Evaluation of Employee Grievance and Appeals Processes at ASU Bahrain (SDG 8.5.1)

Applied Science University (ASU) in Bahrain demonstrates its commitment to Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8.5.1) by providing formal mechanisms for staff to appeal decisions related to their employment rights, salary issues, and working conditions. Ensuring that employees can raise grievances and have them fairly resolved is a key aspect of decent work. This report evaluates ASU’s published procedures for staff complaints and appeals, drawing on official university documentation. It examines the grievance and appeal procedures available to academic and administrative employees, the step-by-step process for raising concerns (e.g. about pay accuracy, contract terms, or workplace conditions), references to human resources policies outlining these processes, and any evidence of their implementation. All information is sourced from ASU’s official website and staff policy documents, in line with THE Impact Rankings requirements.

Official Grievance Policy and Scope

ASU has a formally documented Staff Grievance Procedure that is accessible to all full-time academic and administrative staff via the Staff Handbook [1]. This procedure is available to any employee who has completed the required probation period [1], providing a clear avenue to address complaints. (Temporary employees, contractors, and students are excluded from this staff grievance process [1], as it is designed specifically for university personnel.) The policy explicitly enumerates the types of issues that can be raised under the grievance mechanism, including:

• Violations of university rules or policies – any action or decision affecting an employee that is inconsistent with ASU’s established regulations or the individual’s contract[1]. In practice, this means if an employee believes their employment rights or contract terms (such as salary, benefits, or working hours) have been misapplied or violated, they have grounds for a grievance.
• Salary or pay disputes – although not named separately, pay issues would fall under the above category of inconsistency with an employment policy or contract. If an employee finds inaccuracies in payroll or believes they are not receiving entitled compensation, this would constitute an action against them contrary to their contract or labor law, and thus could be formally contested through the grievance process[1].
• Working condition concerns – likewise, concerns about unsafe or inappropriate working conditions can be framed as breaches of university policy (e.g. health, safety, or equality policies) and are eligible for the grievance process. Any decision or situation that contravenes the University’s rules on a fair and safe workplace can be challenged by staff[1].
• Disciplinary actions or job status decisions – the policy specifically allows grievances against suspensions, demotions, or other disciplinary measures taken against the employee[1]. Involuntary terminations (dismissals) can also be appealed under this system [1], ensuring staff have recourse if they feel a firing or contract non-renewal was unjust.
• Performance evaluation results – employees who are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their performance appraisals (for example, if it impacts their promotion or salary progression) may file a grievance to have the decision reviewed[1].

These provisions show that ASU’s grievance policy covers a broad range of employment issues, encompassing most areas that affect decent work: adherence to contracts and policies (employee rights and pay), fairness in discipline, job security, and appraisal outcomes. The Staff Handbook notes a few exceptions that are not grievable – for instance, disputes over flexible working arrangements or general staffing reductions cannot be appealed via this procedure [1]. Aside from these limited exclusions, academic and administrative staff have a clear right to challenge decisions they perceive as unfair or in violation of their rights.

Importantly, ASU’s commitment to fair resolution of employee complaints is emphasized in its policies. The University states that it “strives to ensure the consistently fair and equal treatment” of all staff grievances [1]. In an official communication, ASU confirmed that its complaints and appeals procedures are published and known to staff through the Handbook, and that the University seeks to handle grievances in a manner that is fair, equitable, and in line with labor laws [2]. It is also noted that ASU keeps its employment policies updated in compliance with Bahraini labor law (Bahrain Labour Law for the Private Sector), and a dedicated Legal Affairs Department works with HR to address legal aspects of staff employment matters [2]. This context underscores that the grievance process is part of a broader framework to protect employee rights and ensure decent working conditions in line with national laws and international standards.

Step-by-Step Grievance and Appeals Process

ASU’s grievance procedure provides a multi-tiered appeals process that encourages resolution at the lowest possible level before escalating to formal hearings. The process is well-documented with clear steps and responsible parties at each stage [2]. The major stages are summarized below:

– Informal Resolution with Line Management

The first step in addressing any work-related complaint is an informal discussion with the employee’s direct supervisor (Line Manager) [1]. ASU “urges all employees to discuss their employment concerns, problems, or questions with their Line Manager” as an initial measure [1]. The rationale is that effective two-way communication can often resolve misunderstandings or issues in a quick, amicable way. The line manager is expected to listen to the issue, consider the facts and the impact on the employee, and attempt to resolve the matter fairly [1]. This open-door approach serves the best interests of both the employee and the University by addressing problems early [1].

If the employee’s concern involves their direct supervisor (for example, a dispute with the line manager or a situation where the line manager is unable or unwilling to resolve the problem), the policy allows the staff member to escalate the issue one level higher in the management chain or directly approach the Human Resources Department (HRD) for assistance [1]. In such cases, HR may step in as a neutral mediator. The HR Department will meet informally with all parties to discuss the problem and will attempt to broker a solution through mediation and negotiation [1]. ASU’s communications stress that the University prefers to resolve grievances through these informal means if possible, “starting with communicating with the line manager,” and only resorting to formal procedures if necessary [2]. This practice aligns with fostering a collegial work environment and addressing issues before they escalate. However, if no resolution is reached informally – either because a consensus cannot be achieved or the management (Line Manager, and subsequently Director/Dean or HR) is unable to provide a satisfactory solution – then the employee is invited to proceed with filing a formal grievance [1].

– Formal Grievance – Appeal to Dean/Director

To initiate a formal grievance, the employee must complete a Grievance Form detailing the problem and the facts of the case [1]. On this form, the staff member documents the nature of the dispute, any relevant evidence or policy reference, the response (if any) provided by the immediate supervisor or HR at the informal stage, and the reasons why they remain dissatisfied [1]. This written complaint is then submitted as an appeal to the appropriate Dean or Director of the unit. (In ASU’s structure, academic staff would typically appeal to their Faculty Dean, whereas administrative staff would appeal to their Department Director at this stage.) If the grievance concerns the Dean/Director themselves, the policy allows the employee to go to the next higher authority instead [1] – ensuring that no one has to appeal to the very person who is the subject of the complaint.

Upon receiving a formal grievance, the Dean/Director first verifies that the issue was indeed subjected to the informal resolution step described above [1]. If the employee skipped directly to a formal complaint without talking to the line manager or HR, the Dean/Director can redirect the employee back to attempt that informal step, which reinforces the process’s intended sequence [1]. Assuming the informal stage was completed and the grievance is valid for review, the Dean/Director will then promptly investigate the issue. The procedure calls for the Dean/Director to arrange a meeting with the employee to hear the grievance in person and gather any additional information needed [1]. Under normal conditions, after this meeting the Dean/Director will issue a decision in writing to the employee within five (5) working days [1]. This written response will either uphold the employee’s grievance (and propose a resolution or remedial action) or deny the grievance with an explanation. The relatively short timeline (a resolution within one work-week) demonstrates ASU’s intent to resolve disputes efficiently at this level. If the staff member is satisfied with the Dean/Director’s written decision, the matter ends here.

However, if the employee is not satisfied with the outcome at the Dean/Director level, they have the right to appeal further up the hierarchy [1]. In other words, an unsatisfactory resolution in a college or departmental review is not the end of the road; the grievant can elevate the issue to the university leadership.

– Appeal to a Vice President

The next stage is an appeal to one of the University’s Vice Presidents, depending on the employee’s role. ASU’s policy specifies that “Academic staff shall appeal to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, whereas administrative employees shall appeal to the Vice President of Administration, Financial Affairs and Community” [1]. This ensures that the appeal is reviewed by a top executive who oversees the relevant domain of the employee’s work. To initiate this appeal, the employee must prepare a written statement explaining why they are dissatisfied with the Dean/Director’s decision, and must include copies of all previous written statements and responses from earlier stages (i.e. the original grievance form and the Dean/Director’s written decision) [1]. This documentation requirement creates a paper trail and helps the Vice President understand the history of the case.

Upon receiving the appeal, the Vice President will conduct a thorough review. The VP is expected to investigate the issue and meet with the employee to discuss the grievance further [1]. After examining the facts and consulting as needed, the Vice President will issue a written decision to the employee. The policy does not state a fixed deadline at this stage, but it does say the VP should act “promptly” and “under normal circumstances” provide the decision after the meeting without undue delay [1]. This step brings the grievance to a high administrative level, which often results in a definitive resolution. In many cases, the Vice President’s decision may satisfactorily address the issue (for example, by overturning an earlier decision or by explaining and upholding it with the weight of senior management).

If, as a final resort, the employee still feels that justice has not been served by the Vice President’s decision, ASU policy offers one more level of appeal – intended as the ultimate review.

– Final Appeal – University Appeal Review Board

In the event that the Vice President’s resolution is unsatisfactory to the employee, the staff member may request a hearing before an Appeal Review Board [1]. This is described as the “final resort” for grievances – a kind of internal tribunal that represents the highest level of appeal within the university [1]. The Appeal Review Board is an ad-hoc committee constituted specifically to review the grievance case in depth. According to the Staff Handbook, the board consists of three members of the University’s administration (high-ranking staff or administrators), who are selected by the University Council [1]. Notably, the Head of Human Resources is designated as a required member of this board [1], ensuring that HR expertise in labor regulations and fair practice is part of the deliberation. To initiate this stage, the employee must write to the Head of Human Resources formally requesting an Appeal Board review, and must outline the reasons for dissatisfaction with the Vice President’s decision (again attaching all prior documentation) [1].

Once convened, the Appeal Review Board must be assembled promptly, and a meeting/hearing is arranged with the employee to discuss the grievance in person [1]. During the Board hearing, the employee is allowed to bring a person of their choice to assist or witness the process if they wish (for example, a colleague or another representative to provide support) [1]. This allowance is important as it lets the staff member feel supported in what can be a formal proceeding; however, it is generally an internal process (the procedure does not mention bringing legal counsel or external union representatives, focusing on an internal resolution approach [1]). The Appeal Board will review all evidence, possibly interview relevant parties, and then formulate its findings and recommendations. The University President provides oversight at this stage: the Board’s findings and recommendation are subject to the President’s review and approval before final action is taken [1]. Under normal circumstances, once the Board has met and deliberated, the employee receives the written decision of the Appeal Review Board within ten (10) working days of the hearing [1]. The policy emphasizes that this decision, having been reviewed by the President, is final and not subject to further appeal within the university [1]. In other words, the Appeal Review Board’s outcome is the conclusive end of the internal grievance process at ASU.

The existence of this multi-layered process (from line manager up to President-approved board decision) illustrates that ASU provides its employees with several opportunities to seek redress for workplace issues. At each successive level, a higher authority with presumably more impartiality and authority examines the complaint, which increases the likelihood of a fair outcome. The time frames built into the process (such as the five-day response at the Dean level and ten-day response at the final board level) indicate that complaints are addressed in a timely manner, aligning with good practices for labor dispute resolution. Furthermore, the inclusion of HR professionals and senior administrators in the later stages ensures that decisions consider not only the specific department’s view but also university-wide policies and legal obligations.

Throughout these steps, ASU’s guiding philosophy is to encourage informal resolution first and to ensure fairness and consistency if formal appeals are needed [2]. As noted in a President’s News Digest summary of institutional policies, ASU strives to resolve employee grievances “through informal means before using formal procedures if possible” and maintains a focus on fair, equal treatment of staff complaints at all times [2]. This layered approach is consistent with creating a supportive work environment in which staff feel their concerns can be heard without fear of retribution or bias.

