Fairness at work policy - update

Report: 7
Date: 6 November 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the way in which the new Fairness at Work procedure has been introduced and an early assessment of the way in which it is operating.

A. Recommendation

That members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The Fairness at Work Procedure was introduced on 5 May 2003 following the appointment of a Fairness at Work Co-ordinator. Its predecessor, the grievance procedure, had been criticised for being too lengthy, bureaucratic and lacking in independence. As a result the procedure had lost credibility and the new Fairness at Work policy was designed to address these shortcomings. This is an initial report completed in the absence of the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator.

Role of the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator

2. Initially the role of the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator was focussed on the refinement, marketing and launch of the new policy. The Fairness at Work Advisors and Appeals Advisors, who would manage the two stage process, needed to be identified and appropriate familiarisation training arranged. Once sufficient Advisors and Appeals Advisors, all of whom are volunteers, had been identified the policy was formally launched in the Briefing Room at New Scotland Yard.

3. The role of the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator has been refined now that the policy is in place. He has an overview of all matters formally raised under the procedure and is involved in the appointment of Advisors and Appeals Advisors, particularly with providing them with support and advice. He also reviews the outcome of each case and monitors the operation of the procedure on a Service wide basis. At present the postholder has no deputy or direct support although it was recognised from the outset that this would need to be reviewed as a result of the scheme roll out.

Introduction of the Fairness at Work procedures (FAWP)

4. The scheme was formally launched by the Deputy Commissioner. The MPA and HMIC were present at the launch. Personnel Managers have been fully briefed about the way in which the procedures operations and it has been widely advertised through the intranet and the Job.

5. The initial target was for each OCU to have at least three Advisors/Appeals Advisors and this target was achieved by a local selection process. Familiarisation training was given through a specially designed course which concentrated on the range of skills an individual would require in order to resolve Fairness at Work cases. It is envisaged that the appointment of Advisors/Appeals Advisors and familiarisation training will be an ongoing process. To date there are 383 members of staff who are appointed as an Advisor or Appeal Advisor. This number more than meets the current needs of the MPS. In the event that an OCU cannot identify an Advisor locally to deal with a matter of concern, the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator has assisted with the appointment of someone from another OCU.

Monitoring

6. The new procedure is still in its infancy and so it is far too early to draw any conclusions about how the scheme is operating. However, the early signs are encouraging.

7. The new procedure has been initiated on 58 occasions between the date of inception and 31 August 2003 (inclusive). A total of 23 matters of concern have ceased but not all of these cases were progressed via the formal FAWP. A number were resolved informally, or closed down, thus negating the need for an Advisor to carry out any work. The ceased cases are summarised as follows:

8. The majority of the cases (25%) result from concerns about the behaviour/actions/decisions of 1st line managers. This trend correlates with cases raised under the old Grievance Procedure. The issues raised regarding the conduct of line managers are various. Concerns raised about the behaviour/actions/decisions of 2nd line managers and other colleagues account for an additional 20% of all cases. All other matters of concern have, in the main, related to local or corporate policies/selection procedures.

9. Significantly, only one case has been completed within the timescales set out in the FAWP (i.e. 28 days). That said, the delays have almost always been unavoidable and have been with the agreement of the parties involved. The main causes for a delay have been annual leave, sick leave and conflicting work patterns. Appointed Advisors are aware of the need to provide an audit trail to justify the delay in completing their work.

10. A formal review of the FAWP is now underway, which will look in detail at the success or otherwise of the policy in respect of timescales. In order to assess the true impact of the FAWP, this piece of work will need to compare statistics with any similar data held in respect of grievance cases. A further report will be provided when this review has been completed.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The procedure is being monitored and includes a breakdown by gender and ethnicity in order to identify any issues relating to discrimination/disproportionality. To date a total of 3 concerns have been raised on the grounds of less favourable treatment due to race or sex.

Ethnic and gender analysis of Fairness at Work cases up-to 31/8/03

A total of 58 Fairness at Work cases

D. Financial implications

None arising from this report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

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

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback