 6QW Email: hannah.morgan@example.test Employee reference: MCA-EMP-1842 Subject: Formal grievance about promotion discrimination and victimisation
Dear Ms Nair,
I submit this formal grievance under Meridian Civic Analytics Limited's grievance procedure and the Acas Code. I ask that it is acknowledged, investigated promptly by an impartial manager who has had no involvement in the events, and followed by a grievance meeting at which I may explain my evidence and be accompanied by a work colleague or certified trade-union official. This is a genuine complaint about the way my application for the Head of Partnerships role was handled and about adverse treatment after I raised concerns. I remain employed and willing to work constructively while the process takes place.
I am a British-Indian woman and have worked for Meridian since 3 April 2023. I was promoted to Senior Data Partnerships Manager on 1 January 2025. My line manager is Daniel Price, Commercial Director. The vacancy was Head of Partnerships, reference MCA-VAC-2701, advertised internally on 6 January 2027. I applied on 10 January, met every essential criterion in the published person specification, and was told on 24 January that the role had been offered to Oliver Grant, a white male colleague who had been a Partnerships Manager for nine months. The decision was communicated by Mr Price without a scored assessment or written reasons.
## 1. Allegation one: discriminatory promotion decision
I believe the selection decision and its process discriminated against me because of race and sex, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. I do not ask the investigator to assume that an unsuccessful application proves discrimination. I ask for a careful comparison of the candidates, the criteria actually used and the decision-makers' contemporaneous records.
The advert required five years of partnership experience, a record of negotiating public-sector contracts, line-management experience, and evidence of achieving annual partnership revenue of at least £500,000. My CV recorded six years and eight months of relevant experience, twelve public-sector contracts and partnership revenue of £1,240,000 in the year ended 31 December 2026. I managed eight employees and supplied the panel with the signed West Midlands Procurement Framework award letter, reference MCA-EV-04. Oliver's application recorded three years and four months of relevant experience, no direct line-management responsibility and 2026 partnership revenue of £438,000. Mr Price nevertheless told me on 24 January that "the panel wanted someone with a more natural commercial presence"; that phrase was not a published criterion and was not applied consistently.
At the 17 January interview, the panel consisted of Mr Price, Eleanor Shaw, Finance Director, and Martin Kellett, Non-Executive Adviser. Mr Kellett asked whether clients in Birmingham might find my "accent and cultural style" difficult in a board-level negotiation. I answered that my clients had renewed contracts and that I could provide references. Mr Price did not ask Oliver an equivalent question according to Oliver's account in his 25 January message to me. The panel gave me 17 out of 25 for commercial presence but gave Oliver 23 out of 25, although the interview notes do not define that phrase or record separate scoring factors. I ask the investigator to obtain the original notes, scores, moderation record and any messages about the phrase.
On 20 January, Ms Shaw asked whether I would be able to travel after a future family commitment. I had not mentioned caring responsibilities or requested a restriction on travel. I answered that I could meet the role's stated travel requirements. On 24 January, Mr Price said the successful candidate was "a better cultural fit" and that I should concentrate on being a "strong number two". I regard those comments, the unexplained criterion and the disparity in the evidence as relevant facts requiring investigation.
## 2. Allegation two: victimisation after my protected act
On 27 January I emailed Mr Price and Ms Shaw, copying People Operations, stating that I was concerned that the interview questions and "cultural fit" explanation might reflect race or sex bias. I asked for the scores and requested that the decision be reviewed. This was a protected act because it alleged a breach of the Equality Act 2010. I also spoke to the elected employee representative, Lewis Ahmed, on 28 January.
After that complaint, Mr Price removed me from the 2 February client meeting for the West Mercia Data Partnership, saying that I was "too close to the situation". I had led that account since May 2025 and was the only manager listed in the client plan. On 3 February he cancelled my scheduled presentation to the executive committee, reassigned the presentation to Oliver, and recorded in the team calendar that I was "not available for strategic work". On 5 February he issued a new weekly reporting requirement to me alone, requiring a report by 10.00 each Monday, although the team normally reports monthly. On 8 February he told me that my 2027 bonus would be "reconsidered in light of attitude". No performance concern or bonus warning had been raised before my 27 January complaint.
I believe these detriments were because I complained about discrimination. I recognise that management may make legitimate operational decisions. The timing, the absence of an operational explanation and the direct connection to my complaint are why I ask for each decision and its stated reason to be tested rather than assumed.
## 3. Allegation three: failure to protect the process and working relationship
On 9 February I asked People Operations to prevent Mr Price from being the sole decision-maker in my grievance because he is the person complained about. On 11 February I was told that he would continue to approve my work and provide the management account to the investigator. I am concerned that this creates a conflict, risks further detriment and may affect witnesses who report to him. I am not asking for a finding before investigation; I ask for a temporary reporting arrangement and a clear confidentiality instruction.
## 4. Chronology
1. 6 January 2027: vacancy MCA-VAC-2701 published internally. 2. 10 January: I submitted my application and evidence. 3. 17 January: interview held by Mr Price, Ms Shaw and Mr Kellett. 4. 20 January: Ms Shaw asked about future family commitments and travel. 5. 24 January: I was told that Oliver Grant had been selected and was given the "cultural fit" and "strong number two" explanations. 6. 25 January: Oliver sent me his account of the interview scoring question, which he consented to my providing to the investigator. 7. 27 January: I complained in writing about possible race and sex discrimination and requested the scores. 8. 2 February: I was removed from the West Mercia client meeting. 9. 3 February: my executive presentation was reassigned and the calendar note was added. 10. 5 February: the individual weekly reporting requirement was imposed. 11. 8 February: Mr Price referred to reconsidering my bonus because of "attitude". 12. 9 to 11 February: I requested an alternative grievance manager and was told Mr Price would remain involved. 13. 14 February: I emailed this formal grievance on a Sunday. 14. 15 February: I posted the signed hard copy by Royal Mail Special Delivery.
## 5. Evidence and requested searches
Please preserve and disclose to me, subject to lawful redaction, the vacancy advert and person specification; all applications and interview notes; each panel member's scoring sheet and moderation messages; the 24 January decision record; the 27 January email and response; calendar and client-account changes; the bonus plan and any note concerning my "attitude"; and relevant messages between 6 January and 14 February 2027. My evidence schedule is:
* MCA-EV-01: vacancy advert and person specification downloaded 6 January, two pages. * MCA-EV-02: my application and CV submitted 10 January, seven pages. * MCA-EV-03: 2026 partnership revenue report showing £1,240,000 against my target of £1,000,000, an attainment of 124 per cent. * MCA-EV-04: West Midlands Procurement Framework award letter dated 16 November 2026. * MCA-EV-05: my contemporaneous interview note dated 17 January recording the accent and cultural-style question. * MCA-EV-06: Oliver Grant's email of 25 January and his consent to its use. * MCA-EV-07: my 27 January protected-act complaint and People Operations acknowledgement. * MCA-EV-08: calendar extract showing the 2 February removal and 3 February reassignment. * MCA-EV-09: 8 February Teams message referring to bonus "attitude".
I will provide the originals and metadata through the secure People Operations portal. I ask the investigator to interview Oliver Grant, Eleanor Shaw, Martin Kellett, Lewis Ahmed and the People Operations adviser who received my 27 January complaint. Please interview me after the documentary search so that I can answer the evidence fairly.
## 6. Interim safeguards and outcome sought
Pending the outcome, I request that Ms Shaw or another independent senior manager, rather than Mr Price, approves my work and receives any performance or bonus information; that I remain on the West Mercia account unless there is a recorded operational reason to remove me; that the 2027 bonus decision is not adversely changed because I raised this complaint; that communications about my complaint are restricted to those who need to know; and that no witness is subjected to retaliation. These measures are neutral safeguards, not a request that Meridian prejudge the grievance or appoint me to the vacancy.
I ask the outcome letter to address each allegation separately, identify the evidence accepted and not accepted, state whether the grievance is upheld, partly upheld or not upheld, and set out any corrective action. If the grievance is upheld or partly upheld, I seek a fresh, independently scored review of the promotion process, removal of the unexplained criterion, correction of any inaccurate personnel record, restoration of responsibilities and bonus consideration unaffected by my complaint, equality training for the panel, and a review of the reporting arrangement. I also ask for a safe discussion about working arrangements after the decision.
Please confirm receipt by 17 February 2027 and propose a grievance meeting during the week beginning 22 February. I will give reasonable notice of my chosen companion. I understand that the normal time limit for an Equality Act employment claim is generally three months less one day from the act complained of, subject to early conciliation and any applicable extension or different rule. This grievance does not waive any statutory deadline, and I will obtain advice about limitation and Acas Early Conciliation separately.
For service, I emailed this signed letter on Sunday 14 February 2027 to priya.nair@meridian.example.test and people.operations@meridian.example.test and posted the signed hard copy on Monday 15 February 2027 by Royal Mail Special Delivery to Meridian Civic Analytics Limited, 18 Colmore Square, Birmingham B4 6AA. The email transmission record, server-delivery confirmation and any acknowledgement will be retained with the case file. The postal tracking reference is fictional example number JD 4817 2605 3GB, and the delivery record or signature should be retained with the case file. Neither route is treated as received merely because it was sent or posted; please acknowledge which route was received and tell me promptly if either route failed so a replacement can be agreed.
Yours sincerely,
Hannah Elise Morgan
Signature: Hannah Elise Morgan Date signed: 14 February 2027
Companion nominated for the meeting: Lewis Ahmed, elected employee representative and fellow worker, Lewis.ahmed@example.test. I reserve the right to nominate a different permitted companion with reasonable notice.