HR Policies, Communication, and Support for Staff Complaints

ASU’s approach to handling employee disputes is well-anchored in its Human Resources policies and is communicated to staff through official publications. The Staff Handbook (last updated January 2018) serves as the primary reference, clearly outlining the grievance and appeals process as detailed above [1]. All academic and administrative employees are made aware of these procedures as part of their induction and ongoing HR support. In fact, a university report confirms that “ASU’s complaints and appeals procedures are made known to staff by inclusion in the Staff Handbook, with detailed information on steps to be undertaken for investigation and resolution of staff grievances.” [2] This means the policy is not just written in an internal memo; it is published and accessible, reflecting transparency in how the University handles such matters.

Additionally, the role of the HR Department in the grievance process is explicitly recognized. ASU notes that the HR Department (along with the Legal Affairs Department) is involved in administering and resolving grievance cases as they progress [2]. For instance, HR personnel may facilitate the informal mediation stage and are members of the final appeal board, as mentioned. The HR Department also provides guidance to employees on how to file a grievance and ensures that each step is conducted per policy. The presence of a Legal Affairs Department, as cited in ASU’s communications [2], further indicates that any dispute relating to employment rights (e.g. contractual or legal rights of staff) will be managed in compliance with Bahraini labor law and with proper legal oversight. This is particularly relevant for issues like unfair dismissal or contract violations, where legal considerations are important. The University’s Recruitment and Settlement Policy (referenced in the Staff Handbook and internal reports) covers legal aspects of employment and settlement of employment disputes [2], implying that ASU has coherent HR policies to complement the grievance procedure (e.g. policies on ending employment, entitlements, etc., which work in tandem with the appeals process).

ASU’s HR web pages and staff resources emphasize support for employees. The HR Department’s official contact information is provided publicly (phone line and email) [3], inviting staff to reach out for any work-related assistance. In the staff portal, employees are reminded that for any help regarding internal systems or processes, they can contact the Human Resources Department [4]. While this note is in the context of IT systems, it reflects a general principle that HR is a point of contact for resolving issues. The culture of approachability is an important backdrop to the formal policies – it suggests that employees can seek clarification or help from HR at any stage if they are unsure how to proceed with a complaint about pay, contracts, or working conditions.

ASU also fosters an environment of fairness through additional policies that complement the grievance procedure. For example, the University has an Equality and Diversity Policy and a Harassment & Anti-Bullying Policy, which outline the expectation of respectful, non-discriminatory treatment of staff [2]. These policies (as described in the President’s News Digest) reinforce that staff must be treated fairly and can complain if they experience discrimination or harassment, which would then be addressed via the appropriate grievance channels [2]. Although these specific policies are beyond the scope of a simple salary dispute, they indicate that ASU has a comprehensive HR framework: issues ranging from pay inaccuracies to workplace harassment all have defined procedures for reporting and resolution, demonstrating a commitment to protecting staff welfare in multiple dimensions. Notably, any staff member who believes they have been subjected to unfair treatment (e.g. discrimination) is directed to “raise [the issue] in accordance with the appropriate University Grievance … procedure,” per these policies, integrating those concerns with the same appeals mechanism [5].

It is also worth noting that ASU engages in periodic reviews (such as external quality assurance reviews and sustainability reports) where it showcases these grievance mechanisms. In one such communication, ASU concluded that it “strives to ensure fair and equal treatment of employee complaints, starting with communicating with the line manager,” and seeks to resolve grievances informally whenever possible [2]. This not only reaffirms the policy to external observers (like rankings or accreditation bodies) but also signals to staff that the institution values transparency and justice in employment relations. The presence of a published appeals process itself is a form of assurance to employees: it indicates that if any dispute regarding salaries, contracts, or conditions arises, there is a reliable, stepwise process to voice and remedy the concern internally, rather than leaving employees with no recourse or forcing them to external legal action immediately.

Evidence of Implementation and Resolution

ASU’s official documents provide a clear picture of how disputes or complaints are meant to be resolved internally. The structure of the grievance process – with multiple layers of review and specified timelines – suggests that the University has taken steps to ensure complaints are handled diligently and fairly. While specific statistics (e.g. number of grievances filed annually, resolution rates, etc.) are not publicly disclosed on ASU’s website, the policy communications imply that the system is active and forms part of the university’s governance and HR management. For instance, the involvement of the University Council in appointing an Appeal Review Board [1] and the President’s oversight of final decisions [1] show that even the highest leadership is prepared to engage in resolving employee disputes. This high-level attention would likely not exist if grievances never occurred; rather, it indicates that ASU has a process ready to address issues when they do arise.

There is qualitative evidence that ASU handles grievances in line with its policies. In the President’s News Digest (Vol.3, 2018), the University reported to stakeholders that it has “a published complaints and appeals procedure” for staff and described how grievances are investigated and solved through the outlined steps [2]. It also referenced that Legal Affairs and HR personnel work together in these cases to ensure proper resolution [2]. This kind of public affirmation, although not detailing individual cases, confirms that the mechanisms are in place and taken seriously. The emphasis on resolving issues informally first, as repeated in the newsletter, suggests that ASU likely resolves many complaints at early stages (for example, a payroll discrepancy might be corrected after a discussion with HR, without needing to escalate to a formal board). No public reports of unresolved labor disputes or strikes at ASU have been found in the reviewed sources, which implies that the internal processes may be largely effective in addressing staff concerns before they escalate externally.

ASU also indicated in its sustainability reporting that it maintains channels for employee voice. (For instance, it noted having a workers’ committee/union that can represent staff interests and handle complaints arising during work [6]. Such structures complement the formal grievance policy by providing less formal or collective avenues for raising concerns. While detailed information on union activities is not provided on the main website, the mention underscores ASU’s multi-faceted approach to labor relations – combining formal appeals procedures, HR oversight, and possibly employee representation to foster a fair workplace.

In summary, any employee at ASU Bahrain who faces an issue related to their rights, salary, or working conditions has a clear path to appeal and seek remedy. The university has documented the process in official HR manuals and makes this known to staff, fulfilling the requirements of transparency and staff awareness. The process involves: first, talking to supervisors; then lodging formal complaints that progress through department heads, vice presidents, and if needed an impartial review board. Each step is governed by policy to ensure timeliness and fairness, and the HR department is actively involved to guide and support both the employee and management in reaching a solution. Although no quantitative data on grievances is published, the structure and the reiterated commitment to fair resolution are strong indicators that ASU has an institutionalized mechanism for dispute resolution in line with the principles of decent work. This aligns with SDG 8.5.1 by promoting decent working conditions – employees are not only guaranteed fair wages and treatment in theory, but also have the right to challenge and correct any situation where those standards might not be met.

Conclusion

Applied Science University, Bahrain has established a comprehensive process for staff to appeal decisions affecting their employment, reflecting its commitment to decent work standards. The official grievance procedure – available to all academic and administrative staff via the Staff Handbook – provides documented steps for raising complaints about pay, contractual rights, and working conditions. From informal discussions with line managers to formal appeals reaching the University President, the system is designed to ensure that employee concerns are heard and resolved impartially and promptly. HR policies and communications underscore principles of fairness, transparency, and adherence to labor laws throughout this process. While public data on the outcomes of grievances is limited, the existence and communication of these procedures demonstrate that ASU actively enables its employees to seek redress for workplace issues. This robust internal appeals mechanism supports SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by fostering a work environment where rights are respected and any disputes can be addressed through dialogue and due process, thereby contributing to a fair and equitable workplace culture at ASU Bahrain.

References