- Conference
- 2019 Police & Justice Service Group Conference
- Date
- 16 May 2019
- Decision
- Carried
Police Staff are probably under the most stringent scrutiny and procedural process than any other employees. At present we can be subject to a criminal investigation, an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, a misconduct procedure and vetting all at the same time.
If an employee is acquitted through criminal process, they will usually go through misconduct, vetting and the risk being placed on the barred and advisory list. It is also worth noting that capability process may also be used.
The combination of these processes means that matters are not dealt with quickly and may run into years in the worst examples. This delay in matters being resolved has a profound effect on members’ mental health particularly when it is protracted.
Members who are exonerated at court, may receive a final or written warning in a misconduct hearing which will mean that they are re-vetted and the status they require to do their job is withdrawn, therefore threatening their immediate and future employment, should they also be placed on the barred and advisory list. There is also a possibility that the IOPC may not be satisfied with the outcome and they have to go through it all again.
This level of scrutiny for employees is in this conference’s opinion, overly intrusive and due to the fact that members can be sanctioned through a variety of means which may ultimately lead to dismissal, when that was not the intention of the employer.
The misconduct process is in place to deal with matters that relate to the contract of employment, learning where applicable and the application of appropriate and proportionate sanctions. Where an employee receives a sanction of a written or final written warning, it is clear that the employer had made the decision not to dismiss the employee. It would seem unreasonable to then use a separate process for the purpose of dismissal. In these circumstances Vetting is used for this purpose.
Vetting for all intents and purposes, is a risk assessment process, where control measures may be put in place to mitigate against any likelihood of threat to the organisation. It would not be unreasonable to believe, given the evidence, that the downgrading of vetting status following a misconduct hearing, is abused in such a way as to effect dismissal where none was intended by the employer. The criteria for these decisions is often hidden from the individual, therefore affecting a minimal chance of overturning a decision on appeal.
The Vetting appeal process is heavily weighted on the side of the employer; balance, disclosure and justification for the decision is often obscured by the organisations belief that to provide that detail would put it at risk. The Appeals process is flawed as it does not follow the rules of natural justice. The downgrading of vetting following a misconduct outcome undermines the misconduct procedure. It is very often impossible to understand the rational for a vetting decision as the reasons are neither explained nor disclosed. The criteria for the decision making following a misconduct outcome is a closely guarded secret, which makes appeals very difficult to overturn.
Should members be dismissed, they are then likely to be put on the barred and advisory list which will prevent them from being part of the police service.
Conference believes that our members in policing deserve to be treated fairly and not subject to multiple processes that threaten their livelihoods.
Conference therefore calls on the Service Group Executive (SGE) to:
1)Collate information from branches for the purpose of analysing and assessing the instances of dismissal by means other than through misconduct procedures;
2)Consider publishing the results to the PSC, NPCC and IOPC dependent on the findings;
3)Provide advice and guidance to Police Branches based on the findings;
4)Make findings known to Labour MPs via Labour Link in particular the shadow policing minister;
5)Examine the feasibility of negotiating through the PSC, a fair and transparent vetting appeals procedure;
6)Examine the feasibility of negotiating through the PSC, a formalised process/procedure for the redeployment of staff who have vetting status reduced.