Adding key responsibilities to contracts
May 20, 2009
Recently I’ve been working on some additions to contracts of employment relating to specific responsibilities that certain members of staff take on as part of their employment with the company. This is important as the additional duties are critical business elements and therefore carry a certain amount of responsibility with them.
For example, a number of people have the responsibility of being a keyholder to the office – this includes looking after keys, having the codes to the intruder alarm systems and being the first or last person to be in the building. Many organisations have these responsibilities, but a lot will simply hand out keys and codes without considering the consequences if they are misused or not looked after properly. Another example relates to IT security. Only a small amount of people should have administrator rights to business systems and servers, and these people have an important duty to look after this properly. I’m sure there are lots of other examples within different businesses of key responsibilities that employees take on that need to be documented and monitored.
When an employee is given responsibility for a critical business duty, he or she should be required to sign to confirm that they understand the importance of this responsibility. The requirements of this role should be set out clearly within the document, and the consequences for non-compliance or deliberate misuse of the duty should also be stated. The importance of the responsibility will determine the relative severity of the consequence – and to make things easier should something happen, it is always prudent to clarify the potential actions that will be taken if something goes wrong.
NHS case highlights whistleblowing legislation
April 20, 2009
In the news last week was a story about Margaret Haywood, a former NHS worker who was struck off after secretly filming a BBC Panorama programme about the treatment of elderly patients. The programme was filmed in 2005 at the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, and highlighted some horrific practices in the treatment of elderly people.
Haywood was found guilty of misconduct and was struck off, as the disciplinary panel felt that she had failed to carry out her duties as a nurse, because she prioritised her work for the filmmakers over her nursing obligations. It was also found that Haywood compromised patient confidentiality because she filmed them without their knowledge or consent. Although Haywood admitted this, she denied prioritising her filming duties over her nursing duties, and said that she had no option but to make the film, because neither her line manager or her ward manager had listened to her concerns about poor patient care. Haywood said that she knew the risk she was taking but thought it was worthwhile and necessary.
The Conservative party have highlighted that there is a ‘closed culture’ within the NHS which makes it hard for staff to speak out about organisational failings or poor practice, and there are calls for a review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) which protects whistle blowers in the workplace. However the Department of Health have said that this legislation is sufficient for the job, and have highlighted:
“The new NHS Constitution includes an explicit right for staff who report wrong doing to be protected and we have set up a special helpline for whistle-blowers which treats calls in confidence.”
Although Haywood’s cause is a worthy one, and it would be unfair if she has lost her employment because she decided t speak up and highlight the awful standard of care in the hospital, I’m not sure what she did is actually covered under whistle blowing legislation. To be protected, whistle blowers need to follow certain procedures in order to make their complaint, and are normally required to complain to a particular body regarding a wrong doing (for example, if they were outlining fraudulent activities, they would probably go to the police) – so exposing the problem on a national television programme is probably not covered. Even though Haywood had spoken to managers on her ward about the treatment of elderly patients, she could have exhausted a few other avenues – e.g. a written complaint to someone higher – before going to Panorama, which is basically what the disciplinary panel said.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act is a complicated piece of legislation and it is a good idea for companies to have a specific whistleblowing policy outlining who is protected, and the procedure to follow when making a disclosure or complaint in order to receive the protection.
The new ACAS code of practice: handling grievance procedures (3)
April 15, 2009
This is the third article in a series looking at how to deal with grievances under the new ACAS code of practice, which came into effect on 6th April. This article looks at the final part of the process, the outcome of the grievance and the appeal.
The outcome/decision of the grievance should be communicated in writing to the employee, with reasoning if it is not upheld, and details of action the employer intends to take if it is upheld. This should be given ‘without unreasonable delay’. In the letter, the employee needs to be informed of their right to appeal the outcome if they do not agree with it. The letter should explain who the employee should appeal to, and this should be a different (and often more senior) manager from the one that heard the original grievance.
The policy should explain what should be put in the appeal; i.e. the grounds for the appeal with explanation of why they do not feel the outcome was correct. The code of practice says that the appeal should be submitted ‘without unreasonable delay’ and I think this is definitely a point about which there should be a specified timescale within the policy. Remember though, that if the employee does not appeal within the timescale, consideration should be made as to whether the appeal should be heard anyway, because the new system does not require absolute compliance to procedures if there is reasonable justification for not meeting them – this might include reasons such as if the employee was ill and therefore couldn’t appeal within the timescales.
The appeal meeting should be held without delay or according to the policy timescales, and further investigations may be needed. The employee has the right to be accompanied at the appeal meeting. The outcome of the appeal will be final and should be set out in writing to the employee in the same way as the grievance outcome letter.
As you will see, not a lot has changed with the way organisations should handle grievances, however it is advisable for organisations to download the new code of practice and check their grievance policy against it so that they don’t fall foul of any requirements.
To go to the ACAS website click here.
The new ACAS code of practice: handling grievance procedures (2)
April 13, 2009
The last article on HR Girl (The new ACAS code of practice: handling grievance procedures (1) - 11th April) introduced the grievance procedure as part of a series of articles looking at the new ACAS code of practice, and explained how a grievance should and can be submitted. This article covers the grievance meeting itself.
Once a grievance letter has been submitted, a meeting should be held with the employee ‘without unreasonable delay’. As with the disciplinary procedures, it may be useful to keep any specified timescales in the policy for how soon a grievance should be responded to. Organisations are no longer bound as strongly to the grievance procedure as they were under the previous legislation, as the code of practice is not statutory. So if you always aim to meet the timescales in the process, but put the reason and justification to the employee in writing if you cannot meet them, this should be fine.
At the meeting, the employee should be given the opportunity to explain why they have submitted a grievance, and give all their opinions and evidence. A good way to approach a grievance meeting is to highlight each point raised in the letter, ask the employee to explain this point fully, ask probing questions on each point, and then ask if there are any further points at the end. An investigation into some of the points will often be required before the outcome of the grievance process can be made, so the grievance should be adjourned in order to do this. Explain to the employee what is going to happen and give a timescale for when the decision, or a further meeting, will take place.
The same rules regarding the employee being accompanied at the meeting apply to the grievance procedure as the disciplinary procedure, and this right should be explained in the policy. It is important to note that this right relates to ‘reasonable’ requests for accompaniment. For example, it may be unreasonable to request to be accompanied by a colleague who is based hundreds of miles away, or a Trade Union official who is about to go on holiday for three weeks. On the other hand there may be reasonable justification for the companion having to be this person, so the request should be given due consideration.
The next article will look at the outcome of the grievance and the appeal.
The new ACAS code of practice: handling grievance procedures (1)
April 11, 2009
All this week, the articles posted on HR girl have looked at the new ACAS code of practice for dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues in the workplace, and have explained the way disciplinary and dismissal procedures should be carried out. The new ACAS code of practice came into force on 6th April, and replaced the Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations that were introduced in October 2004. This and the next two articles will look at the way grievance procedures should be carried out under the new code of practice, and what should be in the company policy. This article looks at how the employee should submit a grievance, and what constitutes a grievance.
It is always preferable for a grievance to be resolved informally, and this should be clearly stated in the company policy. Employees should be encouraged to approach their line manager or another manager if this is not possible, with any issues they have. To encourage this to happen, line managers need to be approachable and need to be proactive in resolving issues so that employees know that if they have a problem, the best way to sort it out will be the informal route.
If the grievance cannot be resolved informally, then the employee should write to their line manager, or another manager if the grievance is about the line manager, and should set out the nature of the grievance. One note here for HR practitioners is to remember that any written complaint should be treated initially as a grievance, as many organisations have been caught out by the tribunals for not responding to a written complaint using the grievance procedure (see ‘Responding to a Grievance’, 8th June 08). If you think a letter that contains a complaint (e.g. a resignation letter) probably isn’t a grievance but could be construed as one, then don’t take any chances. The best thing to do is to write back to the employee stating that you are treating the complaint as a grievance, and invite them to a meeting, but ask them to inform you in writing if they did not intend the complaint to be a grievance.
The next article looks at the grievance meeting itself.
The new ACAS Code of Practice: handling disciplinary procedures (3).
April 9, 2009
This continues from yesterday’s article (The new ACAS Code of Practice: handling disciplinary procedures (2)) and is part of a series examining the impact of the new ACAS Code of Practice for dealing with Disciplinary and Grievance procedures. This article looks at warnings, appeals and non-attendance at hearings.
As with the old system that was in place before Monday 6th April, after the disciplinary meeting the disciplining manager should decide on what, if any, action should be taken. This will normally be in the form of a warning; and the employee should be informed in writing of this. The code is quite specific on what should go into a warning letter, and this should be set out in the company policy to ensure it is always complied with. The warning letter should state:
- The nature of the misconduct or poor performance
- What change is required, with a timescale (e.g. reduce number of lates by X, to be reviewed in three months)
- How long the warning will last – and be taken into consideration
- What the consequences will be if the improvement is not made
If the company does not comply with the above – it won’t automatically be unfair, but it would be quite hard to prove that it was reasonable to omit part of the warning as stated above. The warning should be appropriate to the severity of the misconduct or performance issue; as was the case with the old structure; and the policy should state a list of acts which would be seen as gross misconduct and therefore lead to dismissal without notice (make sure the policy states ‘this list is not exhaustive’!).
If an employee does not turn up to a disciplinary meeting, the code is less specific than the previous legislation on what should happen:
‘where an employee is persistently unable or unwilling to attend a disciplinary meeting without good cause the employer should make a decision on the evidence available’
The word ‘persistent’ is not clarified. Previously the general rule was ‘two strikes then out’ (i.e. give them two opportunities to turn up) – and it would probably be advisable to continue with this until case law develops from the new system.
The employee must be provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision. Again, I think it is good to have timescales for when the appeal should be heard in the policy. A different and impartial manager should hear the appeal, and the employee has the right to be accompanied at the meeting. The outcome should be set out in writing to the employee as soon as possible.
The last three articles have provided an overview of the system we should use to handle disciplinary issues going forward. I don’t think there is too much to worry about for most organisations; the main changes are to do with how the tribunals deal with cases for unfair dismissal and the compensation they award, however it is critical that companies review their procedures and familiarise themselves with the Code of Practice. The next few posts will look at how the grievance procedures are affected by the new code.
The new ACAS Code of Practice: handling disciplinary procedures (2).
April 8, 2009
This article is part of series looking at the new ACAS Code of Practice on handling discipline and grievance processes in the workplace, which came into effect on Monday this week. Yesterday’s article (The new ACAS Code of Practice: handling disciplinary procedures (1)) looked at the investigation and how to inform the employee of a disciplinary issue. This article looks at the disciplinary hearing itself.
The code says that the meeting should be held:
‘without reasonable delay whilst allowing the employee reasonable time to prepare their case’.
You will probably start to see by now that a lot of the new system is based on what is reasonable rather than what is set in stone. This gives companies more discretion in each case to do what they feel is the right thing, but also could lead to difficulties because there are different perceptions of what is reasonable. In saying this I would think that the ‘band of reasonableness’ will still apply – this is a range of responses or actions that a reasonable employer would fall within. In terms of the timing of the meeting, I think that it would still be a good idea to have set timescales in a policy, i.e. ‘the employee will be given X days notice of the meeting’. This is because another test of reasonableness is how consistently an employer applies the code with different employees; and a specified timescale will make this easier. Because a failure to follow the procedure will no longer mean an automatically unfair dismissal, it will be possible to work outside of the timescales set in the policy as long as there is reasonable justification for this (e.g. a further piece of evidence becomes apparent which means the meeting has to be delayed) and as long as this is documented so that a tribunal could see the reasonable justification.
The code says that the employee should:
‘be given a reasonable opportunity to ask questions, present evidence and call relevant witnesses’
The last part of this might be quite different from what most companies have had before, and I certainly have never been in a disciplinary hearing where the employee being disciplined has brought in their own witnesses or cross-examined the employer’s witnesses. I can’t see many companies wanting to go down this route, as I can see it being very difficult to handle; especially in cases of high tension and emotion. The word ‘reasonable’ is important again here – this means the employee can only call witnesses if this request is within reason – so if the company feels that to grant this request would cause difficulties, such as extreme anxiety for the witness, the request can be refused. The witness can also refuse to attend the meeting. I personally feel that the current system of gaining evidence from witnesses at separate occasions will be the most popular way to deal with witnesses going forward. Having said that, there may be an occasion where you feel it would sort the problem out quickly and effectively by getting the employee and witnesses in a room together to discuss the problem; so perhaps this point is valid in some cases.
The next post will look at how to deal with the outcome of the hearing.
The new ACAS Code of Practice: handling disciplinary procedures (1).
April 7, 2009
Yesterday saw the introduction of a new system for handling disciplinary and grievance procedures in the workplace; with the introduction of the new ACAS Code of Practice, which replaced the existing Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations. The next few articles look at the way the new code impacts on the polices, procedures and handling of disciplinary issues within organisations.
Many of the processes required under the new code are quite similar to the requirements of the old statutory procedures – so your existing policy or handbook may be a long way to achieving compliance with the new code if it is compliant with the old one. It is still important however, to have a look at the code (see ACAS website) and check your policy against it. Some important things to remember are:
A thorough investigation needs to be carried out; which might mean an investigatory meeting with the employee, or other actions such as the collecting of witness statements, documents or emails. If possible, a different manager should carry out an investigation to the one that will carry out the disciplinary meeting. The employee does not have the right to be accompanied at an investigatory meeting, unless your policy says they do - and I think a company policy should state this either way to ensure clarity.
It may be necessary to suspend the employee whilst an investigation goes on – this would normally only be in the event of a serious case of misconduct that would potentially result in dismissal. The company needs to have clear justification for suspension and it should always be on full pay because suspension on no pay could indicate an assumption of guilt before the disciplinary even takes place.
If you decide to go to a disciplinary hearing, the employee should be informed in writing of the problem, and the letter should contain information about the alleged misconduct or poor performance, including any evidence collected. It is important that the employee should be made aware of the potential consequences of the outcome (this was highlighted in a recent case: see Invite to disciplinary – make the outcome clear March 5th 09), and also of their right to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative.
The new ACAS Code of Practice - introduction
April 6, 2009
Anyone involved in HR or employment will know that as of today a new regime for the management of workplace disputes will be implemented in UK legislation. The Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations which were introduced in October 2004 have been repealed and replaced with a new ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The old procedures were introduced to try to reduce the amount of claims being made to employment tribunals; an aim which has spectacularly failed, with last year seeing an increase of more than 40% in claims on the year before. This week’s posts will look at all the different aspects of the new code of practice, how it differs from the old system of handling discipline and grievance, and what your company procedures should contain going forward.
Compliance
One of the main reasons that claims rocketed under the old system is the strict compliance to statutory and company procedures that was obligatory; the focus on procedural compliance has led to claims for unfair dismissal being won and lost on a procedural technicality, regardless of whether the dismissal was reasonable or fair; and this point is a key factor of the new system being implemented today. The new ACAS Code of Practice is not a legally binding document; it is not statutory and therefore does not hold the same legislative weight in a tribunal as the Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations, so a failure to follow the code in handling a dismissal does not automatically mean the dismissal was unfair. However in saying this, tribunals will take the code into account when looking at how a dismissal or dispute was handled in the workplace; so organisations will have to be sure they follow the guidelines in the code, or have a strong justification for not following a particular aspect of it.
Compensation
Another change in the system relates to the relevant uplift or reduction in compensation awarded for failure to follow the recommended procedures. Under the old system, if a company or employee failed to follow the statutory procedures, the tribunal is obliged to uplift or reduce the compensatory award by between 10% and 50%. There is no discretion in this – the tribunal has to make the uplift or reduction for a procedural failure. In the new scheme, the tribunal can uplift or reduce the compensation if it feels there has been an unreasonable failure to follow the code of practice – but by no more than 25%. This part of the tribunal’s role is now discretionary; and means that even if a company fails to follow part of the code, the tribunal may feel that this wasn’t an unreasonable failure and may therefore not award any increase in compensation. This is most certainly one of the areas of the new system that will be tested and defined by case law
The next few articles will focus on disciplinary procedures under the new code of practice.
Dismissal of Senior Executives (2)
March 26, 2009
In my last article (dismissal of senior executives) I discussed the issue of major organisational failings, and whether the most senior executive in the organisation can be held accountable – and dismissed – for those failings, as was the case with Sharon Shoesmith of Haringey Council after the Baby P case, but was not the case for Sir Fred Goodwin of the RBS, who retired on a six figure pension after the bank’s demise. Shoesmith is now taking the Council to tribunal for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination – so where do organisations stand on the dismissals of senior staff in these situations?
The statutory rules on dismissals relate to following a fair process. Although the statutory dispute resolution procedures will not apply in a few weeks, the ACAS code of conduct that replaces the procedures will still require companies to behave in a fair and justifiable way in dismissing an employee.
As usual, the paperwork is important in showing fairness in a process and a decision to dismiss. If it says in an executive’s contract that they have overall responsibility for a function or organisation, and it is clear that the overall success of that unit will be used to measure the individual’s performance, then it may be possible to show negligence on the part of the person involved. Other documents that might also support this could be job descriptions and appraisal or other performance management paperwork.
What about when an executive cannot be held directly responsible for a failing (as is often the case) but it is felt that something needs to be done in order to repair some of the damage to the reputation of the employer? This is possibly the case in the Haringey Council example, and it is often in the news that very senior staff have resigned from their position after a major disaster has occurred; but Shoesmith did not do this. The company would have to make a convincing and justifiable case that it needed to separate itself publicly from the executive in question in order to protect its reputation. Evidence, as usual, is really important.
In any case involving a publicly viewed failure in an organisation where the dismissal of a very senior employee is possible, it is always advisable to seek legal advice before taking any action.