If you make a official complaint against a clerk , is it true you are not allowed to mention it to other people?

Question

If someone makes an official complaint to the Mayor of the council about the conduct of the clerk, singling people out , bullying and lying.

Is it true that by law the person putting in the complaint is not allowed to mention it to anyone else because the Clerk could try for constructive dismissal and a big payout if the person complaining  share information about the nature of the complaint?

Nothing of that “ not being able to talk about having put in a complaint is mentioned in the Complaints or Grievance policy.

I just want to make sure that this complaint gets dismissed and some kind of compensation has to be paid just in case the person putting in the complaint talks to others about the reason.

Thank you

Answer 1

Your council should have in place a comprehensive  complaints procedure. As the clerk is an employee of the council they have certain rights which should be defined in their contract of employment.Ideally your employment committee or HR group would be the first place of contact for any complaints and basically it is correct that any such actions are to be treated as confidential as a matter of professionalism until the procedure is completed and decisions made. It is of course likely that if the employee does not agree with the findings then they are entitled to pursue the matter to employment tribunal.

Answer 2

I agree with Mentorman that the matter should always be confidential, but there is no law that states this. The Clerk is an employee of the Council and subject to the rules and oversight of the Council. Regardless of the nature of the complaint, the Clerk is innocent until proven guilty, so should not be subject to public scrutiny, particularly as this can complicate or even invalidate the formal procedures. If false information is circulated in public by the person making the complaint, the Clerk or Council may be entitled to take legal action against the individual for defamation. If the Council acts in accordance with its policies and procedures, the Clerk would have no case for constructive dismissal.

Answer 3

A sound and balanced answer requires some further clarification in the original question.
What is the status of the complainant?

If a Cllr, then they may be subject to adopted policies of the council in relation to dealing with staff complaints and as such that ‘policy’ might require a ‘process’ of investigation which ‘could’ be subject to confidentiality until the finding of an internal investigation is completed
somewhat bizarre but whilst no individual Cllr may direct the clerk, all individual Cllrs (as individuals) are held as being the ‘employer’ of the clerk.  Consequently, if a Cllr complains about a clerk, they should submit that complaint to the HR/staffing committee and let that committee run its course.  A clerk ‘could’ counter a valid complaint by seeking to invoke ‘employer bullying’ by an individual Cllr if an individual deviates from corporate policy.

Conversely, no such restriction automatically applies to a member of public.

It ‘could be’ that an individual raising a complaint does not receive a satisfactory response from a PC investigation into clerk behaviour (not at all uncommon.)
A member of public is at liberty to discuss, publish, advertise anything they so please within the existing bounds of freedom of speech.

The potential for a civil claim for defamation is vanishingly unlikely since there are several defences against such an action:  truth, honestly held belief, public interest etc.

It is also prohibitively expensive (and NOT appropriate for use of tax payers money by a PC on behalf of an employee nor a Cllr to advance a civil claim.)

So, a Cllr should (probably) allow proper process (if they have confidence in it) which would (probably) reasonably require non disclosure prior to completion  but neither a Cllr NOR a member of public is legally obliged to keep schtum if they don’t want to.

Perhaps Kier Stalin’s thought police might arrest them for walking the wrong way around the wheel though…