Measuring the consistency of sanction - Police staff

Report: 6
Date: 15 November 2007
By: Director of Human Resources on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides management information and statistical data in respect of members of police staff who find themselves subject to discipline. Specifically, it focuses upon those cases where a finding of guilt has been proven against an individual and a subsequent disciplinary sanction has been imposed. It specifically addresses issues of diversity and the matters of proportionality. Data trends analysed are taken from the financial year(s) 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 and 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.

A. Recommendations

That members note the report

B. Supporting information

1. The aim of the police staff discipline policy is to promote positive and constructive working relationships amongst the Metropolitan Police Service staff. The procedures are intended to help and encourage all employees to achieve and maintain acceptable standards of conduct, performance and attendance, and to provide a fair and effective method of dealing with alleged breaches of these standards.

2. The management of police staff discipline is a devolved function to local line managers. Both line managers and Human Resources Managers can access the HR Practice Support Team for advice and guidance in this area. The HR Practice Support Team’s responsibilities include monitoring the use of the discipline policy and ensuring consistency and integrity in its application.

3. Although the theme of this report is entitled ‘consistency of sanction’ the Practice Support Team are keen to emphasise that before any disciplinary sanction can be applied all cases must be fully investigated and a disciplinary panel must first prove guilt in every case.

Monitoring Discipline

4. Within the Practice Support Team, serious cases that meet the criteria for gross misconduct are centrally recorded and monitored. Specifically, the team maintain a case history and sanction database. Data captured within this database includes, personal details of the individual concerned (including equal opportunities data), location and role, as well as a description of the cause of the sanction.

5. The Human Resources Board through the monthly HR Scorecard actively monitor the progress of disciplinary cases. Ethnicity and gender monitoring features within this scorecard disciplinary data.

6. For the purposes of this report, we have drawn upon information that relates to cases that have resulted in the more serious sanctions that fall within the discipline arena. Namely, they are dismissal from the MPS or the disciplinary penalty of a formal reprimand.

Monitoring Suspension of Police Staff

7. Suspension on full pay is not a disciplinary sanction and is entirely without prejudice to the outcome or conduct of any subsequent proceedings. Nevertheless, suspension can be an integral and necessary part of a serious disciplinary investigation. Suspension on full pay may be appropriately used in cases of alleged gross misconduct and where management considers it to be in the interests of the service or members of staff, including the member of staff under investigation.

8. The Practice Support Team on behalf of the MPS verify all requests from local line management to suspend a member of police staff. The Practice Support Team holds a separate database. Using this tool, all suspensions are reviewed on a weekly basis. We strive to minimise the duration of such suspensions.

Disciplinary Sanction Monitoring Data

9. Disciplinary offences fall into two distinct areas, namely those resulting from criminal proceedings and those that are related to an Employment Investigation. Overall, data relating to these areas are categorised overleaf. To illustrate the nature and types of offences committed in the workplace we have further analysed Employment Investigations and grouped these into four separate sub-categories, namely IT related computer misuse, unsatisfactory attendance, unsatisfactory absence and unacceptable behaviour. Here as highlighted above, we have analysed those cases within the aforementioned categories that resulted in dismissal or a formal reprimand.

Police Staff Sanctions Resulting From Criminal Proceedings

10. Members of police staff who are convicted of a criminal offence (including some driving offences) would become the subject of a convictions board, Here, and in the vast majority of cases most convictions are not related to the individuals employment but relate to offences that have been committed outside of the workplace.
11. In the year 1 April 2005 to the 31 March 2006 15 members of Police Staff were dismissed and seven received a formal reprimand.

12. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, seven members of police staff were dismissed and 14 received a formal reprimand.

Police Staff Sanctions Resulting From Employment Investigations

13. Employment investigations are conducted where it is viewed that a member of police staff may have committed a disciplinary offence.

14. In the year 1 April 2005 to the 31 March 2006 24 members of police staff were dismissed and three received a formal reprimand.

15. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 11 members of police staff were dismissed and three received a formal reprimand.

IT Related Computer Misuse

16. With the growth in technology in the workplace, computer misuse is one of the most prevalent forms of disciplinary offence committed. The majority of cases are minor in nature and are therefore dealt with at the lower stages of the disciplinary procedure. Computer misuse can range at the lower level from sending inappropriate e-mails through to at the more serious level, passing on or selling sensitive information to third parties.

17. In the year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006, there were four members of police staff who were dismissed for computer misuse and two members of staff received a formal reprimand.

18. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 one member of police staff was dismissed for computer misuse and no staff received a formal reprimand.

19. The fall in cases of computer misuse can be attributed to the increased awareness raising by the Directorate of Information and local managers of their responsibilities as employees when using MPS systems.

Unsatisfactory attendance

20. In the year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 three members of police staff were dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance and no staff received a formal reprimand.

21. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 four members of police staff were dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance and no staff received a formal reprimand. These figures do not take account of where a probationary period may have been extended etc due to unsatisfactory attendance.

Unauthorised absence

22. The more serious cases of unauthorised absence primarily relate to failure to return from a career break or period of extended unpaid leave.

23. In the year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006, 14 members of police staff were dismissed for unauthorised absence and no staff received a formal reprimand.

24. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, three members of police staff were dismissed for unauthorised absence and no staff received a formal reprimand.

Unacceptable behaviour

25. Unacceptable behaviour includes insubordination towards line managers or behaviour towards members of the public that brings the MPS into disrepute.

26. In the year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006, three members of police staff were dismissed for unacceptable behaviour and one member of staff received a formal reprimand.

27. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, three members of police staff were dismissed for unacceptable behaviour and three also received a formal reprimand.

Diversity and equalities data

Gender

28. In the year 1 April 2005 to the 31 March 2006 of the 49 cases that led to a dismissal or formal reprimand 22 were committed by female members of police staff and 27 were committed by male members of police staff. Of these cases, 20 females were dismissed against 19 dismissals for male members of police staff. This slight overrepresentation of females who have been dismissed can be attributed to the larger number of female staff who have failed to return to work following a career break or period of extended unpaid leave.

29. In the year April 2006 to the 31 March 2007 of the 35 cases that led to a dismissal or formal reprimand, 12 were committed by female members of police staff and 23 by male police staff. Of these cases, nine females were dismissed and nine males were dismissed. . This overrepresentation of females again can be attributed to larger numbers of female staff that have failed to return to work following a career break or period of unpaid special leave. However, the lower overall numbers in total disciplinary cases in this period does illustrate how other MPS policies notably The Work Life Balance and Flexible Working policies are providing greater opportunities for women to return to work after a period of extended leave.

Ethnicity

30. In the year 1 April 2005 to the 31 March 2006 of the 49 cases that led to a dismissal or formal reprimand 25 were committed by white members of police staff and 22 were committed by black and minority ethnic members of police staff. (In two cases, ethnicity was not stated). Of these cases, 39 resulted in dismissal. Of these 19 were committed by white members of police staff and 18 were committed by black and minority ethnic members of police staff. In two cases ethnicity was not stated.

31. In the year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 of the 35 cases that led to a dismissal or a formal reprimand 14 were committed by white members of police staff and 18 by black and minority ethnic members of police staff. Of these cases 18 resulted in dismissal. Of these cases six were committed by white members of police staff and nine were committed by black and minority ethnic members of police staff. Again, in three cases ethnicity was not stated.

32. It is recognised that there is some disproportionality of sanction amongst black and minority ethnic staff albeit overall numbers are moving in a downward trend. As highlighted in our Professional Standards Discipline report submission in July 2007 ‘analysis has revealed that a disproportionate number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) discipline cases relate to staff inducted under the pre 2005 recruitment system, a factor in 79.7% of cases’. This information is equally significant for this report, as black and ethnic minority PCSOs as at March 2007 made up 31% of the total PCSO family against an overall MPS police staff average of 23%.

Disability

33. All disabilities declared by members of staff are recorded on Met HR. This information has not been declared or collated specifically for disciplinary purposes and relies on voluntary disclosure by individuals.

34. For the purposes of this report, the sample group did not reveal any recorded disability information.

35. Additionally, the police staff discipline procedures make specific reference to disabled members of staff and state “consideration must always be given to an individual’s disability when contemplating any disciplinary action and in conducting the disciplinary procedure in relation to a disabled member of staff”. Advice must be sought from the local HR Manager, Occupational Health and the appropriate Practice Manager to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act.

Interventions

Corporate case history and sanction database

36. The Practice Support Team now maintain a corporate database that details all of the police staff disciplinary cases recorded across the MPS. This database provides relevant and up to date information on sanctions and precedence resulting from a finding of discipline.

Advice and Guidance to Discipline Boards

37. The Practice Support Team actively engage and encourage discipline boards to seek advice and specifically to refer to the outcome database before deciding upon disciplinary sanctions. This approach has led to greater consistency and proportionality of sanction across the MPS.

Policy Changes

38. In collaboration with the Trade Union Side and as part of the ongoing review process the September 2006 revised Police Staff Discipline Policy introduced a three-person appeal panel. Deemed to bring greater independence, transparency and thoroughness to the appeal process, this amendation has been well received by the Trade Union Side and wider Staff Association groups.

Case Review

39. In cases where the Practice Support Team considered a discipline case outcome and or sanction imposed to be unexpected, the team have conducted cold case reviews. These reviews are undertaken in a small minority of cases and focus primarily upon future learning.

40. Whilst information can be submitted to the MPA of reviews undertaken, as these relate to individuals personal and disciplinary records this information is sensitive and would not be suitable for disclosure in a public forum.

C. Race and equality impact

1. A core aim of the police staff discipline policy, monitored by the Practice Support Team, is to ensure that the policy is being applied fairly and consistently to all police staff employed by the MPS regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion and belief, creed, ethnic origin, marital status, disability, age, sexual orientation, working hours or working arrangement.

2. In the event that any member of staff feels that the disciplinary process has not been applied proportionately or fairly, they have full and proper recourse to appeal procedures. Representations may also be made through their line manager or staff support representative. The HR Practice Team has access to intelligence from Fairness at Work and, in partnership with the Employee Relations Team, monitors and acts on any such concerns.

D. Financial implications

There are no specific financial considerations arising from this report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Darren Bird T/Ass Director HR4 Services & Simon Hockley Practice Manager HR4 Services.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback