Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the final Report of the Morris Inquiry. This section contains chapter 4, "People Issues". This chapter focuses on employment matters, including the role and structure of the Human Resources directorate of the MPS, fairness at work, resolving disputes, and employment tribunal claims.

Sections available here:

• 4: People Issues
  • Chapter Summary
  • The role of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate
  • The structure of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate
  • Fairness at Work
  • Resolving disputes
  • Employment Tribunal claims

This document is also available in the following formats: Word [0.97MB]; PDF [1.45MB]

4: People Issues

“Staff will judge procedures by outcomes not intentions.”
HMIC

Chapter Summary

This chapter deals with:

• The role of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate
• The structure of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate
• Fairness at Work
• Resolving disputes
  • Mediation
  • Ombudsman
• Employment Tribunal claims

4.1 The Inquiry’s terms of reference oblige us to look at professional standards and employment matters in the MPS. This chapter focuses on employment matters.

4.2 The MPS’ reputation for operational excellence is due to the exceptional efforts of the officers and staff who work for the Service. Of all the resources at the MPS’ disposal, people are by far the most valuable and can make the difference between success and failure. However, a committed workforce cannot and should not be taken for granted. It requires leadership, motivation and support.

[D]

Figure 2: Overall MPS Strength at 31st December 2003
Source: Data supplied by the MPS

4.3 In this chapter we will consider the role and structure of the Human Resources (HR) directorate, the handling of workplace disputes (including Employment Tribunal claims) and the role of the MPA in people matters. We will examine and comment upon relevant policies, procedures and practices.

 [D]

Figure 3: Overall MPS Strength by Gender at 31st December 2003
Source: Data supplied by the MPS

 [D]

Figure 4: Overall MPS Strength by Ethnicity at 31st December 2003
Source: Data supplied by the MPS

The role of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate

4.4 The MPS’ Human Resources function is the responsibility of an Assistant Commissioner (AC), who reports to the Commissioner. Below the AC there is a Director of Human Resources, who is professionally qualified and a member of police staff.

4.5 The HR directorate has five sections: Training and Development (including the Hendon Training Centre), HR Services, HR Recruitment, People Development and Strategy. HR staff are not located solely in the HR directorate. Devolution means that increasingly HR staff are located in Operational Command Units (OCUs) and work with OCU commanders and other managers on a day to day basis.

4.6 A human resources directorate will naturally have responsibility for recruitment, induction, training and development, performance management, promotion, grievances, discipline and welfare. But these functional responsibilities are subsidiary to the important strategic role of HR as custodian of all aspects of people management.

4.7 The HR directorate must be at the heart of the organisation, with HR planning and management fully integrated into the overall business planning process. It must ensure that management information plays its proper role in organisational development and that the organisation maximises the potential of its most valuable resource, its officers and staff.

4.8 It also has a responsibility for promoting leadership and management of the highest quality, setting the framework in which managers manage and supporting them in their work. It must ensure that good practice is shared across the organisation.

4.9 HR is therefore a vital function in any organisation but particularly in one the size of the MPS, where 80% of the budget is spent on people. Achieving the MPS’ mission and vision depends on the commitment of the people who work for the organisation and they need to be managed in a way that motivates them.

4.10 We have heard evidence that, whilst operational management is the great strength of the MPS, people management is not as consistently strong, with some managers lacking confidence in managing their staff and avoiding difficult issues.

4.11 This evidence must be seen in the context of the survey we commissioned of all MPS officers and staff. This gave a high approval rating to managers with 63% of respondents having confidence in their line managers to manage them.

4.12 However, we have formed the view that people management does not appear to be as highly valued as operational management. It appears that people management is in practice treated as a ‘softer’ skill. We do not agree with this description. Management decisions will be some of the hardest decisions MPS personnel will make in their working lives.

4.13 We will be dealing with leadership and management in more detail later in this report but we wish at this stage to say something about the role of HR in creating an environment which helps managers manage.

4.14 Good leaders and managers require clear objectives and a framework in which to operate. This means clear and simple procedures which are easy to understand and which facilitate effective management.

4.15 The HR directorate must have responsibility for leading the policy development process, involving relevant stakeholders and ensuring that policies are fit for purpose. However, it also needs to have a guardianship role, ensuring that policies are complied with, that they are kept under review and adapt to changing needs. HR policies must therefore be at the forefront of the corporate agenda.

4.16 We have noted the work that has already been undertaken within the directorate in terms of reducing the number of HR policies. However, we are concerned that the total of 89 core HR policies (at the time that Mr Hogan-Howe gave evidence to us) appears somewhat excessive, although we understand that work is in progress to reduce that total further.

4.17 The HR directorate leads the policy development process in the MPS and the efficacy of policies is checked through the work of the HR evaluation unit which assesses the application of policies on the ground.

4.18 However, we are concerned by the information from our survey of all officers and staff which indicates that only 19% of those who responded agree that HR / employment policies are consistently and fairly applied across the organisation, a result which falls short of the Work Foundation’s benchmark score (established by reference to similar surveys with other public and private organisations) by a significant margin (-0.45 as compared with -0.13).

We recommend that the policy review process be given new momentum with a view to simplifying and reducing the number of human resources policies even further.

4.19 HR also needs to support managers in their work. Increased devolution means that day to day support is likely to come from personnel managers working side by side with the borough and departmental managers they support. But a devolved structure also requires a strong central HR service which can support local personnel managers as well as local management.

4.20 The central function also has a leadership role with responsibility for identifying and spreading best practice throughout the organisation.

4.21 Good management information is key to this process and HR needs to play an active role in both gathering data and initiating action as a result of what is revealed. This will include the compilation of statistical information, as well as monitoring and evaluating performance in relevant areas such as policy compliance, grievance handling, disciplinary proceedings involving police staff, recruitment, training, promotion and Employment Tribunal claims.

4.22 Although we received evidence on the work of some parts of the HR directorate in gathering management information, we are concerned that currently important and useful workforce data is not always collected. For example, we were unable to obtain OCU level statistics on promotion, broken down by gender and ethnic origin. We requested this information because we were aware of a particular problem in one Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU). If the information is not kept, problems will not be identified and addressed.

We therefore recommend that the Human Resources directorate reviews the management information it currently collects with a view to ensuring that it has the data needed for the MPS to fulfil its objectives.

4.23 Policy implementation also appears to be a concern. The MPS was described to us as “policy rich but implementation poor”, (submission from Lord Harris, former Chair of the MPA) and we have heard from individuals whose experiences indicate that there may be some truth in this analysis. It is therefore vital that HR actively monitors policy implementation and is in a position to initiate action when problems are identified.

4.24 The leadership of the HR function is crucial. It must be led by a suitably qualified and experienced individual who is able to operate with sufficient authority to influence HR practice across the MPS. This means that he or she needs to be both of a seniority which will guarantee credibility amongst colleagues and a member of the strategic management board, and therefore involved in all significant organisational decisions. Salary will also be an important factor to enable the organisation to attract a candidate of the right calibre.

4.25 We are not persuaded that the HR function currently has the profile it needs within the MPS, at the heart of the organisation, playing a key role in how it runs. This will necessarily influence operational effectiveness, since it will mean that the organisation will lack the strong people focus which will ensure its officers and staff are nurtured, developed and motivated and, as a result, give of their best.

We recommend that the post with overall responsibility for Human Resources should be held by a suitably qualified and experienced individual, and that the post-holder should be by designation a member of the strategic management board.

4.26 If the changes we are proposing in relation to police officers’ terms and conditions are accepted, then the role of HR will become even more important since the procedures for dealing with discipline, capability and grievance will be the same for both officers and police staff. HR will be the custodian of these procedures.

4.27 Currently, the HR directorate has no role in police officer disciplinary matters and we believe this to be an anomaly that should be remedied.

4.28 It appears to us that there are at least two facets to a police disciplinary case under the current system. There is the investigation, which is the responsibility of the Directorate of Professional Standards, but there is also a human resource issue, that is, the welfare of the officer. He or she is a member of the MPS and, therefore, the organisation has a continuing responsibility to ensure that they are treated fairly and not unnecessarily damaged by the process.

4.29 We have heard much criticism of the lack of welfare support during the disciplinary investigation, particularly in respect of suspended officers and the difficulty of absorbing them back into work once the process is concluded. We will deal with this in more detail later in the report. We consider that this is an area where HR should play a greater role.

4.30 The Inquiry has been informed about the way in which Martin Tiplady, the Director of HR, monitors the progress of police staff disciplinary matters to ensure they are dealt with in a timely fashion and that staff do not spend long periods on suspension unless this is unavoidable. This appears to have been effective in introducing a sense of urgency into disciplinary matters and in holding the managers involved to account.

4.31 We feel that HR should be involved in police officer discipline cases from a people management perspective and look particularly at issues such as welfare support, keeping the officer informed of progress and, if appropriate, overseeing the arrangements for absorbing the officer back into the workforce.

4.32 This was put to Mr Hogan-Howe, Assistant Commissioner (HR), when he attended the Inquiry on a second occasion. Although he was initially concerned about confused management responsibilities, he warmed to the idea as the discussion proceeded:

“I can see there is a power in it … that if you said that the purpose of that meeting … was in fact that DPS was responsible for the discipline inquiry, the HR department was responsible for the care of the individuals … and that might be about, well, is the manager doing their job? Are they keeping in touch with them if they are suspended?”

We therefore recommend that the MPS should ensure that the Human Resources directorate plays a full part in the management of discipline cases, with responsibility for maintaining contact with officers under investigation and overseeing welfare support and re-entry into the workplace for suspended officers.

The structure of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate

4.33 Note 3 to our terms of reference asks us to consider “whether the organisational structures and allocation of functions … within the MPS is effective”.

4.34 We have described the top level structure of the HR directorate above. We have also commented on the level at which it should be led. We do not intend to make further detailed observations and recommendations on the structure of HR other than to raise two issues. These relate to the Employment Tribunals Unit (ETU) and the Diversity directorate.

4.35 During the course of the Inquiry we heard much evidence about the ETU. We have heard from the Head of the Unit, Esme Crowther, as well as from the Assistant Commissioner (HR), Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Roberts, who heads the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), his colleague Commander Phillip Hagon and David Hamilton, Director of Legal Services.

4.36 At the time we were taking evidence, the ETU was situated within DPS; that is, in the Deputy Commissioner’s Command, and totally separate from HR. We heard that, until October 2001, the ETU was part of the HR directorate but that “for reasons of linkage … and to facilitate more effective management of risk and sharing of intelligence across the range of DPS activity, Management Board decided that the Unit should be placed within DPS.” (Submission from Esme Crowther, Head of ETU.)

4.37 This was echoed by DAC Roberts and Commander Hagon when they gave evidence: “… essentially the rationale was to bring within one directorate a whole range of activities where the Met faced a risk that needed to be managed, short-term and long-term … So it is really about managing organisational risk, if I can put it that way.” (Evidence of DAC Roberts.)

“… prior to it coming across to the Directorate of Professional Standards, it actually sat within human resources, and logically, you might think that is perhaps where it should be, but quite frankly, it did not work very well within that particular domain, and so the decision … was that it came across to, if you like, those people that are best charged with looking and dealing with risk, and moreover, were best versed in dealing with the Directorate of Legal Services.”
(Evidence of Commander Hagon.)

4.38 Whilst we can understand the rationale, we do not applaud it. It is clear from the evidence we have received from individuals that lodging an application to an Employment Tribunal is not a decision taken lightly but perhaps only after someone has “run head first into a wall of indifference, incompetence or intolerance whilst trying to raise and resolve a complaint …” (Submission from the MBPA.)

4.39 We consider that the focus on risk management, when coupled with the location of the ETU, carries an unfortunate message; that the MPS sees the issues raised by an Applicant to an Employment Tribunal more as issues of organisational risk, rather than as a management problem that needs to be resolved.

4.40 Ms LL, an individual who has taken an Employment Tribunal claim against the MPS, was asked about her perception of the ETU being within DPS. She told us that she thought it should be a totally separate unit “where you look at mediation first … and do not automatically think ‘right the tribunal has been lodged, we are going to tribunal’. We should say ‘Okay, what can we do to do with the issues’”. When pressed about the personal impression she had gained by having to contact a unit in DPS, she said that “they were taking a defensive position immediately … I think it should be taken out … and be independent.”

4.41 We think that such an impression is an almost inevitable consequence of the location of the unit and reflects more than a modicum of reality when those in charge refer to the Employment Tribunal process as one that is about risk management. We are therefore reassured to have learnt from the Deputy Commissioner, when he came to give evidence to the Inquiry, that the ETU is to be moved back into the HR directorate.

4.42 The MBPA has argued for the ETU to be placed within the Diversity directorate. For the reasons we outline below, we prefer to see it in the HR directorate but we also consider that closer working between HR and Diversity should be facilitated and this is the second structural issue which we wish to address.

4.43 The Diversity directorate is also part of the Deputy Commissioner’s Command and thus totally separate from the HR directorate. We understand that the Diversity directorate has both outward and inward looking roles and we are aware of some of the advances that have been made by the Diversity directorate in relation to operational policing and work with London’s communities. These matters are of course outside our remit. However, we are concerned that the split of responsibilities between the Diversity and HR directorates may mean that diversity issues relating to people management receive less attention.

4.44 We have seen the feedback provided to the MPS by Mr Robin Field-Smith on completion of the HMIC Diversity Matters Thematic Inspection fieldwork. This stated: “However little evidence was found of a robust, structured inter-relationship between the diversity strategy and the human resources strategy. This results in confusion and difficulties in progressing some internal issues.”

4.45 When Mr Hogan-Howe appeared before us, he appeared to concede that the two directorates could work better together and that structural change could perhaps be considered. “We do some good things and we could tell you a list of those things, but perhaps we could do more, and I accept that entirely … But I think that the structure is likely to cause people to have to compensate for the gap all the time.”

4.46 We support this view. We therefore believe that a change in structure would ensure that this “gap” was no longer a matter which needed to be factored into addressing workforce issues and that this would benefit the organisation.

We therefore recommend that, in addition to relocating the Employment Tribunals Unit from the Directorate of Professional Standards to the Human Resources directorate, the people management aspects of the work of the Diversity directorate are also moved to the Human Resources directorate.

Fairness at Work

4.47 Our terms of reference require us to inquire into the MPS’ policies, procedures and practices for dealing with grievances and workplace conflicts.

4.48 A well-managed organisation needs to have a clear and accessible mechanism for its employees to raise issues of concern. In most organisations, such a procedure is known as the grievance procedure.

4.49 The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures argues that a grievance procedure is necessary because “anybody in an organisation may, at some time, have problems or concerns about their work, conditions or relationships with colleagues that they wish to talk about with management.”

4.50 We endorse the view of HMIC in their report on Police Integrity (1999):

“Her Majesty’s Inspector is of the view the number of grievances can be an indicator of the health of the force. It is unrealistic to expect that with several thousand people working in an organisation there will not be some conflict, and a reasonable number of grievances suggests confidence in this very important resolution system. A force that has very few grievances reported might be an idyllic workplace or, much more likely, it may simply not have created a sufficiently healthy and safe environment for those wishing to report wrongdoing to speak out.”

4.51 In May 2003, the MPS replaced its Grievance Procedure with a new Fairness at Work policy (FAW). The policy applies to both police officers and police staff. FAW was introduced in response to a staff survey, consultation with staff support associations and recommendations contained in the Virdi Inquiry Report. The MPS decided to overhaul the previous procedure for dealing with grievances and introduce a process that was designed to be quicker and involve greater impartiality.

4.52 In 1995, HMIC recognised in its Equal Opportunities Thematic Inspection Report on Developing Diversity in the Police Service, that existing grievance procedures were not working effectively. In particular, HMIC noted that existing grievance procedures were under-utilised by black and ethnic minority officers.

4.53 Since the MPS introduced FAW, and after consultation with stakeholders such as the APA and ACPO, the Home Office has issued guidance to all 43 police services relating to the introduction of Fairness at Work schemes. Under this guidance, each police service is at liberty to implement its own grievance procedure with best practice compelling them to adopt minimum standards detailed in the ACAS Code of Practice.

4.54 However, the national framework differs in some important respects from the policy which the MPS has adopted. Firstly, it envisages a role for management with a stage manager, who will frequently be the appropriate line manager, taking the lead and arranging to meet the parties and their representatives once a written request for the procedure to be invoked has been received. Secondly, although a role is envisaged for facilitators or mediators, it is stressed that they should not be from the same team or workplace, other than in exceptional circumstances.

4.55 In addition, if stage one of the process proves unsuccessful, the case is then passed to another stage manager but it is made clear that seniority is an issue and that the objective is for the ‘Originator’ (within the language of FAW) “to see a senior manager and to explore, where appropriate, wider options for resolution.” (Home Office, National Fairness at Work Procedure.)

4.56 The MPS’ FAW policy encourages line managers to take early action to resolve the concerns of their staff, with an emphasis on early resolution of issues in the workplace. This is a strength of the policy. Should such action not resolve a grievance, the officer or staff member in question must fill in a form, outlining the issue he or she wishes to raise. It is intended that all employment related concerns should be capable of being raised under FAW.

“There are no ‘rules’ about what the matter may or may not concern. Any member of staff who feels that they have not been treated fairly or appropriately by a colleague, manager or other member of MPS staff may use the policy.”
(MPS’ Fairness at Work policy.)

4.57 This leads to the appointment of a Fairness at Work Advisor (FAWA) who, in the MPS, is independent of previous attempts to resolve the issue, although under the national guidelines may be the Originator’s line manager.

4.58 The FAWA must examine the circumstances of the concern raised, with a view to resolving it, and produce a report. If the Originator is not happy with the result of this process, he or she may appeal to a Fairness at Work Appeal Advisor (FAWAA), who will look at the matter afresh. The MPS has trained 330 FAWAs and FAWAAs.

4.59 Tight time limits are intended to apply to the process, so that the entire FAW procedure is normally to be completed in less than 28 days. The evidence we have received suggests that the normal timetable may be the exception rather than the rule and the MPS acknowledges that timescales for dealing with cases are often breached.

4.60 We have received a large volume of evidence, both written and oral, in relation to FAW. The policy is relatively new and our witnesses have been divided in their views. The prevailing organisational view seems to be that FAW is a valuable new tool.

“I believe the new procedure represents a major improvement, which commands greater confidence. While it is too early to make a definitive judgment based on long experience, it is already apparent that real benefits are being derived from the new system.”
(Submission from the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens.)

“The relatively new Fairness at Work policy seems to be having a significant effect in early resolution of conflict. This is undoubtedly because of the impact of mediators from outside line management.”
(Submission from the Metropolitan Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales (PSAEW).)

“… the majority of the cases thus far have actually been resolved to the satisfaction of the originator. I cannot recall the percentage off the top of my head, but it is very high.”
(Evidence of George McAnuff, Fairness at Work Co-ordinator, MPS.)

“The new Fairness at Work policy and procedures adopted by the MPS appear to be delivering results, although it is still early in their development across the organisation.”
(Submission from Lord Harris, former Chair of the MPA)

“There are no disproportionality problems with the New Fairness at Work procedure, and it is being well used, although cases are taking a long time to reach completion.”
(HR Directorate Strategic Assessment, Jan 2004.)

4.61 Our survey of all MPS officers and staff revealed that 65% of those who responded agreed that they were aware of the FAW policy, although respondents from the Borough Operational Command Units were less likely to be aware of the policy (59%) than those in the Deputy Commissioner’s Command (76%) or in Human Resources (84%). PCSOs had the least awareness of the policy – 48%.

4.62 Of those who were aware of the policy:

• 65% agreed that they had a good understanding of what it contained;
• 77% said that they knew what procedure to follow if they had a grievance;
• 44% believe that FAW will help in mediating and resolving workplace issues; and
• 51% are confident that their manager has a good understanding of FAW.

4.63 Although awareness of the policy is relatively high, we are concerned at the low level of confidence in its effectiveness and in managers’ understanding of it.

4.64 We have also received evidence from a number of individuals and staff association witnesses who question whether FAW is really working in the way that was intended. Some of the comments that have been made appear to question the degree of impartiality of the FAWAs:

“Fairness at Work doesn’t work. There’s a lot of bias. Everyone just seems to close ranks. That meant I didn’t go ahead with my grievance as I didn’t think there was any point.”
(Speaker during a London Police Station visit.)

“We were forced to withdraw our support when the MPS insisted that local Personnel Managers identify and select FAWAs for their own units.”
(Submission from the Trade Unions in the MPS (MET-TUS).)

“The new fairness at work procedure is only as good as the advisers and their training. It is our experience that many managers do not sit easily in the role of an arbiter and tend to be on the side of management.”
(Submission from the Christian Police Association (CPA).)

“It is not as effective as the previous grievance procedures, and there seems to be a very woolly process. I do not think a lot of people understand it, and also the number of Fairness at Work [advisors] is very limited, and the choice is limited. If you have a perception that that person, the Fairness at Work [advisor], is actually allied with the management or a particular part of the station, that is a bit hard for you to go to another Fairness at Work [advisor].”
(Evidence of Kashmira Singh Mann, Metropolitan Police Sikh Association (MPSA).)

“The FAW Advisor appointed was [redacted]. I was dismayed and furious for the following reason … [redacted] is a colleague of mine … I had previously stated in an email to [the Fairness at Work Co-ordinator] that I was embarrassed and humiliated about discussing my past previous relationship. [He] disregarded what I said and appointed a colleague. How could I possibly be placed in a position where I was forced to discuss personal matters with someone who I work with? … FAW advisors should not just be appointed on a whim; there should be a profiling / selection procedure to ensure the best outcome for the organisation and the individual.”
(Further submission from Chief Inspector Julia Pendry (High Profile Case).)

4.65 We understand that a new FAWA was appointed in response to Chief Inspector Pendry’s objections. We also understand that it is always open to an Originator to object to the FAWA who has been appointed to deal with the case and any “reasonable / objective concerns will be fully considered and if appropriate an alternative Advisor may be appointed”. (MPS Fairness at Work Policy.)

4.66 Another issue is whether it is always realistic to expect a very junior officer or member of staff acting as a FAWA to challenge a senior colleague: “… we come back to the fear factor there: how do you tell a commander that his decision on a Fairness at Work case was wrong, and that he should actually have done something differently?” (Evidence of the MET-TUS.)

4.67 Others raise wider issues about the fundamentals of the system:

“It is a big deal putting in a Fairness at Work; a Fairness at Work, in my opinion, is usually doomed to fail, because it is non-participatory unless the people wish to participate. They do not have to follow any of the outcomes that come. It is an academic exercise, so management can tick boxes and pretend they have listened. There is nothing between Fairness at Work and an employment tribunal.”
(Speaker at the Inquiry’s Women’s Forum.)

“The grievance procedure and its replacement, the Fairness at Work Policy are potentially procedures without results. Any unscrupulous individual who administers the processes can, by deciding application of policy, prevent an outcome.”
(Submission from individual (IND 17).)

“I would suggest the following measure might assist in doing this: A system between Fairness at Work and Employment Tribunal that could look at complaints with the power to resolve them.”
(Submission from Ms GG.)

4.68 Despite the good intentions of the MPS in introducing FAW, we believe it is flawed. This is because there are two fundamental aspects of the policy which, as were pointed out to us, make the system ultimately unworkable in our view:

• concern over the impartiality of the FAWA who is appointed; and
• the advisory aspect of his /her role.

4.69 In our view, the procedure entails the snatching of a grievance out of the hands of local management (whose proper responsibility it is to resolve workplace disputes) by someone who has no power to resolve the issue by doing anything other than encouraging co-operation and producing a report.

4.70 The MBPA has suggested that managers are not disempowered by the process because it is essentially a last resort and is only invoked after all local efforts have failed. We do not agree with this analysis. Local management is disempowered because if an Originator and manager cannot initially agree, the policy takes the issue out of the hands of the only people who have the ability to resolve it and puts it in the hands of someone who has no power to do so.

4.71 The MPS was given the opportunity of responding to our criticisms of the policy. The MPS believes that the FAW “system is highly credible and in many respects at the leading edge of improving internal working relationships”. It also considers that FAW “is not only workable but a generation ahead of whatever public organisations have in place”.

4.72 In particular, the MPS has told us that it does not accept that the procedure entails the snatching of a grievance out of the hands of local management because: “The ethos of FAW supports early resolution through the line management chain. It is only after all avenues for informal resolution have been exhausted that FAW can be initiated.”

4.73 The MPS also contends that it is not the case that the role of the FAWA is purely advisory: “The recommendations made by an appointed FAW Advisor cannot be ignored. Overseeing the implementation of outcomes is an important part of the role of the FAW Co-ordinator: compliance with a FAW ruling is mandatory to the extent that an OCU would be directed to comply with the findings of a FAW Advisor or give an explanation of why it cannot be complied with. The explanation would then be considered by senior HR management and the recommendations either amended in the light of it or the original recommendations enforced.”

4.74 Having considered the points the MPS make carefully and having reviewed the policy, we still believe that the policy is flawed. Despite the emphasis on early resolution by management, invoking the procedure (which can be done at any time) necessarily involves removing the matter from line management control.

4.75 FAWAs have a variety of functions as Advisors. Their ‘job purpose and scope’ is set out in the policy as follows:

“Upon appointment to examine the circumstances of the concern(s) raised. To liaise with the Originator in order to discuss an action plan to consider the concern(s). To liaise with all relevant parties including the Subject of the concern(s) raised with a view to resolving the issue(s) of concern. At the completion of their work to produce a written report highlighting the action(s) taken regarding the concern(s) raised. To communicate the outcome of their work to the originator and to all other relevant parties.”

4.76 It is, therefore, clear that the policy requires that FAWAs make a written report of their findings but they lack the authority of a manger to make decisions to resolve disputes.

4.77 The Trades Unions in the Metropolitan Police Service have suggested to us that FAW had been the “last chance” for the MPS to implement a grievance policy which had the trust and confidence of the workforce and that the only option now is for external advisors to be used, as is the case in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

4.78 We are informed by the Director of Human Resources at the CPS that the use of external advisors is subject to review as there are concerns about the scheme in terms of its cost, consistency and the length of time investigations can take. The CPS also wants its “managers to be more accountable and skilled in this area.” (Submission from Angela O’Connor, Director of HR, CPS.)

4.79 We share Ms O’Connor’s concern that managers should be accountable and skilled in the area of grievance resolution and therefore we start from the premise that any procedure must focus on resolution by local management. As a consequence, we do not support the MET-TUS suggestion of external advisors.

4.80 The FAW policy expressly states that: “There are no ‘rules’ about what the matter may or may not concern”. It also states that “if the concern arises from another MPS policy, which has its own appeal process, the appeal process will be used in preference to the Fairness at Work Policy.”

4.81 We have received evidence of a restrictive interpretation of access to the policy which causes us concern. For example, it took one of the individuals involved in one of the Inquiry’s ‘high profile’ cases, Chief Inspector Pendry, three months and 12 days to have her ‘Form 1’ (the initial step in the procedure) accepted, as it was initially said that the issues she wanted to raise related to disciplinary matters. That is over three times as long as the entire FAW process is intended to take.

4.82 The MPS has told us that her case was not accepted initially because its view was that she was seeking to raise issues that had formed part of a disciplinary investigation and that only one issue she had raised was suitable for FAW. Having seen the relevant papers, we do not agree with that analysis but, in any event, we cannot see why it should have taken so long to accept part of her original complaint as suitable for the FAW procedure.

4.83 In addition, another individual (IND 14) was denied the opportunity to use FAW, as it was said the issue he wanted to raise related to promotion, which has its own appeals process.

4.84 In our view, the important feature of a grievance procedure is that it should be available for any member of staff who feels aggrieved about an issue. The national FAW procedure makes it clear that “A ‘grievance’ is so defined by the complainant, and Forces should not refuse to deal with the matter.”

4.85 Declining jurisdiction has the effect of making the individual feel even more frustrated and aggrieved and does not, in our view, represent good management practice. To quote the HMIC’s report on Police Integrity again: “staff will judge procedures by outcomes not intentions.”

We therefore recommend that the MPS replaces its Fairness at Work policy with a new grievance procedure, based on the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The procedure should cover all workplace conflicts involving officers and staff.

Resolving disputes

4.86 Note 4 to our terms of reference asks us to consider “whether appropriate consideration is given to early resolution of grievances and conflicts, through mediation / conciliation or an internal ombudsman or other restorative justice techniques and whether there are adequate processes to achieve such resolution.”

4.87 We are, therefore, asked to consider the use of mediation, conciliation, an internal ombudsman and restorative justice to resolve workplace conflicts in the MPS. We received much evidence on some of these issues but we are uncertain as to whether the concepts were always properly understood by those using the terminology and whether individuals using the same terms had the same understanding of their meaning.

4.88 We believe it might be helpful if we set out our understanding of what each involves:

• ‘Mediation’ is a non-binding private dispute resolution process in which a neutral person helps the parties try to reach a negotiated settlement. ACAS uses the term ‘mediation’ to refer to a process for tackling disagreements at an early stage and “to nip problems in the bud.”
• ‘Conciliation’ is a process similar to mediation but in which the third party takes a more active role in putting forward terms of settlement or an opinion on the case. ACAS uses ‘conciliation’ to refer to a process after a formal claim has been lodged to try to help the parties resolve their difficulties without the need for a tribunal hearing.
• ‘Restorative justice’ is more commonly used in the criminal context and involves individuals taking responsibility for their own actions and finding their own solutions to repairing any damage which may have been caused. In the employment context, it has been linked closely with mediation and the parties finding a mutually acceptable settlement to any differences between them.
• An ‘internal ombudsman’ is a less familiar concept. An ombudsman investigates and decides complaints and disputes and is typically a route for consumers to raise concerns about services received, which may be in addition to other legal rights. We are uncertain what this means in the employment context and have received no evidence which has helped to clarify the concept.

Mediation

4.89 Since this Inquiry started work, the MPS has decided to pilot mediation. It is arranging for 50 FAWAs to be trained as mediators. It appears that it is intended that mediation will be aligned to FAW. We consider that it will be invaluable to have mediation available well before the policy is invoked and we consider that it should continue to be available whilst the dispute or conflict is ongoing.

We recommend that any pilot projects on mediation follow best practice, particularly the Northamptonshire model, and take account of the wealth of learning and experience which exists within established organisations such as ACAS.

4.90 It is necessary to distinguish between mediation as a management tool to resolve conflicts or grievances in the workplace and its use in the context of complaints against police officers, where the IPCC can consider mediation and other techniques, such as local resolution and restorative justice.

4.91 In this section, we are concerned only with its use as a management tool, an important skill for managers, either when a problem is embryonic or later once formal procedures have been invoked. We do not intend to make any meaningful distinction between mediation and conciliation.

4.92 We have already recommended that FAW be replaced by a procedure based on the ACAS Code of Practice, which will apply to both police officers and police staff. However, the ACAS Code effectively dictates the minimum framework that an employer should provide. It is, therefore, open to an employer to use other methods to attempt to resolve workplace conflicts. One such method is mediation. Its benefits include speed, privacy and informality.

4.93 The evidence we have heard suggests that it can effectively be used at two stages: before a grievance enters the formal procedure and after that formal framework has been exhausted.

4.94 However, when mediation has not resulted in resolution, the MPS will gain credit in any subsequent proceedings for the fact that it is a feature of its internal procedure and that genuine attempts have been made to seek a resolution.

4.95 Furthermore, in the light of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004, which impose minimum requirements for handling grievances, it is now crucial that organisations have effective dispute resolution procedures. If an Applicant does not take advantage of an internal resolution procedure, he or she may be prevented from presenting a claim. On the other hand, if the employer is in breach of the minimum requirements, a successful Applicant can be awarded increased compensation.

“We would certainly favour the use of mediation, we would certainly favour the use of informal resolution where it is possible to do so. You can get into a very messy process whereby you have to go through an attempt to resolve things informally before you can take things forward formally, but it is our view that many of the matters that end up being bogged down in very formal grievance procedures or disciplinary processes could have been resolved at an earlier stage in an informal way.”
(Evidence of Lord Harris, former Chair of the MPA.)

4.96 Whilst we believe that mediation should be encouraged both before and, if necessary, after the formal process has been invoked, we also recognise that it may not be appropriate in all cases and, while the regulations governing discipline are still in place, it may not be possible to engage in such a process.

“The main danger is there could be a potential serious allegation of discrimination that is actually dealt with under the grievance process and mediated away. Now that is unacceptable, and we have to have checks and balances in place to make sure that that does not happen.”
(Evidence of William Pickup, HM Customs & Excise.)

4.97 We see important benefits arising from its early use, which may help save the organisation a substantial amount of energy and resource by resolving issues quickly.

4.98 This is frequently what the individuals who raise grievances and even Employment Tribunal claims really want. Ms LL, one of the individuals who gave evidence to us, was asked to identify one issue, from her submission to the Inquiry and her evidence, that she felt merited greater importance and that she would like to see included in our report:

“Early mediation. Talk to us. If I could have talked to somebody who had the authority, the power, the sanction to do something, I probably would not be sitting here today.”

4.99 We see the pilot study in Thames Valley Police as providing a useful analogy for the type of approach that we propose:

“Now there are some good examples round the country, you asked earlier; I would point you towards Thames Valley police, who have a grievance procedure which says really two things: one is that all employees are expected to resolve issues at the earliest possible opportunity, and to take some responsibility for making that happen; and secondly, that if they get stuck with the person they are trying to resolve it with, there is immediate access to external mediators who are within the Thames Valley police structures, but are independent to line management. That seems to me a very healthy situation.”
(Evidence of Philip Aspey, Deputy General Secretary, PSAEW.)

4.100 The Thames Valley example relies on mediators from within the service. We believe that this is appropriate, although care must be taken to select a mediator who is outside the OCU or part of the service in which the parties work. This should not be a problem in an organisation as large as the MPS, but we are mindful of the criticisms that we have heard about the selection of FAWAs:

“… we are an organisation of 44,000 people or thereabouts; I think we have a lot of skills within the organisation. People can be found who are independent of the particular issues and individuals in some of these cases, and I think we should make best use of the skills within the organisation before considering the external option, and of course there is the cost implication if we start to go outside on a regular basis.”
(Evidence of Esme Crowther, Head of the ETU)

We recommend that the MPS carefully monitors the development of the Thames Valley pilot an mediation.

4.101 Mediation is a skill. John Taylor, Chief Executive of ACAS, told us what skills he considered were involved in being a mediator.

“I guess there are two levels of skills or attributes that we are looking for. The first one, if I could describe them, is intellectual; someone needs to have the capacity to quickly cut through the detail and understand what the issues are …

“… the second area I would say would be about their personal skills, and it would seem to me that there are two which are crucial. One is this capacity to be objective and not to be a prisoner of the past, in terms of what your experience or what your history says. So there is an issue about objectively collecting the evidence, if you like, the facts, on which there should be no disagreement; you know, trying to get consensus on the facts.

“The second personal attribute, I think, is judgment, sound judgment, which I would say is rooted in common sense, but … not a lot of people have got common sense. It is just the capacity to sit down and make a sensible judgment based on common sense.

“The third one is impartiality, that if the mediator cannot project themselves as being impartial, then they will have lost the confidence of either of the parties. So it is an interesting person that you are after now.”

4.102 There are various organisations (including ACAS) that can help the MPS develop mediation skills amongst its staff and we are pleased that the MPS, having seen the evidence we have received, is now exploring mediation training.

4.103 We agree with the advice that the Chief Executive of ACAS said that he would give the MPS: “It is much better for you to create your own, to train your own staff in-house”. However, we can see that there may be the occasional, possibly high profile, case where the relationship between the individual and the MPS has broken down to such an extent that internal mediation would not be a serious proposition and that, therefore, external mediation should be tried in an effort to resolve the issue.

“… I am conscious that we keep talking about police culture, but the police culture is not particularly amenable to outside interference, if I can put it in that way, so I think the long answer to your short question is that there might be some resistance to ACAS or any other external mediator coming in and trying to mediate a solution, but if it had appropriate support at an appropriate level within the organisation, I am sure you could make it work.”
(Evidence of Michael McAndrew, Secretary, MPS branch, PSAEW.)

4.104 It has also been suggested to us that a dedicated unit of mediators could be established within the MPS:

“Following the high profile nature of the Virdi case the IAG recommended that a new unit be established that would act as a specialist unit to ‘troubleshoot’ and provide mediation and restorative justice approaches to grievance cases.”
(Submission from the Independent Advisory Group.)

We are not persuaded that formation of such a unit is necessary.

We recommend that mediators should be brought together on a regular basis to share experience and refresh their knowledge of common developments in mediation techniques.

We recommend that the MPS reviews its use of mediation to provide appropriate training to its officers and staff and to encourage its use throughout the grievance process in appropriate cases.

4.105 ACAS’ formal involvement as a mediator in the Employment Tribunal process is acknowledged by section 18(7) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. This provides that nothing communicated to a conciliation officer in the course of the mediation process is admissible in evidence before an Employment Tribunal if that process is unsuccessful. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the absence of a similar specific statutory provision in relation to grievance procedures, any notes or statements arising from the mediation process are disclosable in subsequent Employment Tribunal proceedings and any admission or apology could be relied upon in those proceedings.

4.106 Although this can act as a disincentive to engage in mediation, we do not believe the issue to be fatal to the introduction of mediation and highlight the practice drawn to our attention by Mr Hamilton, the MPS’ Director of Legal Services, of:

“… other employers who operate workplace mediation schemes have a rule of ‘no notes’ as a mechanism of providing some protection and encouraging parties to participate fully in the process without the concern that discussions will be referred to in any subsequent employment tribunal proceedings.”

4.107 We can see some advantage in a ‘no notes’ procedure in relation to mediation discussions but we can also see disadvantages with disputes over who said what occurring later in the Employment Tribunal. We think that it should be left to the parties to the particular mediation to agree a ‘no notes’ procedure if they consider it appropriate.

4.108 We do, however, consider that there would be an advantage in extending the protection under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 formally to mediation discussions.

We recommend that the Department of Trade and Industry gives consideration to a specific provision extending the protection afforded to discussions involving ACAS to discussions that take place between the parties at a mediation so that the discussions become privileged.

Ombudsman

4.109 It has also been suggested that the grievance procedure would benefit from the referral of issues not capable of early resolution “to an outside body, independent of the Service, for swift resolution by either mediation or a determination binding on both the complainant and the person complained against.” (Submission from the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens)

4.110 The MBPA argues for the introduction of an ‘ombudsperson’ and suggests that he or she would receive referrals from the FAW Co-ordinator during or after the FAW procedure. The ombudsperson would complete a report with recommendations and this will be made available to the Co-ordinator and his or her team. It would also be available to the parties but only after the FAW procedure has been concluded.

4.111 The MBPA does not believe that the majority of cases would be referred to the ombudsperson but only exceptional cases. No party would be obliged to follow his or her recommendations.

4.112 The argument seems to be that, by going outside the MPS, to an ombudsman figure, the parties would be involving an independent person who could recommend a resolution.

4.113 Mr Hogan-Howe suggested such an arrangement to deal with the perception of a lack of independence in FAW:

“This could be overcome by augmenting the standard Fairness at Work arrangements with the potential for referral to either an external figure such as an ombudsman or a recognised external conciliation service, such as ACAS. ACAS … could provide a valuable independent step. There might be other bodies which could also provide such a facility.”
(Submission from AC Bernard Hogan-Howe, MPS.)

4.114 We are, however, not attracted to the idea. We strongly believe that managers should be responsible for resolving grievances. We think the best way for the MPS to deal with grievances is to enable managers to own and resolve them quickly on the ground by providing them with a sound grievance procedure and proper support, rather than bringing in outsiders such as ombudsmen, or even insiders such as FAWAs.

4.115 Staff confidence in both the procedures and those who are responsible for applying them is crucial. We believe that the way to create that confidence is for managers to be seen to manage fairly and transparently, treating issues that arise on their merits. We are, therefore, not persuaded by the arguments proposed in favour of an ombudsman.

4.116 Note 4 to our terms of reference ask us specifically to consider the use of an internal ombudsman. The evidence we have referred to above deals solely with an external ombudsman. However, the reasoning we have used to reject the notion of an external ombudsman applies with equal force to an internal one.

Employment Tribunal claims

4.117 We would emphasise the need to adopt strategies to attempt to resolve issues before the employee feels he or she needs to take legal proceedings, whether that is through a sound grievance procedure, mediation or some other route.

4.118 However, it may not always be possible to avoid an Employment Tribunal claim and it is important that the lodging of the claim does not mean that those involved focus on handling the legal proceedings, to the exclusion of continuing to attempt to resolve the issues involved. We endorse the following extract from Learning the Lessons from Employment Tribunals, a joint publication from the Home Office, the Police Federation, ACPO and the PSAEW, which was published during the course of the Inquiry:

“By asking an Employment Tribunal to determine a workplace dispute a Force will have failed its workforce. Although people appear before an Employment Tribunal in order to get an acknowledgment that they were right, there are no real winners. Appearing at an Employment Tribunal is a traumatic experience for all concerned, and is costly in terms of money, publicity and careers … There should be a duty on everyone to come to the table to resolve complaints.”

4.119 It is also important to understand what an Applicant may be seeking by way of resolution. It is sometimes assumed that the motivation for lodging a claim is money. Whatever the reason, management should not use that assumption as a reason for failing to attempt to resolve the matter.

4.120 In fact, all the Applicant may want is an apology or an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong and that he or she has not been treated fairly. Often a motivation is to ensure no one else suffers what they have experienced.

“It is actually all right to be wrong in terms of dealing with a subjective area like employment relationships. What is not all right is to not admit that you are actually wrong, and put the thing right.” (Evidence of John Taylor, Chief Executive of ACAS.)

4.121 Learning the Lessons identifies a number of different ways of resolving a dispute on an informal level and these are just as relevant once a claim has been lodged. They include an apology, policy revision, addressing a personal need (e.g. different working hours), special leave, transfer or simply some acknowledgment that feelings have been hurt.

4.122 In our view, it is always important to continue to try to resolve a case, once a claim has been lodged. Not only does this represent good management practice but it is often the case that what the Applicant wants is not something which an Employment Tribunal could order.

4.123 On the positive side, an Employment Tribunal claim can provide a valuable opportunity for any organisation to learn lessons about its own procedures and management processes. However, this depends on there being a formal opportunity for a debriefing which ideally should involve all those involved. The value of a debriefing is not confined simply to Employment Tribunal cases, any workplace issue or dispute should be examined in this way to see if lessons can be learnt for the future.

4.124 We have been told that the total number of Employment Tribunal cases received by the MPS between 2000 and 2003 was 97 (2000/1), 95 (2001/2) and 71 (2002/3).

4.125 This is not a particularly large number in view of the size of the organisation but it must be borne in mind that police officers only have a right to claim race or sex discrimination at present.

4.126 It is therefore likely that the earlier recommendations of this report will, if accepted, increase the number of Employment Tribunal cases brought against the MPS, as officers gain means of redress which are not currently open to them. It is therefore important that the Service has an effective system for dealing with grievances and workplace disputes with a view to resolving them before an Employment Tribunal claim is lodged.

  [D]

Figure 5: Outcome of Discrimination Employment Tribunal Cases Concluded for the Period 2000-2003
Source: Data supplied by the MPS

4.127 We have commented above about where we see the ETU best placed structurally within the organisation and we think this will help address perceptions about the manner in which the ETU operates.

4.128 We have received a number of criticisms about the interaction of the ETU and Directorate of Legal Services (DLS). Indeed, right at the start of the Inquiry, our commissioning body, the MPA, expressed concern about what it called the “widely held view that decision making is driven by legal advice, and that the legal advice tends to be overly defensive and insensitive to wider issues of community relations. It is not clear to the Authority that the client function within the MPS is robust and mature enough to be able to challenge legal advice and make a considered judgement what is best for the service”. (Submission from Lord Harris, former Chair of the MPA.)

4.129 We subsequently received comments from other organisations and individuals which supported this view.

“It seems that the blinds are brought down, everybody gets behind their own barriers, and leaves it – you know, the solicitors go out and do the fighting, you stay behind the barrier where it is safe, because you do not want to step out of line, you do not want to be seen to be making some headway to try and solve the issue.”
(Evidence of Ms LL.)

“The attitude of the DLS seems to be that the MPS must adopt a ‘win at all costs strategy’ at all times and, if the case cannot be won in a legalistic sense, the Applicant should be dragged through an extensive Tribunal process before being finally presented with an offer to settle at the eleventh, if not twelfth, hour. Whilst there may be some arguable legal justification for such an exercise, there seems to be little consideration of the effect that this process has on Applicants and their subsequent retention within the MPS in any meaningful capacity following the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal process.”
(Submission from the MBPA.)

“Our experience having represented many black staff and been involved in their race discrimination claims shows that the lynch pin behind a majority of disputes spiralling out of control is the intransigence and dogmatic manner which this department treats members of the Metropolitan Police Service.”
(Submission from the NBPA.)

“The Directorate of Legal Services should be held to account for aggressive and ‘defend at all costs’ mindset which preoccupies its current culture and is indicative of police legal departments nationally.”
(Submission from the NBPA.)

4.130 However, having received evidence from both Esme Crowther, the Head of the ETU, and David Hamilton, the Director of Legal Services, we are not persuaded that either service is performing its respective role in anything other than the correct manner. Staff in the ETU are extremely experienced in dealing with Tribunal cases and David Hamilton outlined his directorate’s approach as follows:

“DLS lawyers are instructed to maintain objectivity and take a realistic merits based approach to their cases. Strong or deserving claims are identified as soon as possible. The MPS endeavours to settle them swiftly. However, DLS will recommend defending those claims where important points of principle are at stake, and/or the MPS has a good prospect of winning.”
(Submission from David Hamilton, Director of Legal Services, MPS.)

4.131 This is clearly the correct approach to take. The MPS must, of course, assess the merits of each claim when it is received, and then proceed quickly either to resolve the issue where the points made are good, or to defend the organisation if they are not.

4.132 One of the key recommendations in Learning the Lessons is that “Lawyers should advise and Managers decide.” We completely agree with this approach and it seems to be consistent with how the MPS deals with Employment Tribunal cases.

4.133 We believe that the criticisms of the way in which the ETU and the DLS interact may largely arise from perception and perhaps also a misunderstanding of the role of an in-house legal service:

“I entirely understand the perception of applicants and those who represent applicants that somehow the proceedings are being driven by lawyers because of course we are the ones who go along to tribunals for directions hearings, full hearings, we are the ones who actually send the letters. But we are not the decision-makers.”
(Evidence of Sandra Burrows, Assistant Director of Legal Services, MPS.)

4.134 We think the changes we have proposed to the location of the ETU will assist in changing these perceptions.

We also recommend that the Director of Legal Services invests time and resources in explaining the directorate’s work, and how it operates, to a wider section of the organisation and to the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Indeed, some form of regular bulletin might be valuable both as a source of useful information for stakeholders and as a public relations tool for the legal service.

4.135 As part of our work, we reviewed approximately 60 Employment Tribunal case files spanning a three year period, 2001–2004. The purpose of the exercise was to obtain an understanding, where possible, of the procedures and practices adopted by the MPS when dealing with claims.

4.136 We are acutely aware that there is often deadlock between the parties once a claim has been lodged and that it is frequently difficult to get to the root of a problem at that stage. Nonetheless, greater effort can be made on both sides to continue to seek settlement even though a Tribunal hearing may seem inevitable.

4.137 Whilst we do not claim to have carried out a scientific or statistically valid exercise, the following findings highlight areas for improvement and examples of good practice.

• Understanding the ‘real’ reasons for the Applicant’s claim. There needs to be a greater understanding of the reasons why the Applicant has lodged a Tribunal claim. Sometimes the claim arises out of a minor dispute, which because it has not been dealt with, has festered and developed into something which is more serious. The ETU and HR directorate would be better able assist in resolving the dispute if they had a short written summary of the Applicant’s initial complaint before the lodging of the claim and a summary of any management action and / or response.
• Timeliness. Many cases we looked at took far too long to conclude. There is a greater need for both sides to ensure that intervals between the various stages in preparing the case are kept to a minimum.
• Greater use of advice from the ETU. We noted that some files contained written advice from the ETU on the issues central to the claim. We would have liked to see this more often. Often the advice was of a high standard and comparable to that of external counsel. Wherever possible, such written advice should be obtained at an early stage after consideration of the summary from Applicant and management. This would allow the parties to concentrate upon the central issues for settlement whilst fulfilling the procedural steps necessary for the Tribunal.
• Greater use of informal discussions between the parties during preparation of a Tribunal case. Arranging meetings in a busy police service is difficult even when there is no conflict. However, we have found that there is an increased chance of resolving the dispute where the parties actively communicate with each other. The tendency to get on with preparing the Tribunal case and to abandon further settlement discussions should be resisted.
• Does the Applicant simply want an apology? In a number of the cases we looked at, the Applicant made it clear from the outset that he or she was merely seeking an apology. It is not possible to lodge a claim simply to obtain an apology. These cases might have been settled earlier and more economically if management had been prepared to admit to errors and apologise. We found evidence of the ‘blame culture’ we have referred to elsewhere in this report.
• Learning lessons from Employment Tribunal cases. We consider that it would be helpful to the MPS if a pro forma were to be kept recording the reasons for settlement. There is a need to monitor management practice and responses to workplace conflicts to ensure that proper steps are taken to resolve disputes at an early stage. In addition, where things go wrong (which is inevitable) lessons can be learnt. Annual reviews of trends and lessons to be learnt from Employment Tribunal cases should become common practice within the MPS. We are greatly encouraged by the MPS’ response that they already do this.

4.138 We are asked in note 5 to our terms of reference to consider “whether there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involving allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part of the MPS handling of such cases, in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve resolution by agreement.”

4.139 While we have not received extensive evidence on this point, we are firmly of the view that the MPS should manage its own disputes and problems without involving external assistance. We are, therefore, not persuaded that external review would assist the organisation in the long term.