Increased fitness standard

[Worr]

Hi,

in 2007 I joined the police, the fitness standard was 5.4 on a shuttle run, which I can still maintain to this day. However they are now increasing the standard to 7.6 which is much harder and I can't achieve. They have offered training , although nothing has been offered before in the last eight years, but have not stated what will happen to me if I can't make the standard, other than an email saying if training can't help you make the grade you will have to leave. I am 48 and have picked up many injuries in a twenty one year career with other forces. Where do I stand? This is really moving the goal posts for older officers. Any help appreciated.

[stevemLS]

Re: Increased fitness standard

The college of policing says this about failure to achieve the relevant standard:

If an officer is not able to pass the JRFT at the first attempt, forces must provide supportiveaction (see 4.2 JRFT familiarisation and support) and allow a series of at least two retakes,with sufficient intervals between each attempt. A period of at least six weeks is advisable betweeneach retake in order to allow the officer time to train and develop to achieve the 5:4 standard.If all appropriate support measures and alternatives have been delivered and the officer is stillunable to achieve the required standard, forces should use the unsatisfactory performanceprocedures (UPP) as set out in the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 procedure.If an officer cannot pass the JRFT, forces must not permit the officer to undertake PST. To allowthe officer participation in PST may not be a legally defensible position if an injury occurs.


However, everything I have found suggests the standard is still 5.4 but can be greater for specialist roles.

The only one that seems to be set at 7.6 is for firearms officers? http://www.college.police.uk/What-we...pecialist.aspx

[Worr]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Thanks for the reply, I am a firearms officer, but my entire force is, civil nuclear constabulary. As we are a private force not home office, our standard always was 5.4 , however we are trying to align with college of policing and there firearms standard is 7.6. All officers regardless off age or sex must meet this standard over the next twelve months. My status so they tell me half employee and half warranted officer.

[stevemLS]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Had never heard of them!

However, a bit of digging round says that you are a constable and you affirm allegiance to the crown in the same way as any other officer. (It seems to me to be a binary question, you either are a constable or you're not - I don't see how it can be half and half?)

As far as I can see Part 1 of the Energy Act 2004 defines yours as a "constabulary" and you as "constables" s58 of the Act imposes on you requirements as to governance, administration and conditions of service that are the same as any requirement imposed on any other officer in accordance with s50 of the Police Act 1996.

[Worr]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Thanks again, although they still are adamant about us being employee and constable, we get paid less, haven't signed upto all police regs, and no other force will except us as transferee . Our union is not part of the national police federation.

The issue is though they will raise the fitness standard next year to a much higher level so where do I stand as a middle aged bloke who probably can't make the new standard? I can still achieve the old standard as I did when I joined? Should they be offering a voluntary exit scheme if as they say I am 50/50 employee ? They like to "cherry pick" what we are, when it suits....

[stevemLS]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Yes, there is a bit of wiggle room in that s58 says that the police regs will apply and will vary only to the extent made necessary by the particular circumstances you are working under.

To be frank, that is, I think, about as far as I can go - it is clear that failure to meet the standards is dealt with as a performance issue under the 2012 Regs which can result in dismissal/a requirement to resign. On that basis, I can't see why they would offer a voluntary scheme if they can get rid in any event.

Sorry that sounds a bit bleak. (It is not at all unusual for employers to pick and choose!)

[Worr]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Cheers , however I have a capability clause in my contract that entitles me , depending on service to upto two years pay, if a medical discharge isn't on the cards. Seems a bit unfair though...

[stevemLS]

Re: Increased fitness standard

Have you spoken to the Federation about it?

You can't be the only officer in that position?

What I would be wanting to check with them is whether a discharge on the grounds of failing to meet the fitness requirement would be regarded as a medical discharge? What does the capability clause say?

[Worr]

Re: Increased fitness standard

I will dig out my contract, but usually officers who are not medically unfit, fall under the capability clause, dependent on how many years service your entitled upto two years pay, so if you've done twenty out of forty years you get 50%. One girl couldn't shoot so they got rid eventually.
this will effect I reckon about 30% of the force, 5% of home office fail it and they train every year and are much younger. We have never trained.
i think it's unusual an employer can make every one unfit for service, when the old standard made no issues. It's a good way to get shot of the old...

[stevemLS]

Re: Increased fitness standard

I find it odd that it makes no allowance for age or gender.

It is a simple physiological fact that fitness and physical capabilities deteriorate with age - that would seem to me to be an objective justification for having different standards for different ages.

I am surprised it hasn't been challenged - though the police collectively have obviously considered the possibility.

Have you spoken to your Fed Rep?