1 |
Summary |
|
|
1.1 |
At the meeting of the Human Resource (HR) Committee on 26 November 2009, the Committee considered the report of the Clerk (Item 10 in the Minute Book, attached at Annex A for ease of reference) on an invitation for each Committee to review their role and terms of reference. Responses would be reported back to the Governance Committee on 20 March 2010, and recommendations about the future governance structure then proposed for adoption by the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (HFRA) at its Annual Meeting in June 2010.
|
1.2 |
There was particular discussion around the terms of reference for the Committee and in particular clause 3 which identified the role of the Committee in respect of appeal hearings. The Committee wished to consider this matter in more detail and requested further detail. This paper primarily provides further information for the HR Committee on this issue. |
1.3 |
Additionally the paper proposes a revised clause on the approval of training and development plans. Finally it provides a proposal for a new clause that will be put to the Governance Committee for inclusion on the terms of reference for all Committees concerning their roles in respect of promoting and monitoring the Authority's equal opportunities and health, safety and welfare policies. |
|
|
2 |
RecommendationError! Bookmark not defined.s |
|
|
2.1 |
That the HR Committee remove the existing clause that relates to its role in respect of appeals and replaces it with a clause that matches the existing policy and practice. |
|
|
2.2 |
That the HR Committee remove the existing clause that relates to its role in respect of it's reference for approving training and development plans and replaces it with a clause that matches the existing policy and practice. |
|
|
2.3 |
That the HR Committee report its proposal to the Governance Committee on 20 March 2010, that each Committee adopt as part of their terms of reference the promotion and monitoring of the Authority's equal opportunities and health, safety and welfare policies. |
|
|
3 |
Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined.and background |
|
|
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 |
At the meeting of the HR Committee on 26 November 2009, Members' attention was drawn to the Committee's existing terms of reference in relation to Employee Policies. In particular, to Clause 3: "To act as the Authority's appeal body for all categories of employees and to appoint appeals panels comprising Members of the Committee or the Authority, as appropriate. (This to include the hearing of appeals relating to : individual dismissals and grievances, and collective disputes)". Whilst recognising that this clause required updating in line with current national terms and conditions of service, Arbitration and Conciliation Service (ACAS) guidance and best practice, Members questioned the appropriateness of no Member involvement. It was also questioned if no involvement in appeals in recent years was beneficial in contrast to the position previously.
|
3.2 |
The Committee wished to have the opportunity to consider their role as Members in such matters in more detail. This report provides some further background to support that debate. It further suggests a change to the Committee's present terms of reference about approving training and development policies. The timing of this meeting provide Members' the opportunity to consider the Committee's role in these areas before they are required to be reported to the Governance Committee on 20 March 2010. |
4 |
Previous HR Committee Decision |
|
|
4.1 |
The current policy for managing disciplinary and disputes issues was brought into force in 2005 as a result of a decision of the HR Committee on 1 December 2004. The resolution stated the following: (i) That the changes to the employment matters for Grey Book employees be noted and the changes proposed relating to delegation to officers for all employment matters, unless the action commences at a senior level necessitating the involvement of Members, be supported. (ii) That further to (i) above this approach be applied across all employee groups equally to ensure consistency and fairness of treatment.
|
4.2 |
It is evident that whilst the decision was made to alter the way appeals are heard and elected Members involvement within them, the terms of reference were not amended at the time, or at any point subsequently. The recent requirement to review the terms of reference for all Committees highlighted this fact. |
5 |
Historical Position |
|
|
5.1 |
Up until 2005, all Grey Book staff were subject to the Fire and Rescue Service Discipline Regulations. These were introduced many years previously and were adapted from military discipline processes. As such they were very strict, procedurally based and did not fit with the culture of a modern and progressive organisation. The biggest issue with the process was that all discipline cases, regardless of level, had to be heard by the Chief Officer. Therefore, very few cases were dealt with formally as it was such long process to get to that point. As all cases were heard by the Chief Officer or his deputy, it was logical for the appeals process to be to a panel of HFRA elected Members. |
5.2 |
At that time, there was a separate Green Book Discipline procedure in place. In cases of dismissal, the appeal was heard by three elected Members, assisted by a senior personnel/legal advisor, usually from Hampshire County Council (HCC). |
5.3 |
The previous Grievance Procedure had 4 stages. These were informal, stage 1, stage 2 and finally stage 3. Any stage 3 appeals automatically went to a panel of HFRA Members, supported by personnel/legal advisor. There was no way for HFRS managers to influence whether or not a grievance went as far as Members. Therefore as a result, many did go that far but which could have been dealt with at a lower level. Cases of an extremely trivial nature which in all other sectors would have been dealt with the by the local manager found themselves being presided over by a panel of elected Members This was identified as an expensive and unnecessary use of time. The process could often drag on for months and there were significant costs to the Service in respect of time and resources which diverted key people away from important work. Both CLG and the Local Government Employers were keen to see a movement away from such an arrangement |
|
|
6 |
Current Processes |
|
|
6.1 |
The Grey Book Discipline Regulations were abolished in 2004/05. At that point the Service introduced a single status Discipline procedure for all staff based on the Grey Book national terms and conditions of service. It also complied with the ACAS guidance. The Green Book national terms and conditions of service do not have any significant or detailed information on this. The procedures introduced at that time remain our current procedure. This consists of the following: Stage 1 (with a maximum award of a 6 month warning); Stage 2 (with a maximum award of a 18 month warning); and, Stage 3 (with a maximum award of dismissal). The procedure allows for an issue to be dealt with informally before any of these stages occur. It remains a principle of good practice that each issue is dealt with at the lowest level possible and within the line management chain where ever possible. |
6.2 |
At each formal stage, if an employee feels that they have grounds they can appeal. This must be to a more senior manager than the one who heard the original case. The procedure would therefore never require escalation beyond the level of the Chief Officer (CO) unless a Director was the subject of the disciplinary. There is currently no procedure in place for Gold Book staff. A draft has been drawn up and is currently the subject of consultation with the Association of Principle Fire Officers (APFO). It is expected that this procedure will include an appeal to the Members of the HFRA. |
6.3 |
The Grievance Procedure was reviewed in 2005 at the same time the discipline was changed. The old procedure allowed four stages to bring a grievance and appeal. This was changed to bring it in line with ACAS guidance and the Grey Book national terms and conditions of service. It also complied with the requirements of Disputes Resolution Act in its original form. Our current procedure allows for the following: An informal stage; A formal stage (which may often be the same manager who heard the informal grievance); and, An appeal to a more senior manager. The procedure would never require escalation beyond the CO unless it was a Gold Book employee who had raised the grievance. The new procedure as mentioned above for Gold Book staff, will include both disciplinaries and grievances, will include an appeal to elected Members of the HFRA. |
|
|
7 |
ACAS Guidance and Employment Tribunals |
|
|
|
Grievance and Discipline processes are internal. ACAS recommends that wherever possible such matters are dealt with at the lowest level possible within an organisation. Escalating appeals to Members would be ignoring this important principle. In addition, where an employee has exhausted the internal process, they have a mechanism for further 'appeal' via an Employment Tribunal (ET) and/or a civil claim. This also meets the obligations under the Human Rights Act (Article 6) - Rights to a Fair Trial. An ET would want to hear that we have followed ACAS guidance, best practice, our own procedures and legal requirements. An ET invariable wants to hear from the decision maker in the cases put before them. It would be difficult to justify why an elected Member of the HFRA had made a decision on an internal appeal that we should be keeping at the lowest possible level of seniority. Our CO is responsible to the HFRA for the effective management of the Service, include the management of all Members of staff. It is felt likely that an ET would be critical of the unnecessary escalating appeals above the minimum level required to meet the aims of the procedure. |
|
|
8 |
Other Procedures to consider |
|
|
|
There are a number of other polices that have an appeal mechanism in them which, when we are considering Gold Book employees will need to consider how best to involve Members. These include the following: · Sickness Absence Management and Capability Support. These are both aligned to (but are separate from) the Discipline Procedure. We therefore anticipate using the same mechanisms that are agreed for the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures as discussed in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 above. · Job Evaluation. Any appeal against a grading decision is referred to a new panel of trained JE panel Members. The chair is required to be more senior than the chair of the original panel. This will be subject to separate consultation discussions with APFO. |
9 |
Supporting our corporate aims and objectives |
|
|
|
The paper put to the Committee in Dec 2004 was based upon a principle of line managers having responsibility, autonomy and discretion in the effective management of their own staff. By re-introducing elected Members to the appeal process at an inappropriate level or point in the proceedings after five years of that policy, we would be taking away a significant milestone that has help provide the Service with a high level of success and significant cultural development. |
|
|
10 |
Proposed New Clauses |
|
|
10.1 |
It is proposed that the revised clause 3 should read as follows: "To act as the Authority's appeal body for appropriate categories of employees in accordance with current agreed policies or where the internal mechanisms do not allow for the matters to be heard by Officers. As the appeal body to appoint panels comprising Members of the Committee or the Authority as appropriate. (This to include hearing of appeals relating to: individual dismissals and grievances; and collective disputes)." |
|
|
10.2.1 10.2.2 |
The proposed change of wording for the clause detailing it's reference for approving training and development plans is as follows: Be replaced with: "To ensure the development and implementation of training and development activities to support the future needs of the service. Further more to develop and establish mechanisms to support the development of Fire Authority Members." The rationale for the change is that currently the HR Committee do not 'approve training and development policies' as a regular part of their role. They have indicated that they do not wish to take up this role in the future as this would not be commensurate with their role or the current systems in place for managing such issues. The Committee does receive items of specific interest for noting and work relating to Member development for their approval. |
|
|
10.3.1 10.3.2 |
The HR Committee were of the view that each HFRA Committee should adopt, as part of their terms of reference, the promotion and monitoring of the Authority's equal opportunities and health, safety and welfare policies. The proposed wording for this clause is as follows "The Committee scrutinises the activities and outcomes of the Service with regards to its general duty to promote equality of opportunity, good relations and positive attitudes to people of different groups, and to eliminate unfair discrimination in employee policies. The Committee will scrutinises the activities and outcomes of the Service with regards to its general duty to promote health, safety and welfare policies." The HR Committee intend to pass the agreed proposal to the Governance Committee on 20 March 2010. |
|
|
11 |
Risk analysis |
|
|
|
There are potential risks associated with the adoption of procedure which run contrary to and would necessitate altering the existing and well developed agreed policy for managing disciplinaries and grievances within the service. These are detailed within the body of the report. |
|
|
12 |
People Impact Assessment |
|
|
12.1 |
The existing procedures have both been examined and assessed for their impact on people. There are no adverse impacts noted. A People Impact Assessment (PIA) has not been carried out on the proposed changes to the appeal process. If the Committee concluded that this was their preferred direction of travel the service would commission and complete a PIA on those changes. |
|
|
12.2 |
The proposals in this report are considered compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. |
|
|
13 |
Sustainability and environmental impact assessment |
|
|
|
No impact has been identified. |
|
|
14 |
Resource implications |
|
|
14.1 |
Human Resources |
|
|
|
There are no HR implications to maintaining the current system of appeals. Any change would require some additional work for the HR Team in negotiating and implementing a new policy and potentially in instigating new procedures for appeal management. |
|
|
14.2 |
Physical Resources |
|
|
|
No impact has been identified. |
|
|
14.3 |
Information and Communications Technology Resources |
|
|
|
No impact has been identified. |
|
|
14.4 |
Financial Implications |
|
|
|
No impact has been identified. |
|
|
