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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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 Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Esme Crowther on 30 March 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Ms E Crowther, Head of Employment Tribunal Unit, Directorate of Professional Standards, MPS
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of public session: Ms E Crowther, Head of Employment Tribunal Unit, Directorate of Professional Standards, MPS

Tuesday, 30 March 2004
11.45 am

Sir William Morris: Ms Crowther, good morning to you, and can I start by thanking you for accepting our invitation to attend our Inquiry today, and indeed for letting us have your written submission?

We had listed the witnesses this morning, insofar as MPS is concerned, as legal and ET, so from that point, for this session, it is my intention to truncate the normal opening comments, save for introducing the panel and one or two other observations.

I am Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and this is Anesta Weekes QC; Anesta is a chairperson of employment tribunals, an eminent barrister, and was in fact counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry; Sir Anthony Burden, you probably know, recently retired Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary. That, in essence, is our panel.

As is customary with all other witnesses, I will say how I intend to conduct the hearing: I will start with some opening questions, followed by my colleagues, Miss Weekes and Sir Anthony, and if I deem it necessary – it may just be that I might want to put one or two supplementary questions to you.

You will, of course, as with everyone else, be invited to make a short closing comment at the end of the questions, and it is a matter for your good self as to whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity.

So dispensing with the preliminary, because as I have indicated, we did list you with your colleague Mr Hamilton and his colleague, could I ask you formally, please, to introduce yourself to the Inquiry for the benefit of the transcript record? And can I just say that our proceedings this morning, and as always, will be posted on the website, just by way of information to you.

Ms Crowther: Thank you very much, Sir William.

My name is Esme Crowther, I am the head of the employment tribunal unit, which is part of the MPS directorate of professional standards. That is a post I have occupied for roughly ten years. In that time, the unit has moved from being the equal opportunities unit to the employment tribunal and grievance advice unit, but we lost responsibility for grievance management with the introduction of Fairness at Work in May 2003.

Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you very much indeed.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Could I ask you to expand a little on your role as head of the ET unit? We are not quite sure, at least I am not quite sure, whether the role is as a policy advisor to the MPS on ET cases, or one as the key administrator, managing the cases, liaising with the directorate of legal services, and indeed instructing and liaising with outside solicitors. If you could sort of just give us a feel as to the role?

Ms Crowther: Yes, of course. I think it encompasses all of those things that you have mentioned. I mean, the primary purpose of the unit is to give instructions to the lawyers on what the strategy is to be on any particular employment tribunal case. But it goes further than that, and perhaps we can look prior to the employment tribunal being lodged, because I know that is an area of concern to the panel: is enough being done to prevent situations leading to employment tribunal in the first place?

We do have an active role there, my unit is regularly contacted by managers who are dealing with conflict situations that have the potential to end up in an employment tribunal or a Fairness at Work procedure, and advice of case managers or deputy case managers is sought as to how they can deal fairly with the scenario, whatever it may be, and avoid that conflict escalating.

Managers throughout the MPS visit the unit on a regular basis. We do go out, as far as we are able to, and provide that sort of support and guidance to them in the workplace.

The main barrier to that, I have to say, is the resourcing. I have a very small unit, and I cannot miss an opportunity this morning to keep emphasising my lack of resources, so maybe the Inquiry report might help me there!

Sir William Morris: We know how you feel!

Ms Crowther: So there is that advice and guidance role, there is the instructions to the lawyers, and some of those cases are managed not necessarily by MPS lawyers, some of them are dealt with by external firms of solicitors as well.

We undertake research as part of the preparation of the employment tribunal case in liaison with legal services. We bring our personnel background to bear, our knowledge of, "How should this situation have been managed? Does it appear from the evidence that is being put together that this is appropriate; that this is a position that the MPS should be defending, can defend?" At various points we receive counsel's advice, but our own judgment plays an important part in the approach taken.

From the outset, when an ET1 is received, if it appears to be a matter that really should not need to escalate towards a full hearing of employment tribunal, we would be speaking at an early stage to local managers who are on the ground, helping them as best we can to try and address the issues, and avoid the thing moving inevitably towards a hearing. So we have that kind of role.

There is a lot of collation of management information. Clearly this is a matter of public concern; it is a matter of concern to many senior people within the MPS, and they are interested to see what the data is telling us about these situations. So we provide reports, we provide reports to the Police Authority on this sort of material as well.

And most importantly, we provide a lot of learning material; I know in my submission I make reference to that, and in the documents supporting it. I provided examples of our newsletters which we have provided to the organisation for a number of years, and various booklets that we have produced. We have a website now, and there are case scenarios presented there.

We take part in training events. We deliver the induction process for personal managers, who are clearly a key group for us, to hit with our important messages. So that is the kind of range of things we are involved in.

Sir William Morris: Sure. We note from what we have read, and indeed what some witnesses have told us, that there are what I would indicate is concerned about the level – the degree of delays in progressing ET cases; 400 days is not uncommon.

We have also learned from Mr Hamilton earlier on that the approach, the methodology of approach, I think the way he put it, "We front load our information gathering", and by sort of interpretation of that, I am seeing a situation where once you receive the ET1s, before you respond, you gather as much information as possible.

My question is: do you think the front-loading of information gathering, which obviously is a quite enormous exercise, has contributed in itself to the delay, the quantum period of delay in overall terms?

Ms Crowther: I am not sure that it is necessarily attributable to the front-loading –

Sir William Morris: I said "contributed to".

Ms Crowther: I am sorry?

Sir William Morris: I said: do you think the front-loading of gathering information contributes to the unacceptable period of delay?

Ms Crowther: I am not sure that I would see that as a critical factor. I think it is inevitable. We need to gather that information because we are in the hands of the tribunal, we have the time limit, we have to put some form of defence in within a very short space of time; so there has to be that initial piece of work.

The 400 days which is being quoted, I think is a product of the Liversidge/Baskerville hiatus, if I can put it that way, that colleagues have referred to already today. I think we have been through an exceptionally difficult period for applicants and for the organisation, while there was so much uncertainty around whether cases would be able to progress, and if so, on what basis.

I am glad that most of that now seems to be in the past. I hope we can look forward to the length of time involved in tribunals coming down considerably in the future, not least because of a particular review and intervention process that was put in train in the latter part of last year, looking at long-standing cases and seeing if there was scope through the intervention of others, and that is senior colleagues in HR – and I know you have been interested in the role of HR in those matters, colleagues in diversity directorate and others – to see if their examining the issues provides any fresh perspective and any scope for moving things along in some of those rather protracted cases.

Sir William Morris: You have told us in your submission, and indeed, that has been echoed by others, that up to 2000 – October, I think it was – the ET unit was located within the personnel division, as it was then. That has been changed, and you are now located in the directorate for professional standards.

When we had evidence from DAC Roberts, he gave the rationale for the move – one of risk management, he said. Could you tell us, in this context, what does "risk management" mean?

Ms Crowther: I think what that is all about is putting the litigation risks facing the MPS in one basket, so that we can look at the links between those various cases, and there are links of different kinds, and seeing how best that the global picture, if you like, can best be managed from the organisation's point of view, and appropriate treatment, of course, for the individual in any particular case as well.

I think something more than 50 per cent of our employment tribunal claims actually have a related DPS investigation. Often, that is already in train at the point when the ET is lodged, so there is an opportunity, if you like – I am not saying that the existence of an ET influences how that disciplinary misconduct process is taken forward, I am not saying that for a moment, but at least there is a communication about timescale, what is going on and so on, and any issue such as failure to communicate, which is regrettably often an issue for applicants, that they do not know what is happening in that internal investigation, or that is what they are telling us, any things like that that are coming up and we are aware of them through the ET side can be put right.

So I think there is some sound thinking about the positioning of the ET unit within DPS, but that is not to say there are pros and cons both ways.

Sir William Morris: Lord Harris and the appropriate committee offer us the view that by locating it where it is in the department of professional standards directorate, it inevitably takes on a legalistic context rather than – and the culture becomes one of litigation, as you have just indicated, rather than settlement.

Ms Crowther: Yes.

Sir William Morris: Would you share that view?

Ms Crowther: I can see where he is coming from on that, no question about it. I had reservations when the decision was taken; I have to say, there was not a good deal of consultation about the repositioning, but a decision was taken.

And at that time, we were still responsible for the grievance procedure, and I was particularly uncomfortable that the grievance procedure, which is all about resolution and informality and no blame, moved to the disciplinary arm, if you like, for police officers, of the organisation.

Of course, I can see that from a perception point of view, the same can be argued around the employment tribunals, that if we want to send a message that this is about resolving things, et cetera, at an early stage, then perhaps that more comfortably comes back with Fairness at Work and the efforts of the HR discipline.

I do not think anything has actually changed in how we manage these cases. We are the same staff, we are HR professionals, as I think a number of people have already said to you. We sit within the main HR headquarters building of the MPS, two doors down from the Fairness at Work co-ordinator, with whom we are constantly liaising. But I think for a point of perception. And particularly perhaps for some of our staff support associations, it is not attractive that the unit is within DPS, and I would not argue with that.

Sir William Morris: I live near the church, but I do not go every day!

Let me share with you one of the concerns that is emerging, and we are trying to untangle all this, because you see, part of our terms of reference is workplace matters, workplace issues, and central to workplace issues are people issues. People are central to that. We see, if you like, the instruments and departments that facilitate good people issues in terms of industrial relations, like diversity, like HR, legal back-up, and of course employment tribunal issues; all these are central people issues, but they are fragmented in terms of the structure.

I would just ask you to recognise that every single employment case represents a failure on somebody's part, principally management's part.

Would you, therefore, support a structure of a directorate, say, with HR, diversity and ET with legal back-up – you would have legal back-up in supporting your ET cases, so litigation in other spheres could be floated off on its own?

The advantages, as I would promote them, are that ET would contribute to the policy development of HR and diversity, because some of those cases are a lack of policies on HR; and secondly, those who are working with the employment tribunal unit would understand better the dynamics of frontline management or workplace management or line management, the issues that gives rise to the employment tribunal. The third advantage is that you would then have, on tap, on call, your own legal back-up support.

Would you support a proposition which would advance that structure?

Ms Crowther: I think you are talking about a very large body of people to cover all those bases. To take some of the points you made in reverse order, legal back-up, and having it available to us, I feel we have that already, the employment law group, headed by Sandra Burrows, who you heard from earlier, is only a phone call away. They are at our disposal; there is no two ways about it. It does not necessarily have to be an employment tribunal. If I am presented with a scenario and I am unclear what the best way to go on it is, and I need legal advice, then I can obtain that immediately from colleagues in legal services.

And we can make requests for advice to be sought on particular issues and so on, and we have a very positive relationship, they are very receptive to our needs, so I am not sure that we would necessarily need to be sort of within the same framework of the organisation; I mean, to some extent, we are already, as we sit in DPS, we are under the Deputy Commissioner's command, as is the directorate of legal services, so there is some structure to it at the moment, but I do not know that we need to come closer together on that.

The opportunity to contribute to policy development: again, I feel we have that opportunity at the moment. As I said, we are at the heart of the HR function. We have good contacts in the HR policy development unit; in fact, at one time, those responsible for writing HR policy, the current equal opportunities policy statement, I should say, and the old grievance procedure, were both written by colleagues who were within my unit, when it was the equal opportunities unit.

We have very strong links there, and we can feed the learning from cases back into the policy developers. We supply a lot of data on a regular basis, both to HR and diversity, and I know they take account of that in the work that they do.

So I think those links are there. That is not to say they could not be improved, and perhaps the structure that you suggest would be successful, and would foster more effective coworking; I would not rule it out.

Sir William Morris: You see, there is a belief that the environment contributes to the culture, and where ET is located, it has a culture about professional integrity, it is about conduct, it is about discipline; it is not about settlement, and ET cases ultimately are about settlement, because if nothing else, there is a reputational cost to the organisation. And it is that that leads to the thinking that a new environment with added support, and I hear what you say, that you have to make a telephone call to get your legal, but what we are saying is it would be there for you; turn the tap and it is in abundance.

But the whole concept of it is to try and create a new dynamic of confidence, both for the way ET cases are handled and the benefit to the legal department itself, because we have had written submissions which indicate, and we have heard evidence which indicates that the legal department is not seen as friendly and responsive for the benefit of the employees, but is seen as a department which delays, or it has a strategy which delays.

To summarise, part of its raison d'etre is to wear people down, it has been said in evidence to us, and it is in that context that we are promoting the principle of looking to see how a different structure could give us some joined up policies, and what we call the golden thread on the people issues.

Ms Crowther: I think it is difficult to deal with those perceptions.

I mean, I know there is no legal strategy to deliberately delay the progress of cases, or to wear people down. Colleagues have mentioned positive efforts about the learning from cases, and that regrettably, there can be delays for good reason from both sides; that on occasion, efforts to get an indication of what it would take to settle particular cases have not been forthcoming from the other side. So I think there are some issues there, and perhaps some applicants have formed what is not entirely a position supported by the evidence.

But I certainly do not want to leave you with the impression that we are not settlement focused from an early stage, because I believe that we are. But if people are taking a different view, based simply on the fact that we are part of DPS, with all the connotations attached to that, then there may be good reason that a different structure would be a more positive one for the organisation.

Sir William Morris: In your own submission, you have indicated that – you said, and I quote, "I accept that in the last few months, there has been a lack of clarity over the roles of various directorates with an interest in employment tribunals", so there is a debate, I would respectfully suggest, to be had there.

Could I ask you to address the points that I raised earlier about delays? What do you think is the major contributing factor from the MPS' point of view to delays?

Ms Crowther: This is delays in employment tribunals reaching a conclusion?

Sir William Morris: Indeed.

Ms Crowther: Often when the case is lodged, as I think I said earlier, there is a Fairness at Work procedure or an internal investigation in progress, so we are in the hands of those processes whilst we await the outcome before the ET can progress. Normally, a stay is agreed, because the tribunal want us to be able to arrive at an internal solution, hopefully, to these matters, rather than proceeding inevitably towards the tribunal hearing.

So any delays in those processes will obviously have a knock-on effect for the employment tribunal. I know a lot of good work has been done by colleagues in internal investigations command in DPS to bring down the number of days involved typically in an internal investigation, but that is not to say that there is not an opportunity for improvements to be made there, and I know that is something that employment tribunals have criticised the MPS for in the past.

Other factors that have caused delay can be difficulties with engaging with applicants, they can be off sick, and unwilling to get into discussions, understandably, if their health is going to suffer as a consequence; it may be the availability of representatives. I am aware of members of borough senior management team endeavouring to engage with applicants to try and sort things out at an early stage, and they have been rebuffed with, "I am sorry, you will have to speak to my lawyers, I see the ET as my route to resolve this, rather than any internal option". So there is some of that.

So I think there are a various of factors that have led to these long drawn-out processes, not least Liversidge, and I will not keep dwelling on that, but it has been an exceptional factor, I think, that we have seen over the last two or three years.

Sir William Morris: We are aware that your department or your good self does carry out case reviews following settlements, looking at lessons learned. Can you share with us how lessons learned or the information from lessons learned are used to inform better managerial practices?

Ms Crowther: Yes, it is through the means, some of which I mentioned earlier: we write articles and place these on the intranet site, it is in the form of a newsletter. From time to time, we do other bespoke pieces of work. We did a "Demystifying Tribunals" booklet that I know you have been provided with, and that reflected particular issues that I know managers had sought some clarification on.

The learning from ETs is also fed into management training. What has happened is that the management training school based at Hendon have come to us and said, "What are the typical issues?", to inform the scenarios that they then present on their particularly first line manager training courses, both for police officers and for police staff.

So what that means is that the delegates who are attending those courses are given very realistic scenarios as the sort of thing, as a manager, that they would have to be dealing with, in avoiding grievance or ET type situations developing.

So we are feeding into training school, there is a lot of material on the website and in the newsletter, and we provide workshops and seminars when we are able to; I brief borough commanders at the annual DPS borough commanders seminar on any particular points. We take part in induction to personnel managers; we have done training for first contact advisors, to help them improve their understanding on how to nip things in the bud, if I can put it that way.

We would like to do more – back to the resources issue. I know SMTs would like to see us going out there and talking to them about what is coming up from their experiences, what are their people having problems with, and if I had more than a handful of people, we would be able to do that on a regular basis, so I think that gives you a flavour.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Thank you very much, that concludes my list of questions. I ask Miss Weekes to put her questions to you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. That is quite an important juncture, because I would like to follow through the chairman's questions about follow-up after the assessment of what has happened at the employment tribunal and it is quite clear you have demonstrated in your submission that there are certain aspects which, apart from the newsletter, you have just summarised.

It takes me to the question of resources. Can I just go back to the general summary – I say a general summary, but a very helpful summary – that the legal department gave us as to the nature of race cases and the issues that they raise, and the nature of gender cases, and the issues they raised.

May I just use an example, because I think we want to deal with your resources issue. On the question of gender, what has been told to us, again just in sort of an overall summary form – I think you were in the audience and you heard the summary.

Ms Crowther: Mm.

Miss Weekes: One of the issues was more indirect gender discrimination than direct. When you receive that information, if you did have the resources, what would you wish to do about improving the relationship between management and female officers and staff that would help to prevent employment tribunal cases occurring?

Ms Crowther: Right. So sorry, just to understand your question, if an ET1 is received, what we would like to be doing immediately?

Miss Weekes: No, it is my fault, I have put the question badly. We now know the nature of the type of cases and subject matters that are coming to the employment tribunals in relation to gender issues, and if you were given the right resources, what actions would you take to improve the relationship between female officers and staff to prevent those cases coming to the employment tribunal?

Ms Crowther: Right, okay. Well based on the particular issues, if we already have some understanding of them, I think we could do more on the sort of material that I have mentioned already, developing training packages, providing workshops to first line managers, to say, "These are the typical difficulties, this is where it is going wrong". I mean, clearly if there were any overarching policy difficulties, they need to be put right at the earliest opportunity, and we would be working with the people with those responsibilities to ensure that that happens. So we would need to do that.

But what I would also like to get into would be: what are the other problems that perhaps have not surfaced yet? Maybe we could have focus groups with groups of staff, perhaps arranging that through the staff support associations such as the BPA, developing our working relationships there. So perhaps under their umbrella, which I think people would find more positive perhaps than the direct approach from ourselves, to say, "Well, you tell us what the things are that we need to be looking at, thinking of, telling line managers that they are not doing very well at the moment, to avoid things turning into such an issue that it becomes a Fairness at Work or even an ET".

Miss Weekes: Do you think that you understand sufficiently the complaints that women make about their relationship with management at work?

Ms Crowther: I have perhaps some insight into that as a woman, but I would not presume for a moment to be able to put myself in someone else's shoes, and I think nothing can improve the opportunity for that individual to provide that insight for themselves, and for someone with some skills in the area to develop that into learning for the organisation.

I think that is how we could make the most of that; it is all very well, I think, for a lay person such as myself to do their best, but there are probably more professional ways we could draw out that information.

Miss Weekes: Well, undoubtedly, the first stage would be to draw out the information, so you really do have a firm and clear, concise understanding of the problem, and then you can remedy.

So first of all in relation to what we might recommend, is there more work to be done on actually understanding the position that women sometimes find themselves in which will result in an employment tribunal case?

Ms Crowther: I would think that there is, definitely. I do not want to ignore the important work that is already going on under the umbrella of the diversity directorate. A lot of work is in hand looking at issues for females, black females in particular, female members of police staff; so groups that have some sort of cross-referencing, if you like, of different sorts of minority experiences. So there is a lot of work in hand already, but I think more can be done, and this is something certainly that my case managers have identified, that it is something that they would like to be able to get into.

Also looking at cases that are withdrawn; what was the resolution for that individual? We do not know that, we do not have that information. Did they just become so disaffected with the whole process that they chose to withdraw the ET, or was the issue actually resolved somewhere along the line? We do not have that information, so I think there is more we could do to benefit the organisation.

Miss Weekes: Do you find the women associations of assistance to you in actually telling you, "Well, these are the problems, these are the shortcomings, these are our suggestions about remedies and change"?

Ms Crowther: We have not heard a great deal, to be fair, from the particular women's organisations, and that may be because they are feeding in more to the diversity directorate; perhaps this comes back to some of the fragmentation that has been referred to earlier.

Miss Weekes: That was referred to earlier, yes. So just to ensure that we are on top of available information, the central port of call for us to understand why women are going to employment tribunals is back to the diversity directorate, is that right?

Ms Crowther: No, I would not say that. I mean, we have classifications on the employment tribunals and we can tell you the sort of reasons that people are actually citing in their claim, but if there is more to it than that, or people are not even choosing to go down that route but maybe still have matters of concern, I think that the more global picture would be better portrayed through the work of the diversity directorate.

Miss Weekes: Yes. You may not have had a great deal of communication with the women's groups, but have you taken the opportunity to ask them, as the person in charge of employment tribunals, "Well, I note last year we had X number of cases from females in this organisation, can you tell me what are the underlying problems?" Have you actually done that? There are three women organisations, are there not?

Ms Crowther: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Have you spoken to them direct?

Ms Crowther: I cannot say that I have, no, not of late. I have had more relationship with organisations such as the Black Police Association, because I think in recent months particularly, our focus has been more on race cases rather than gender, but that is something we are now changing, because we have looked at the long-standing race cases, we are moving into the rest, if you like, so certainly not to lose sight of the issues of gender discrimination.

I mean, certainly as part of our resolution of a number of gender based ETs, we have allowed applicants access to senior female members of the organisation, I am thinking particularly of DAC Carol Howlett who I know you are hearing from later today. So we are helping applicants, if you like, to inform the senior women organisations about their particular issues, going beyond what is simply in their tribunal application, but I think we have cut ourselves out of the loop and we need to get back in there. I think that is what is coming to me from your approach.

Miss Weekes: Why do you think that has happened? Is that because the issue of race has now so dominated the diversity issue that women's issues, gender issues have been left behind?

Ms Crowther: I think to some extent, that is the case, and I think that is not surprising, given all that was invested in our response to the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, and the MacPherson report, and I know your involvement in all of that. But we have done a tremendous amount on race discrimination and community relations, and that has been recognised. Our diversity strategy phase II acknowledges the need to move into how we treat the other groups, and look more closely at that, but I think we have got some way to go there.

I think that is demonstrated from a number of groups that I am involved in. One is the long-standing grievance and ET group, which is led by Denise Milani, who you heard about earlier; she has a very powerful role within the diversity directorate.

At that group, at the moment, it is only BPA and IAG who are coming along, and from what we have been talking about this morning, I am thinking we ought to be extending that to some of these senior – and other women officers and staff organisations, and get them involved.

Miss Weekes: I think in fairness I ought to ask you, because you have a particularly important role to play, what do you say are the most important re-occurring issues that are presented by females in ET cases?

Ms Crowther: To be fair, I do not think that the issues are any different from those presented in the race discrimination cases. It is not overt racist or sexist behaviour, it tends to be the impact of management action.

I jotted a few things down when you were talking to the DLS colleagues earlier. It tends to be about appraisal, the perception of unfairness in the way an appraisal has been put together, promotion, selection, postings, access to training and development opportunities; to some extent, misconduct issues, or the outcomes of disciplinary procedures.

It can be how a DPS investigation has been conducted, or the lack or absence of a DPS investigation, so it can go both ways.

But I think underpinning all of that, it is about communication. If management took the opportunity to explain the rationale for the decisions they have taken in selection or how this appraisal was arrived at, where was their evidence; if they had that early discussion, then I think there is a real opportunity for a lot of these to be avoided, because it is a theme that comes up time and time again, and I think George McAnuff made reference to it, looking at Fairness at Work, yesterday: it is about our failure to explain our decisions to people, so they form a view that they have been disadvantaged.

If we invested a bit of time and effort in disabusing them of that at an early stage, I think we would do a lot better.

Miss Weekes: So what is your general view of the response by the MPS in relation to these cases? There is, of course, the ET1, which will set out the female's position, but what is the general response to this re-occurring theme that you see in the ET3s?

Ms Crowther: The re-occurring theme of failure of communication?

Miss Weekes: Well, not only of communication. The allegation – or if I can put it more neutrally, the ET1s for females, you say, have a re-occurring theme, that they are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender in relation to appraisals, for example, and promotion. What is the response that you see from the organisation in relation to those particular topics?

Ms Crowther: Well, the response from the organisation, in terms of the tribunal, will be to explain the basis for the decision, for the content of the appraisal, or the decisions that have been made around that particular officer or member of staff's career.

Often, those seem to sound reasonable – I have just made the point, they should be made in a different way, but having seen that, clearly we do not then want to go to an employment tribunal and then just go all through that. Having provided that, we would be looking to say, "Well, does that not resolve it for you? What else do you need then, if it does not, to make the thing go away, how can we put this right?" So we will be having that kind of dialogue, and obviously an important message for our learning material is about, "This is how it went wrong in this particular case, learn from it and move on".

Miss Weekes: And you have mentioned that the issue is the same really in race cases: lack of communication for a decision that is made that leaves a black officer, a visible ethnic minority officer, with the view that he or she was unfairly treated; that is your view.

Ms Crowther: It is a huge generalisation, but that is the recurring theme, I feel, yes.

Miss Weekes: What is the one successful step – there may be many more, but give me an example of a successful step that has been taken to remedy what has brought gender and race issues to employment tribunals? What can we take on board as a success?

Ms Crowther: Do you mean an example of a particular case where –

Miss Weekes: An example of a step that has been taken by management through perhaps your assistance to remedy or rather to prevent race and gender cases being taken to ETs.

Ms Crowther: Recently, we had two gender discrimination cases where officers felt they had been disadvantaged under the police promotion process.

When we examined that, we felt that there were possibly some issues there. So as part of settlement negotiations, what we actually arranged was for the promotion applications for those particular officers to be re-examined by an independent panel, to see what the decision would have been, and the officers were satisfied with this process.

We also organised that they would have access to a senior woman officer to talk about their experiences, because whilst I think that was the catalyst for the ET, there was a lot of background and dissatisfaction about how they felt women were viewed on their particular OCU, and we wanted to deal with that. Local management were involved in that process as well. There had been some changes there, so they were alive to the need to make some cultural changes, I think, at the borough concerned. So that process was engineered, it produced an outcome that was acceptable to the women officers concerned, and we avoided the employment tribunals.

Miss Weekes: An example of a successful step to improve the race issues.

Ms Crowther: Can you just give me a moment to think about it?

Miss Weekes: Of course. (Pause). Do feel free to say that there have not been, if there have not been.

Ms Crowther: I am sure there are lots, it is just trying to think of a good example. Could I come back to that at the end, is that all right? I do not want to hold you up –

Miss Weekes: That is fine. I think if you want a bit of thinking time, there is no difficulty with that. Can I move on to just a point on staff survey, because you mentioned it in your report, and it is at page 1/79; we are just going to bring that up on the screen for you. Just give it a moment. (Pause).

If I can read it to you, it comes out of the audit for 2000/2001, and actually, if you wanted to look at it, it is at your page 1/79. It is responses and sample of comments from line managers survey.

Ms Crowther: I do not think I have that.

Miss Weekes: That is all right. May I just pass it to you? I have rather helpfully highlighted what I would like to look at. I will just give you a moment to look at that. (Pause). That is what managers are saying, and if I can have it back, I will read it.

Ms Crowther: Of course.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. They say this:

"There are too many areas to source advice. There should be a point of contact – civil staff."

So I hope I have interpreted that correctly. Managers are saying, "There are too many different sources to go for advice, for the civil staff", and they just want one point of contact, a one stop shop. Is that right?

Ms Crowther: Yes, I think that is right, and I think it is something that the HR directorate have taken on board. This report is a couple of years or even more old now, and I believe that they have moved to having that kind of one stop shop, helpdesk approach. Now that, of course, does not embrace our side of things, because we sit outside of the HR function.

But I would say that when we were part of it, going back a few years now, that we did try something along these lines, and it did not work terribly well, because I think that the specialised nature of the work of my unit leads to my team having quite specific knowledge, and when we went in with a much wider group of people covering all bases on HR, the quality of the advice people were getting when they rang up depended very much on the background of who answered the phone, so it was a bit patchy, if I can put it that way.

So I can see, you know, what people are saying they want, but I think there is a danger they will not get the quality if we try to have generalists dealing with it.

Miss Weekes: So is there a one stop shop at the moment?

Ms Crowther: Within HR, I believe there is, for the matters that they would be assisting with.

Miss Weekes: How is that working?

Ms Crowther: I am afraid I do not know.

Miss Weekes: I just want to move to the recommendations in that report, that is the audit report, to see how they are coming along. If you move to your page 83 – I appreciate this is a little dated, this report, but it is a matter of finding out how the recommendations are going. There are two examples of what I call high level recommendations, they both have a "3" on them, and I am looking at R7; it says:

"Up-to-date policies and procedures need to be publicised and available through the intranet."

Is that now happening adequately, as far as you are concerned?

Ms Crowther: Yes, that is the case. Clearly this was a recommendation that was more around HR policies than particularly the work of my unit, but yes, a good deal has been done. Most personnel policies are now available on the intranet, and certainly the website for my unit has the links to the key policy documents, so they are there and they are available.

Miss Weekes: The other point at R8:

"There is a need for up-to-date advice and guidance for all line managers. This is best owned from a central point, to ensure consistency of information."

Is that happening?

Ms Crowther: Yes, as you can see, that recommendation was accepted, and I think to some extent, even at that time, that was a role that my unit was fulfilling. I think it needed to be clear that that was on the employment tribunal side, and the issues and learning arising from that. It was not an all embracing advisory role on any HR matter. Clearly that would be beyond the scope of what we could deliver from the ET unit.

Miss Weekes: Can I just ask, because this will come into play some time during 2004, this year, and it is the effect of the equal treatment directive which now brings in discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief. Are the Met ready to deal with this?

Ms Crowther: Yes, I think we are reasonably well prepared. There has been a certain amount of guidance put out from the diversity directorate. I know information is available to all members of the organisation through the intranet. We have already had a couple of claims on those areas, so we are going to be learning very rapidly, I think. I think we are reasonably well prepared, because those matters, although they are new in terms of the legislation, are matters that were reflected in MPS equal opportunities policy and have been for many years. So it should not be that managers are required to do anything different, they should be managing those situations fairly in any case, so it is not new territory in that way.

Miss Weekes: We are, of course, going to hear from other representative groups that might include issues of religion and belief, for example, but do you think that the representative groups in general, like the groups for women, ethnic minorities, religion, do understand and appreciate the steps that are being taken by the Metropolitan Police to improve the workplace relationship?

People are never completely satisfied, of course, let me add that. But do you get feedback from them that they do understand the steps that have been taken, and are they supporting those steps?

Ms Crowther: From those groups that I come into contact with, and I would say that I do not have a lot of contact, it tends to be through a number of particular fora, I think there is a fairly positive attitude at the way the organisation is responding to the developments, and I think they can see a role for them working with us as they have been for a number of years now to improve our awareness around these things, and make sure things are as well managed as they can be.

Miss Weekes: One of the things you have mentioned is that the regular meetings with the BPA have floundered because – and I think it is hinted in your submission – the representatives do not always manage to get to the meetings. That is regrettable, is it not?

Ms Crowther: It is. I should say that that comment is based on something that is a little in the past now. We did have those regular meetings, and that goes back to when the BPA was first created, and, you know, that was welcomed.

Unfortunately, what was tending to happen was that whilst BPA executive members who worked within the HR function in Regency Street, who tended to be members of police staff, were able to attend, we were not getting the input from operational police officers, which is where the majority of the issues are arising. So that was unfortunate, but these are operational people, and obviously, they have been pulled away for other things.

So to be fair, it was getting a little bit cosy, because the person who typically was attending was the deputy chair, who is actually now one of my case managers, who had worked in the personnel function for a long time, and whilst he could present issues of concern coming up through HR and so on, from a police staff perspective, I felt we were losing something.

So it was really the decision of BPA at that time to say, "Let us leave this for the time being"; I mean, I appreciate they have so many demands trying to input to so many different meetings and so on, it is very difficult, but, you know, our door is open.

We did have a meeting last year involving a couple of their representatives, that brought in George McAnuff on Fairness at Work as well, and we had a useful exchange. I see that developing into something more regular. Unfortunately, it has not done so thus far, but that is, I think, more down to the ill-health of one of the people concerned rather than probably any lack of will on anyone's part.

Miss Weekes: And we know you do not have regular meetings with women groups.

Ms Crowther: No, that is right.

Miss Weekes: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Well, Ms Crowther, thank you very much indeed. It seems to us a suitable point to adjourn, our transcript writers at least need to have the necessary rest, so can I suggest that we reconvene at 2.15, please? Thank you very much.

1.25 pm
(The short adjournment)
2.15 pm

Sir William Morris: Right, welcome back.

Ms Crowther: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: We restart with Sir Anthony Burden, with one or two questions he would like to put to you.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Did you want to come back, Ms Crowther, on the point raised by Ms Weekes about the BPA case or the minority ethnic case?

Ms Crowther: Thank you, Sir Anthony, I think I will put that down to being in need of refreshment!

There are some examples in my submission, one at paragraph 19 and another at paragraph 20, where there were interventions in cases which had become employment tribunals, and where steps were taken to show some flexibility and encourage the applicant, in fact, in both cases, to make a future within the MPS.

Another case, another race case, I would like to refer to was one that involved a member of staff from the diversity directorate. As part of the resolution of her particular case, she was involved in work by consultants looking at the policy around family liaison officers; that was a role that she had been involved in, and she felt she had some particular points to make that would greatly enhance the work of that project, so that was facilitated. There were a number of other issues about good people management practices within diversity, and all of those were facilitated, and she was satisfied as part of the resolution of that employment tribunal which was eventually withdrawn. So just to make reference to those, thank you.

Sir Anthony Burden: If I could ask then, are statistics being kept anywhere within the organisation which would identify particular patterns of behaviour by managers lead to ET claims?

Ms Crowther: I suppose that would come out of the data that we keep about the nature of the issues complained of in the employment tribunal, so yes, that information is there, and I think I mentioned earlier that we classify those claims – it is difficult to group them, because every case is very much individual, but as far as possible, we do try to broadly group them, so there is information.

Sir Anthony Burden: But if a particular manager or a particular management style of a borough, for example, appeared to be leading to a disproportionate number of employment tribunals, would you be able to flag that and bring it to the notice of HR or whoever, so that it could be fed back for some form of behavioural change?

Ms Crowther: Yes, most definitely. There are a number of ways that that would happen. We do provide data on a business group basis, so that information would get that kind of overview to senior managers within the group, to see if there were particular patterns, be it on a location basis or a particular theme, such as perhaps people complaining about unfair selection for training opportunities or something like that.

So it is done on a business group basis, but it is also done as part of DPS, through the strategic intelligence desk; we feed location and theme information into that desk, and that forms part of a general picture covering all the areas of DPS activity, so it could be about complaints, misconduct and so on.

Then that is analysed, and if particular issues come out of that, then the way forward is determined. What is needed: is it further analysis, particular sorts of interventions? And I can think of, in one particular case, a borough was highlighted, and we did a lot of detailed work then to see what were the issues in their particular employment tribunals, amongst other matters, because they were featuring highly in a number of different respects.

So we can drill down into it and develop some sort of positive programme for the borough or business group OCU concerned, depending upon the nature of what is identified.

Sir Anthony Burden: And having identified it, was that followed through to your satisfaction in terms of trying to put some remedial exercises or whatever in place in relation to that borough?

Ms Crowther: I think time will tell. In the particular case, we had delivered a number of workshops for first line managers, both police officers and police staff at the particular location. I do not believe there have been any further employment tribunal claims from that particular location. That could be explained by all manner of things, I am sure our input, perhaps, is just one factor in that, but that was the approach taken in that case.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Could we have your views, please, on the proportionality of the Metropolitan Police Service black and visible ethnic minority staff taking tribunal cases; and secondly, having sort of taken that step, could you give us a feel behind the statistics as to the general trend of underlying causes?

Ms Crowther: Well, the proportionality in terms of the total number of employment tribunal claims, I think we are running at something like 35 per cent on grounds of race, a similar number on sex, and the remaining 30 per cent are divided between race and sex together, discrimination claims, and all the other employment areas, such as unfair dismissal. So that is the data.

Clearly, that is significant, because if we have a comparable number of race claims to sex claims, and yet we have a far smaller proportion of minority ethnic officers and staff within the organisation than we do females, then there is disproportionality there, and that is recognised. Hence all the positive work, the diversity directorate, et cetera, and the Home Office piece of research that DPS has commissioned to look into: what is the explanation for this?

As I mentioned earlier, approximately half the ETs we receive already have an internal investigation in progress. Now that may be into the conduct of the applicant, or it may be into the allegations made by the applicant, but I think that piece of research will be very helpful to us in informing what is underlying that apparent disproportionality, and telling us how we can go forward in addressing it.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you, we were told about that. Can I just move on to external mediation? Because it is something which has been spoken about by quite a few people, either in submission form or here before us.

We are really looking at two elements: one is a sort of final steps solution, which would involve something like an ombudsman, but the other suggestion is that we need some – or we need to consider some form of external mediation or resolution early on in that sort of golden hour, and you will have heard me refer to that this morning.

Can I have your views, please, as to how useful you feel that will be, bringing in that external element to try and resolve really at the borough stage or at the directorate stage?

Ms Crowther: I would welcome it. I think anything that will assist us in trying to resolve these, I would like to try it out and see how useful it is. It is something that we are adopting at the moment. We have external mediation, the final stage that you referred to, in place for a particular employment tribunal in a few weeks' time, so we are optimistic that will deliver a positive outcome for us and for the applicant.

So I think in a small number of cases, where we are unable to reach a conciliation with the individual, that it is something that would be beneficial.

I think George McAnuff yesterday mentioned that at one of the early points of the Fairness at Work procedure, there is the option to go in that route, and it again may be the case that for some particular sets of issues, that will be the best way of managing them.

But I think we must be cautious, because 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.

But yes, certainly, it is an option, and it is something that we have always considered, and there have been cases that we have taken to mediation. I am aware that there is a major project between Fairness at Work and the diversity directorate specifically on this point, looking at use of external mediators, and also training up a group of people in-house who would take on this kind of role. So it is something under active consideration.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I just show you part of a submission from the MET-TUS – I will let it come up on the screen. It is under the heading of, "Women in the organisation", 7.5; perhaps I can leave you just to read that for a second. (Pause).

I just want to test that out, if I may. Is that something that you are seeing evidenced through ET claims at all?

Ms Crowther: No, it would be wrong to say that we had not had the issue of part-time working brought up in an employment tribunal claim, but I do not believe I have seen any for some considerable time, and the one I am particularly bringing to mind, we actually successfully defended.

I am surprised that the trade union are expressing this view; I am a part-time worker, half my unit are part-time. Any intention on the part of management to refuse a request for part-time working has to be discussed with me or a member of my team, and I do not get very many of those.

Now whether that is because people do not feel comfortable even raising the issue with their line management in the first place, I do not know, but I have the impression that the organisation is quite receptive to alternative working patterns. It has been a policy position for a long time – I think we were amongst the first forces, in respect of police officers, to agree to part-time working, and particularly in respect of probationers, we took that step to introduce it, even though regulations did not permit it, because it was clearly a matter of sex discrimination.

So it is some years since we had those options available to us – I am talking about police officers, and I know you are specifically referring to the police staff trade unions there, but my perspective is that the organisation has a positive record in alternative working arrangements. And if the unions feel differently, I would be very interested if they could present me with particular examples, and I would like to get into what that is all about, and are there some messages that we need to be putting out about how managers are responding to those type of requests?

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just clarify something you said there. You said managers would have to discuss it with you or a member of your team; is that only in relation to your unit, or do you have a role particularly within the organisation?

Ms Crowther: That is corporately: any requests where the intention is to turn down – so that we can test what are the justifications, are they objective, will it stand the tribunal's scrutiny? Because clearly the potential – because most of these cases will be females, and probably for reasons of childcare and so on, part-time workers typically are female, so the potential is there for sex discrimination claims; we want to make sure that a reasonable management decision is being taken, and one that the service can defend.

I would rather do that at the outset, rather than when we have got the employment tribunal, and then find this was not a reasonable position to have taken. It does not show the degree of flexibility that one would wish to see.

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, I am pleased your unit is offering that advice, but is that not a mainstream HR function?

Ms Crowther: Well, I think it has its roots in when we were part of the HR function.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you have retained that –

Ms Crowther: We have retained that, yes, because I think the HR policy unit felt it did not have the exposure to what would be the justification; we have that because of our role dealing with the employment tribunals, and how they would view any rejection.

So when the policy was drafted around flexible working, the request was made or the direction, I should say, for managers to seek the advice of my unit if they were likely to be refusing any such request.

Sir Anthony Burden: Are there any other residual responsibilities you have which are mainstream HR?

Ms Crowther: I cannot think of anything specific – I am looking at my colleague over there – at the moment, but I think we do provide quite a lot of guidance, written and telephone guidance, on the spectrum of HR related matters based on our particular experience, and that is in addition to what the HR directorate is providing. But I think it is because we are known to have a lot of experience in that area, and people will come to us because they know that that is a useful thing for them to do, probably in addition to what the HR directorate can provide them with; covering all bases, perhaps.

Sir Anthony Burden: So your perception would be that they would also go to HR?

Ms Crowther: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Hopefully.

Ms Crowther: I think so, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Miss Weekes has one last question for you.

Further questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: I should have allowed you to comment on a question I put to the legal department about there being a trend – it may be small – that you are now receiving employment law tribunal cases from white officers who allege discrimination; is that right?

Ms Crowther: Yes, that is right.

Miss Weekes: What is the extent of it?

Ms Crowther: There is not a significant number of cases, but there have been regular cases received over the years on that basis.

Miss Weekes: What is the response from the MPS on that? Is it a communication problem, as you have indicated, on race and gender?

Ms Crowther: I think that may be part of it. I think often what happens in those particular cases is that there is a perception from the officers that they are being unfairly treated following a complaint perhaps by a minority ethnic colleague, and that the MPS response to that complaint, if indeed it is a complaint at all – and that is an issue in some cases – is unfair and disproportionate.

So then we find ourselves into a race discrimination case from a white officer. There have been a number on that sort of basis over the year, albeit a fairly small number, but some of those have been caught up in the Liversidge difficulty, and I think in fact of the 15 or so cases, race cases that have been running for more than two years, seven were from white officers.

Miss Weekes: And what steps have been taken to deal with what clearly is a little bit of a growing trend?

Ms Crowther: Well, on the same basis we would approach any other case, it is obviously very much on what are the circumstances: is there any opportunity to resolve it without the need for it to proceed towards a tribunal? All I can say really is that they are treated on the same basis as others.

There have been efforts to explain the rationale for whatever action has been taken, to show that it was reasonable and proportionate, but clearly officers have not been satisfied by those explanations and have chosen to proceed.

Miss Weekes: Thank you for your help.

Sir William Morris: Ms Crowther, that completes the series of questions that myself and my colleagues wanted to put to you. But I did say at the start of my truncated introduction that you will be offered one last opportunity to make a closing statement, if you so wish, so if you do, this is your moment.

Ms Crowther: Okay, thank you. Before I do that, I would perhaps, if I may, just come back on a question that Miss Weekes put to my colleagues, or a point she made, concerning sharing the information that an employment tribunal has been lodged; you were left with the impression, I think, from my submission that it went round a lot of people in the organisation.

I would not want to leave you with that impression. The information, the ET1, is really only shared with the personnel manager where the individual works. It is sent out on a confidential footing, and it is very much down to them to decide which of the senior management colleagues and any others need to be put in the picture; there could be issues about the welfare support management of the individual, but also for those colleagues who might be named in the application, parties complained about. What we want to avoid is the first they learn of this is a phone call from our legal services department, asking them up to make a statement, when they did not even know there was any form of complaint. So that is that local management.

The only other person is the business manager for that particular work area, who has strategic responsibility for the employment tribunals, and needs to be picking up any themes or location issues, and also could be involved in the diamond risk management group, so they would be expected to be aware that a new tribunal has been received. I just wanted to come back and explain that, thank you.

As a closing statement, what I would like to do is simply quote from the front page of our website, and this has been in place on the MPS intranet for round about two and a half years. I hope it demonstrates that, throughout, we have been committed to early intervention and certainly are not in the business of letting tribunal claims drag on if we can avoid that.

What I say there is:

"It is imperative that as part of our mission to make London safe for all the people we serve, we do not neglect the safety and needs of our colleagues in the workplace. We must treat everyone fairly, be open and honest and prepared to justify our decisions when challenged. We should not be defensive when individuals take up legitimate channels to raise their concerns. We should be responsive and creative in trying to find workable solutions wherever possible."

Moving on from that, I do believe, based on my exposure to the many situations involving internal conflict and challenge over the years, that the vast majority of MPS managers are entirely committed to those sentiments, and every day do their utmost to achieve fair treatment and dignity at work for colleagues from all our internal communities.

Sometimes, we do not get things quite right, and we need to be smarter at acknowledging this at an early stage, putting matters right and moving on, but 95 per cent of the time, our managers are doing everything we would expect and more.

If that point does not come across to you as the Inquiry panel from having heard from members of the MPS, seen our report, seen our data, then I think we will have failed you and failed the managers out there who are doing a very good job.

Just finally, I would like to pay tribute to my small dedicated team in the ET unit who deal with a highly contentious area of work in unfavourable working conditions. They perform their role without thanks when things go well, a great deal of criticism when things appear to go badly, but always with considerable professionalism and commitment. Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. We are trying expand your team!

Ms Crowther: Yes, please!

Sir William Morris: Before you go, could I just for the record say that as with all our witnesses, Ms Crowther, it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses, we will want to ask you a few more questions, either by writing to you or asking you to come back and see us.

If we feel the need to do that, we will try and do so in a way which minimises any inconvenience at all to you, but for the moment, it just leaves me, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to thank you for coming and thank you for the contribution that you are making to our Inquiry. Thank you very much.

On this website:

• Evidence: Esme Crowther
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Esme Crowther in her appearance at the Inquiry.