Employment tribunal and grievance data

Report: 9
Date: 5 December 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This paper provides management information regarding MPS employment tribunal cases including financial data, together with details of those employment tribunals currently pending that have been categorised as exceptional or significant. Management information on cases lodged under the MPS Grievance Procedure is also provided.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the contents of the report.

B. Supporting information

1. Six monthly reports are provided to the Human Resources Committee setting out statistical data regarding MPS performance in terms of the conduct of employment tribunals brought against the Commissioner. Case details are also provided relating to those claims deemed to be exceptional or significant against criteria agreed with the MPA as defined in the MPA/MPS protocol.

2. The Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) is responsible for the management of exceptional and significant claims against the MPS including employment tribunals, civil actions and accident claims. It has been agreed that the Professional Standards Committee will be in regular receipt of a comprehensive document with details of risk exposure arising from the range of claims. Management information relating to employment tribunals and grievance procedures will be provided to the MPA HR Committee. The DPS Performance Review Unit (PRU) has worked with the Employment Tribunal and Grievance Advice Unit to develop a facility to provide analysis based on ethnicity, gender and location and to differentiate between police and civil staff data. This facility will allow the unit to meet its obligations under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 in terms of appropriate and timely monitoring.

Strategic co-ordinating and tasking

3. DPS has created a Strategic Intelligence Desk (SID), which will apply the National Intelligence Model to its work in analysing a wide range of data. The PRU and others will provide data to the SID drawn from the DPS Monthly Management Report and elsewhere as part of a programme of planned information sharing and will also provide further data on a themed basis. The work of the SID will be directed by the Strategic Co-ordinating and Tasking Group led by Commander Hagon DPS. The first meeting of this group will take place on 12 November 2002. In due course, the SID will produce strategic intelligence reports across the range of DPS activity (including tribunal and grievance cases) to identify particular locations or issues warranting further attention.

Equality and diversity

4. Data provided to the MPA Professional Standards Committee includes a report on ‘Statistical Analysis of Complaints in relation to Ethnicity’. Arising from apparent evidence of disproportionality in terms of both tribunals and grievances further work is in hand in conjunction with the Diversity Directorate, the Independent Advisory Group, the Black Police Association and others to examine the issues and consider alternative forms of intervention to resolve matters of concern.

Fairness at work procedure

5. The Fairness at Work (FaW) Co-ordinator has been appointed. A process for the selection of FaW advisers and appeal advisers is being developed alongside a programme to provide them with the required training. A programme of briefings will be arranged for key groups such as SMTs, Personnel Managers, Trade Unions and staff associations. Wherever possible briefings will be provided as part of pre-arranged conferences or other events. The current Grievance Procedure will be replaced by Fairness at Work. It is anticipated that greater use of internal means to resolve disputes will see an initial increase in the numbers of grievance procedures being lodged. This will be reinforced by legislative changes in 2003, which will emphasise the expectation that employees will explore internal resolution avenues before going to litigation unless there are compelling reasons why this is inappropriate. These measures, if effective, should lead to a reduction in the number of cases going to employment tribunal.

Timeliness

6. The meeting of the MPA HR Committee of 2 May 2002 requested that the Committee be provided with a report on timeliness of dealing with employment tribunal cases. In the absence of any further clarification as to the Committee’s requirements on this matter the following comments are provided.

7. The timetable for dealing with an employment tribunal case is set by the tribunal itself. There are strict deadlines for responses at the various stages and parties run the risk of being unable to enter a defence or to revise their position if they fail to adhere to the orders of the tribunal.

8. The timescale set by the tribunal is determined by the availability of tribunal Chairs, panel members and accommodation. The increase in the number of cases being presented to tribunals often means that there are considerable but unavoidable delays in matters being set for hearing. These matters are outside the control of the parties. If a large number of witnesses are needed for a hearing, the date may need to set some considerable time in the future so that dates to avoid for all significant witnesses can be accommodated.

9. All internal processes such as investigations or grievance procedures must be completed prior to an associated tribunal hearing taking place. It is recognised that the length of time taken to complete some investigations, DPS or local, has led to an undesirable delay in the tribunal process. Efforts are in hand to address this via work on timeliness in DPS internal investigations and through the introduction of Fairness at Work. It should be noted that the time taken in dealing with such matters often reflects the vacancy factor and increased demands falling upon investigating officers and other managers.

Employment tribunal and grievance Data

10. Appendix 1 provides data from the DPS Monthly Management Report. It shows the monthly totals of new tribunals and grievances lodged for the financial year 2001/02 and for the current financial year to 30/9/02. It also presents the cost to the compensation budget for the same period showing monthly expenditure for both tribunal awards and settlements and the average figure of monies paid over the last four years.

11. Appendix 2 presents the employment tribunal performance data in a format requested by the Human Resources Committee meeting on 19 April 2001 to compliment and expand on the other tables provided. This spreadsheet allows Members to view the length of time taken for cases to reach a conclusion, which may be in terms of a hearing, withdrawal by the applicant or a settlement. This data shows that more than 75% of ET claims are concluded either in the year that they are lodged or the following year. The length of time cases take to reach a conclusion may be influenced by the need for formal investigations, the prerogative of the applicant to continue to pursue a matter and then withdraw at a late stage or the timetable set by the employment tribunal. The Appendix also indicates the position regarding exposure to future liability in terms of the number of cases currently pending. This is currently 166 (DPS figures) including cases on appeal and multiple claims by a single applicant. Further work to refine counting systems on these points between DPS and DLS is required.

12. Appendix 3 shows Grievance Procedures notified to the Employment Tribunal and Grievance Advice Unit between 1/1/02 and 30/9/02 by category.

13. Appendix 4 indicates whether the above grievances were resolved and to what stage of the procedure they were pursued.

14. Appendix 5 provides information on gender and ethnicity for both tribunals and grievances for the financial year 2001/02 and the current year to 30/9/02.

15. Appendix 6 is a report prepared by the Directorate of Legal Services (DLS). This includes latest information regarding the compensation budget managed by DLS and an update on the case of Liversidge v Chief Constable Bedfordshire that has significant implications for many MPS tribunal cases.

C. Equality and diversity implications

Work is in hand in conjunction with the Diversity Directorate, the Independent Advisory Group and the Black Police Association and others, to examine some apparent evidence of Disproportionality in terms of those tribunals and grievances; with a view to identifying any required action.

D. Financial considerations

There are no specific financial considerations arising directly from this report other than for the Committee to note the estimated cost of current employment tribunal actions.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Esme Crowther, Directorate of Professional Standards, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 6

MPA Report Statistics for Employment Tribunals

Position as at November 2002

The number of cases is higher than anticipated pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in Liversidge v. Chief Constable of Bedfordshire, which concerns the vicarious liability of Chief Officers.

Explanatory Notes

Active ETs - A case not concluded, including those which are the subject of appeal. Each claim made by an Applicant is counted separately e.g. one Applicant may have lodged 4 separate tribunal applications.

Stayed - Currently there are 71 stayed cases which are not currently being progressed pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in Liversidge v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. This has therefore resulted in an increase in active ETs, which would otherwise have been concluded.

Calculation Notes - Figures have not been included for financial year 2001/02 as they would not be representative of a “normal financial year” owing to the Liversidge decision

• The average win rate over the financial years 1998 to 2001 has been 75%.
• The average number of cases settled over the financial years 1998 to 2001 has been 21.
• The average number of cases withdrawn over the calendar years 1998 to 2001 has been 43.
• The average compensation payments (for cases settled and tribunal awards) for financial years 1998 to 2001 is £615k based on an average of 72 cases (£8,541 per case). This average figure takes into account cases where the award exceeded £50,000 owing to payment of compensation for injury to feelings, loss of earnings and pensions.
• The running costs of employment tribunal cases have not been monitored as a separate category but this has begun in the current financial year.

Note: The compensation budget for financial year 2002/3, which covers the cost of awards and the running cost of malfeasance and employment cases is £8m.

Calculation

• In the majority of cases, the tribunal consolidates multiple claims. If this assumption were applied to the 165 cases stated above the figure would be reduced to 140 (which is a reduction of 15%).
• Of the 140 cases, a further percentage would be withdrawn at various stages. It is estimated that this can vary between 20% to 30%. Taking a conservative view, if 25% is removed from the 140 cases this leaves a total of 105 cases.
• No allowance has been made for any cases that may be won at hearing.
• Based on 105 cases, as at November 2002 the estimate for compensation payments would be £897k (£615k divided by 72 x105 = £897k (£8,541 per case)).
• The £897k is the total estimated liability for all outstanding cases as at November 2002. This figure will change as new cases are received and concluded.

Note: This figure has not been calculated on the basis of a reserve figure, which is based on a full liability assessment. This would significantly inflate the compensation estimate.

Authors: Sandra Burrows (Assistant Director) & Franca Oliffe (Practice Manager)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback