Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Am not posting these things as a lay person....i have studied qualifying law degree level subjects which include public law, ie human rights, police law; and criminal law. The Union solicitor in addition to the Union collectively cannot say there is no case to answer, as this would be denying you justice under Union laws, including Access to Justice Act. In my view it's simply a human rights breach, ie deprivation of a right to a fair hearing or being treated in a derisory manner as per European Convention of Human Rights' Articles as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, by an employer/ the police as a public authority, who is also part of the state's substantive power, ie under the Executive's (leader of government) control. The solicitor works for the Union therefore you need to make a complaint about the Union and or the solicitor to perhaps a senior partner in Thompsons if the solicitor is the problem. The Union has its own constitution, its rules which much be followed, which will includes rules for investigating employee complaints.

I think there is scope for complaints about the Unison rep at the police who put together a pack of only six documents including daughter's Unison tribunal application form - The PSI report and daughter's rebuttal, two resignation letters, and the PS36 finding her "guilty as charged" (or similar!). Far too few documents for anyone to make an informed decision - and delayed her application to Unison for more than two months.

The Unison Regional Organiser, who should have known that there were far too few documents for any solicitor to make an informed decision

The solicitor who should have simply asked "where's the rest?"

The term "lying by omission" perhaps comes to mind.

I've taken note of your posts 43 and 45 and I'll do as you suggest.

And by the way - I've written a letter based on the info from Mariefab (42) and yourself (43) and sent it to the Unison Regional Office with substantial evidence. We'll see what, if anything, that produces. As you have carefully explained, this is far more than a tribunal but with obstructions everywhere, this seemed one way to go.

I'll also see what I can put together to take to the MP. Thank you

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I think there is scope for complaints about the Unison rep at the police who put together a pack of only six documents including daughter's Unison tribunal application form - The PSI report and daughter's rebuttal, two resignation letters, and the PS36 finding her "guilty as charged" (or similar!). Far too few documents for anyone to make an informed decision - and delayed her application to Unison for more than two months.

The Unison Regional Organiser, who should have known that there were far too few documents for any solicitor to make an informed decision

The solicitor who should have simply asked "where's the rest?"

The term "lying by omission" perhaps comes to mind.

I've taken note of your posts 43 and 45 and I'll do as you suggest.

And by the way - I've written a letter based on the info from Mariefab (42) and yourself (43) and sent it to the Unison Regional Office with substantial evidence. We'll see what, if anything, that produces. As you have carefully explained, this is far more than a tribunal but with obstructions everywhere, this seemed one way to go.

I'll also see what I can put together to take to the MP. Thank you

The PSI does not have the statutory duty under the law to investigate criminal matters, the police do, including under PACE and the prosecution solely or in partnership with the police decide if there is a public interest to bring criminal charges with a view to any potential convictions. The PSI may assist the police as it's far cheaper to employ PSIs than it is to employ police officers, however the police cannot delegate any of its statutory duties as this would notwithstanding defy the 'rule of law' but stand in the face of Parliament's statutory intent by degrading its statutes, ie its Acts. I would raise these things as a point of law. Every public authority power must derive from law otherwise it is ultra vires, ie illegal in the public law (but not criminal law) sense, in other words outside their legal jurisdiction.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I think there is a massive conflict of interest with the crime at your daughter's home and this linked to her employment as gross miss conduct. The two things are just not connected and cannot be connected and if they were it would be an abuse of employer powers. For a start, what happens at home is of no relevance to the 'Employment Rights Act.' Your daughter simply has the right to a private life and without it is a human rights' violation. Her personal life being affected by a genuine crime affects criminal law not employment law. It is simply outrageous and this PSI needs to have a disciplinary their self. In my view, your daughter's job as a police caller has absolutely nothing to do with her conduct when she is assaulted at home. This in my view is automatically unfair dismissal, ie constructive dismissal, and by that your daughter should have every right to leave her employment and claim automatic unfair dismissal. The police are part of government that is the Executive part of Government, under David Cameron's administration. The courts are another part of the government as well as the legislator ie Parliament. In my view, the Executive is abusing its powers in a free and democratic country. I would not stop your complaint, I would make a complaint to your MP as the way your daughter has been treated is absolutely outrageous.

In view of your legal studies (post 45), you may like to know how the police consider the Police Code of Ethics as being more important than my daughter's human rights. Below is an excerpt from the decision to uphold the findings of the 4 December misconduct meeting:-

To clarify the outcome letter, it was PSI Fay who wrote the SOR. Under the Police Code of Ethics Standards of Professional Behaviour (point 10), the standard states I will report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour. PSI Fay was very concerned at your lack of ability for self control in this circumstance and addressed this concern appropriately with her line manager.
In the Preamble of the Code of Ethics, point 1.4.2 under Responsibilities it states:
You are expected to use the Code to guide your behaviour at all times – whether at work or away from work, online or offline.

