Civil staff poor performance procedures

Report: 16
Date: 25 July 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

The MPA Human Resources Committee requested a paper setting out the details of poor performance procedures for civil staff. This paper outlines the stages of the capability procedures and provides details of unsatisfactory performance cases notified to the HR Directorate between August 1997 and December 2001.

A. Recommendations

That Members note the current procedures and the content of the report.

B. Supporting information

1. There are two procedures for dealing with unacceptable performance by members of the civil staff, one for probationers and the other for staff whose appointment has been confirmed.

Probationers

2. The procedure for dealing with probationers is contained in the Civil Staff Personnel Manual Chapter 2.2.

3. Civil staff usually have a 12 month probationary period and probationers receive reports after 3, 6 and 10 months' service. In most cases the probationary period is satisfied, but occasionally it is not. In the event of an adverse report, the individual is given seven days' notice of a formal interview with their line manager to discuss it and lay down a development plan to effect an improvement. If there is no improvement by the next report, after disclosure an interview is arranged with the second line manager who has to make a recommendation to the OCU commander/head of unit as to whether the individual should be dismissed for failing their probationary period. The alternative is normally to extend probation.

All Other Staff

4. The procedure for staff whose appointment has been confirmed is contained in the Civil Staff Personnel Manual Chapter 4.2. It is a four stage incremental process, as follows: -

Stage 1 oral warning (confirmed in writing) by first line manager
(becomes "spent" after 6-12 months)

Stage 2 written warning by first line manager
(becomes "spent" after 1 year)

Stage 3 final written warning by second line manager
(becomes "spent" after 2 years)

Stage 4 dismissal or other appropriate action by OCU Commander or unit head

A minimum seven days' notice must be given of any interview that might result in the issue of a warning.

5. It is rare for a capability problem to materialise overnight. Before the formal process is initiated, there should be action by line managers to rectify the problem with the individual. This is referred to in the Manual as preliminary management action. This is a non-threatening and informal way of recognising the problem and discussing solutions with the individual.

6. In the event that any member of staff is recommended for dismissal, an interview is conducted in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 4.3 Annex F of the Civil Staff Personnel Manual. This provides guidance and a checklist to the OCU Commander or Head of Branch who would normally conduct the dismissal interview. Appeals against dismissal are dealt with at business group level and follow the process in Chapter 4.3 Annex G of the Manual. This also contains a checklist for managers conducting the appeal.

7. In accordance with the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, a record is now kept centrally of all capability and misconduct cases.

8. We have jut announced an intent to review this procedure – not only to ensure legal compliance – but also to streamline the current process and to assist organisational requirements.

Analysis of disproportionality

9. Except for middle and senior ranking staff, the capability procedures were totally devolved to line managers in August 1997. There was no requirement to notify central HR of any actions taken in respect of capability issues unless dismissal was an option. Consequently, no central statistics have been kept of adverse probationary report or stage 1-3 warnings. This has now been rectified in accordance with the monitoring requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and statistics have been collated with effect from 1 April 2002.

10. Consequently, the only information available is that of cases in which dismissal was a possible outcome. Attached at Appendix 1 are details of those cases notified to the HR Directorate from August 1997 (time of devolution) to December 2001. Four of the 22 capability cases were actually dealt with as gross misconduct as they involved serious negligence.

11. Given that the 22 cases represent less than 10% of the civil staff discipline cases in which dismissal was an option reported during that period, and even less as a percentage of all civil staff, any analysis of proportionality is of limited value statistically. Half of the cases were probationers.

C. Financial implications

This paper is for information. The cost of administering the poor performance procedures is met from within existing financial provision.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

Report author: Michael Shurety, Director of HR Services, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback