Where you given any training?

I have done "attends" in the UK but in order to do this I needed to be trained and accredited even to be allowed into the meeting to observe and not as some one with the power to make decisions!

If it still gives a manager the last word though, and requires the employee not be present, that hardly seems fair.

It might be slightly mitigated since the panel has the opportunity to bring back the employee if they have follow-up questions but I'd agree and would want to experiment with the ordering.

The manager isn't present during the employee's presentation either though, and I'd imagine it would devolve into a circus if both parties are present during both presentations and able to interrupt/rebut directly. (Might also not be beneficial to the employee)

If these were real grievance hearings, both parties would be able to be present during each other's presentation, cross-examine witnesses, and present (and/or challenge) evidence used to make a decision on what to do with the employee.

Could it become a circus? Yes, if procedural ground rules are not well-defined and enforced by the moderator of these sessions. One of these should be the obvious "don't interrupt each other while one side is speaking".

I know these aren't supposed to be formal legal proceedings by design, but if the parties cannot question each other -- or even hear what the other has to say! -- then there seems to be a strict upper bound to the degree of "truth" that a jury could uncover during this process.

EDIT: I didn't notice your disclaimer when I wrote this; I absolutely did not mean to give off the impression that you or your colleagues @ Amazon didn't take your responsibilities as appeal committee members seriously or didn't do your job properly. Hopefully you didn't take it that way, but re-reading this thread made me want to clarify.

Citrine, Roberts and input from the legal system could well be used for this.

I agree, there could at least be a round table joint Q&A discussion at the end to clear up any conflicting reports etc.

Should it not be the mangers superior who has the last word - we don't let coppers act as judges in trials do we