Lessons learned from recent Employment Tribunal case

Report: 17
Date: 7 December 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to outline the background, process and timescales by which this area of work will be carried out.

A. Recommendation

That members approve:

1. The revised timetable to complete this Review as set out in Appendix 1.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Chief Executive & Clerk has commissioned an internal Task Group to examine the lessons to be learned from the recent employment tribunal case and decision brought against the Authority by a member of staff seconded to the MPA from the Metropolitan Police Service.

2. In this case the Employment Tribunal found in favour of the employee on one element of her claim and dismissed the remaining four elements. of her claim. The finding that the Authority had discriminated against the employee on racial grounds related to the way that the organisation dealt with her absence from work on health related grounds and her return to work.

3. Since 2004, there have been five employees who have brought cases of race discrimination against the MPA:

• One was withdrawn by the claimant after the first day of hearing, with an apology for bringing the claim.
• One was completely rejected by a tribunal after a full hearing.
• Another was made by a member of staff after a long period of unresolved internal conflict. It did not go to a tribunal hearing and was resolved by a voluntary agreement that the employee would leave the MPA.
• In the fourth case the Employment Tribunal found that the Authority had failed to apply procedures properly and that this amounted to victimisation in law. It did not find that there was any racial discrimination.

Key elements of the review

4. This is the first time that the MPA has conducted such a review. The timescales for this Review were set at Full Authority in September 2006 and it was agreed that the Review would be completed and submitted to Co-Ordination & Policing Committee on 7 December 2006.

5. However, since then the Authority has had to await the result of the remedies hearing. An award of compensation was made against the MPA and one employee, totalling £11,000, and the Tribunal made a recommendation that the parties issue an apology to the claimant This has now been done. In addition, the scale and nature of undertaking such a review – in the midst of a live Employment Tribunal case - has to be balanced against existing priorities such as, for example, the MPA’s Drugs Scrutiny and the Authority having to meet its legal requirement to produce its Disability Equality Scheme (DES) by 4 December 2006.

6. The Terms of Reference for the Review are:

“To review the MPA's policies, processes and practices, actions and inactions (including processes that develop in the absence of policies) as necessary in the light of this ET case and the judgement of the Tribunal; and to make recommendations to support organisational and individual learning, training and development.”

7. The composition of the Task Group was determined on the basis of the skills, knowledge, experience and ability possessed by individual members of staff, particularly in this area of work. The Group has representatives from Committee Liaison & Members Services (CLAMS), Communications, Community Engagement Unit, Internal Audit, Race & Diversity Unit and Scrutiny & Review. The trade union, PCS, also has a representative as a member of the Task Group. The Task Group is led by the Head of Race & Diversity Unit.

8. In agreement with the Chief Executive & Clerk, the overarching methodology is a desk-top review of the case with initial recommendations made, followed by one-to-one interviews with key parties involved in the case. The Task Group will then synthesise the results made from their initial analysis of the case and decision with the outcomes from the interviews in order to produce the final report.

9. External reference to the Review will be provided by the new staff members within MPA HR, including the Interim Head of HR and Change Management; and PCS.

10. The Head of Race & Diversity Unit has regular fortnightly meetings with PCS representatives to keep them updated of the progress of the review. Both PCS and the Task Group acknowledge that while it is disappointing that the original timescales could not be met, all are agreed that it is better and fairer to all participants, and in the Authority’s best long-term interests, to produce a measured and quality product that covers all the substantive issues arising from this case. This does not, of course, constrain the Senior Management Team of the MPA from taking any action to address any immediate gaps in process identified as the work progresses.

Member involvement

11. This Review is an internal employment issue and as such is the responsibility of the Chief Executive & Clerk. However, some members may have knowledge and/or expertise that they may wish the Task Group to consider during the Review. Members are requested, if they feel they would wish to contribute, to contact the Chief Executive & Clerk, rather than approaching individual Task Group members.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The lessons learned from this case may have significant impact on how the MPA addresses race and equality issues, particularly in relation to employment in such areas as managing staff, advice and support for managers and supervisors. Undertaking this review assists the MPA to meet its legal obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 in relation to reviewing and assessing, consulting and monitoring. In addition, the review will inform key elements of the MPA Improvement Programme, as well as help the Authority demonstrate its progress and commitment towards meeting the Equality Standard for Local Government and achieve one of its key corporate equality objectives.

D. Financial implications

1. There are no direct financial implications arising for the MPA from this report. However, there may be financial implications for the Authority as it seeks to enact and progress any recommendations emerging from the Review.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Laurence Gouldbourne, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Revised timetable

Planning: 2 October 2006 – 18 October 2006

• Agreement of composition of Task Group
• Formulation and agreement of Terms of Reference
• Liaison with Chief Executive & Clerk
• Negotiation and liaison with PCS
• Initial research and reading
• Production and distribution of key papers
• Letters sent to key parties and to MPA staff

Stage 1: Initial Analysis

• Initial Analysis of case: 19 October 2006 – 23 November 2006
• Questionnaire agreed: 24 November 2006

Stage 2a: Interviews, Analysis & First Drafts

• Interviews: 27 November 2006 – 8 December 2006
• First draft completed: 5 January 2007
• Paper to SMT: 9 January 2007
• Paper shared with interviewees: 11 January 2007 – 17 January 2007

Stage 2b: External Reference 11 January 2007 – 17 January 2007

• PCS
• MPA HR
• Second draft: 18 January 2007 – 22 January 2007
• SMT sign off: 23 January 2007

Stage 3: Presentation

• Paper to Members for CoP: 24 January 2007
• Presentation of paper to staff: 29 January 2007
• Presentation to Co-ordination & Policing Committee: 1 February 2007

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback