Police staff discipline process

Report: 10
Date: 6 November 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides information about the police staff discipline process, an outline of the procedure, including how it is managed and why it is currently being reviewed. Available management information has also been incorporated into the report.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The MPA HR Committee requested a report about the police staff discipline process and how it is currently managed. Apart from a general overview of the procedures the report also includes details of the following.

1. How the procedure is managed and good practice shared.
2. Progress on the current review to streamline existing procedures.
3. Relevant management information.

History

2. Until 1990, virtually all police staff discipline was dealt with centrally. In 1989, responsibility for probationer monitoring, apart from dismissal, was devolved to line managers. This was followed in 1990 by devolution of stage 1 warnings to first line managers, and stage 2 warnings to second line managers. Grade Managers centrally dealt with stage 3 warnings, gross misconduct and dismissals.

3. As a result of the 'Personnel Theme', which advocated devolution of a wide range of personnel management activities to line managers, including police staff discipline, local personnel managers were appointed to guide and support line managers with their enhanced personnel management responsibilities.

4. There was considerable consultation with the unions prior to devolution of the disciplinary function and right of dismissal to line managers in August 1997. While the unions agreed that the processes laid down were fair, they were concerned that local managers would not implement them fairly and reasonably. In an attempt to allay the TUS fears, the role of the then new personnel managers was emphasised and in some circumstances it was decided to make the personnel managers’ role mandatory. Since devolution of the function the MPS has not lost a claim for unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal.

The procedures

5. The procedures, which are currently under review, are set out in detail in the Civil Staff Personnel Manual (CSPM), Chapters 2.2 (probationer monitoring), 4.2 (inefficiency) and 4.3 (misconduct). They are based on the ACAS code of practice and therefore are not peculiar to MPS police staff. The responsibility levels for misconduct and inefficiency warnings are as follows:

• Stage 1 oral warning (confirmed in writing) - by first line manager
• Stage 2 written warning - by first line manager
• Stage 3 final written - by second line manager
• Stage 4 dismissal or other appropriate action - by OCU commander or unit head

6. Personnel managers are available to offer advice to line managers on all discipline matters. Indeed, it is mandatory in the Civil Staff Personnel Manual (CSPM), for line managers to consult them. When dealing with cases of gross misconduct, it is mandatory for the personnel manager to be a member of the discipline board. In turn, the personnel managers can obtain advice about procedures and precedent from the Police Staff Discipline Unit in HR Directorate. A verification process has been introduced whereby the Police Staff Discipline Unit must be consulted before a member of police staff is suspended or action commences that could result in dismissal. This process ensures that the proposed actions are proportionate and within the procedures.

7. Good practice is disseminated through a variety of means:

• Business managers are notified of suspensions in their business groups and monitor their progress.
• Director HR chairs monthly meeting with Police Staff Discipline Unit to monitor ongoing suspensions.
• Director HR Services chairs a quarterly meeting with the business managers to review cases and promote good practice.
• The Police Staff Discipline Unit have run workshops for personnel managers and their deputies in the personnel units.
• On request, the Police Staff Discipline Unit regularly run workshops for line managers on OCUs. Presentations have also been made to OCU Senior management teams.
• Several presentations were made to line managers who attended recent HR Directorate Open Days.
• Articles are submitted for the ‘Getting it right’ newsletter.
• In practice, personnel managers consult the Police Staff Discipline Unit to discuss their ongoing cases to ensure that the actions taken are proportionate and within the procedures.

Appeals process

8. The appeals process is contained at Annex G Chapter 4.3 of the Civil Staff Personnel Manual. Appeals against sanctions other than dismissal are considered by the appropriate line manager. In the case of dismissals, the appeal is to the head of business group or nominated deputy. In practice this is normally delegated to the business manager.

9. Any appeal must be submitted in writing within 21 days of receipt of penalty and it must contain the full grounds for the appeal.

Management information (MI)

10. Details of the number of police staff against whom disciplinary action is taken is shown by pay band showing traffic wardens and PCSOs separately; decisions taken and what sanctions are imposed are set out in Appendix 1 which covers the period from April 2002 to September 2003 inclusive.

11. As a devolved function MI was only collated locally. Since the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which requires all public organisations to carry out ethnic monitoring on all disciplinary cases, a central record is now kept of all disciplinary actions from stage 1 to dismissal. The information provided at Appendix 1 (exempt and therefore available to members only) is therefore based solely on the information provided by Personnel Units and we are now seeking to establish whether this reflects an accurate picture across the MPS.

Please note: Appendix 1b and 1c were removed from exempt items at the meeting and as such are available below.

Review of current procedures

12. The police staff discipline process is currently being reviewed and the target completion date is December 2003. The procedure will continue to follow the ACAS code of practice but it will be streamlined in order to make it easier to understand and operate. It is planned that the new procedures will be accessible via the intranet and that personal managers will be fully briefed in advanced of their introduction.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. Compared with the overall number of police staff, those subject to the formal disciplinary processes comprise an extremely small percentage.

2. The figure relating to Visible Ethnic Minority (VEM) staff is distorted by cases where the ethnic group is not known, either because the individuals have not returned the monitoring forms or no declarations were made on returned forms.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising directly 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

Please note: Appendix 1b and 1c were removed from exempt items at the meeting and as such are available below.

Appendix 1c

Conclusions from discipline spreadsheet as follows:

• The spreadsheet gives a high level overview only, and only captures those cases that have been reported centrally. It is not claimed that the figures shown are a true reflection of all police staff discipline as it is recognised that not all discipline penalties are reported to the Police Staff Discipline Unit. It is anticipated that the introduction of METHR will address this issue.
• The percentage of VEMs subject to disciplinary action is almost twice that of white members of staff, however, in most cases the figures are too small to draw any conclusions, although there does appear to be disproportionality in dismissals for VEMs.
• Staff in more junior roles are more likely to be the subject of disciplinary action.
• It is also worth noting that action taken prior to any formal disciplinary action is not captured (for example preliminary management action and words of advice).

Concerns/comments on standardising of penalties:

• Employment law advocates that all cases of discipline are dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner, with each case being judged on its own merits. Police officers are governed by ‘Regulations’, rather than employment law.
• The current CSPM states that the penalty should be proportionate to the misconduct.
• A member of staff facing a convictions board is not automatically dismissed; consideration is given to the facts and any mitigation offered before a decision is reached. In many cases dismissal is not the outcome.
• Misuse of computer, can range from inappropriate but inoffensive material, to offensive/sexist/discriminatory material, and hence the penalties would also range from words of advice to dismissal.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback