The council was advised that, as the grievance was against the council as employer, no councillor could be involved in the grievance process. Hence the personnell committee was put to one side and the council advised that an independent party investigate the grievance. The process being overseen by the clerk and the independent party. Hence the council, not having any knowledge of the grievance (due to confidentiality) are not in a position to determine why it is against the council as a whole. The guidance refers to a grievance process in the employee handbook, which is a precis of ACAS requirements, but it does not have a separate procedure such as the NALC procedure to follow. The council has a personnell committee with delegated powers to deal with such issues, but as noted the advice given to council was that, as it was a grievance against the council as a whole, that committee would not be involved, and this stance was supported by the chair of that committee, who refused to call a meeting of the committee. The initial guidance was questioned, and the council was informed that the informal process was followed, but as no councillor was aware of the issue, one can only conclude that the informal process did not include the council or the personnell committee. Hence, my opinion that the initial guidance was flawed and that set the council off on the wrong track (the correct track being that the personnell committee formed to consider the issue with the NALC guidance in their hand and move it on from there).