Appeal point 3:
Amongst the many factual errors in her report, including the misspelling of my name some 35 times, PSI Fay expressed her opinions that:
"It concerns me that someone with her aggression and general behaviour is employed by HC to deal with members of the public and It is my opinion that MxxxxxA has both started and fuelled this disagreement by her behaviour at the time. She is completely unreasonable and if her behaviour today is anything to go by she is responsible for causing issues at the address"
Is it appropriate or even fair that PSI Fay, investigating potential assault and public order offences, called into question the victim's ability (my ability) to do my job based on the PSI's perceptions of my reactions at a time when I was understandably distressed, vulnerable and in my own home? Furthermore, why was PSI Fay reporting on her personal opinions instead of facts?
As above, the Code of Ethics point 10 relates to this in that improper conduct and behaviour should be reported. PSI Fay and Crate were acting within the guidelines of Standards of Professional Behaviour in drawing their manager’s attention to this behaviour

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I think there is scope for complaints about the Unison rep at the police who put together a pack of only six documents including daughter's Unison tribunal application form - The PSI report and daughter's rebuttal, two resignation letters, and the PS36 finding her "guilty as charged" (or similar!). Far too few documents for anyone to make an informed decision - and delayed her application to Unison for more than two months.

The Unison Regional Organiser, who should have known that there were far too few documents for any solicitor to make an informed decision

The solicitor who should have simply asked "where's the rest?"

The term "lying by omission" perhaps comes to mind.

I've taken note of your posts 43 and 45 and I'll do as you suggest.

And by the way - I've written a letter based on the info from Mariefab (42) and yourself (43) and sent it to the Unison Regional Office with substantial evidence. We'll see what, if anything, that produces. As you have carefully explained, this is far more than a tribunal but with obstructions everywhere, this seemed one way to go.

I'll also see what I can put together to take to the MP. Thank you

You can raise human rights in a tribunal.

- - - Updated - - -

In view of your legal studies (post 45), you may like to know how the police consider the Police Code of Ethics as being more important than my daughter's human rights. Below is an excerpt from the decision to uphold the findings of the 4 December misconduct meeting:-

To clarify the outcome letter, it was PSI Fay who wrote the SOR. Under the Police Code of Ethics Standards of Professional Behaviour (point 10), the standard states I will report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour. PSI Fay was very concerned at your lack of ability for self control in this circumstance and addressed this concern appropriately with her line manager.
In the Preamble of the Code of Ethics, point 1.4.2 under Responsibilities it states:
You are expected to use the Code to guide your behaviour at all times – whether at work or away from work, online or offline.

Appeal point 3:
Amongst the many factual errors in her report, including the misspelling of my name some 35 times, PSI Fay expressed her opinions that:
"It concerns me that someone with her aggression and general behaviour is employed by HC to deal with members of the public and It is my opinion that MxxxxxA has both started and fuelled this disagreement by her behaviour at the time. She is completely unreasonable and if her behaviour today is anything to go by she is responsible for causing issues at the address"
Is it appropriate or even fair that PSI Fay, investigating potential assault and public order offences, called into question the victim's ability (my ability) to do my job based on the PSI's perceptions of my reactions at a time when I was understandably distressed, vulnerable and in my own home? Furthermore, why was PSI Fay reporting on her personal opinions instead of facts?
As above, the Code of Ethics point 10 relates to this in that improper conduct and behaviour should be reported. PSI Fay and Crate were acting within the guidelines of Standards of Professional Behaviour in drawing their manager’s attention to this behaviour

Update: look at this government guidance (Home Office) for conducting police misconduct investigations, reporting police conduct. It's about 100 pages but you can do key word searches. I am sure you'll find something interest in there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...anceJuly14.pdf

The Code of Ethics is meant to stop police abusing their positions. The problem is that the PSI investigated criminal matters affecting your daughter who has a disability who just happens to be a civilian in her police employment. You say she was accused of 'gross misconduct'....was this thoroughly investigated?

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Update: look at this government guidance (Home Office) for conducting police misconduct investigations, reporting police conduct. It's about 100 pages but you can do key word searches. I am sure you'll find something interest in there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...anceJuly14.pdf

The Code of Ethics is meant to stop police abusing their positions. The problem is that the PSI investigated criminal matters affecting your daughter who has a disability who just happens to be a civilian in her police employment. You say she was accused of 'gross misconduct'....was this thoroughly investigated?[/QUOTE]


She was accused of misconduct. The papers are attached, PS15, PS21, PS36.

The sole evidence was the word of the PSI and her witness (who came with her on 23 Feb as a witness) against that of my daughter and me, her witness. The HR investigator then went trawling for evidence to use against daughter. She obtained a statement from a colleague that daughter got thrown out because we proved it to be a distortion of facts and therefore unreliable. My daughter, after being served with misconduct papers on 8 May and being refused temporary redeployment on 27 June, 01 & 02 July and other dates, as well as the Section 4a Public order offence on 29 June became totally distraught and broken. When interviewed on (I think) 21 July by the HR interviewer in the presence of a manager and another HR person as well as her Unison rep, my daughter was resentful and did not want to answer the questions put to her. Both the HR manager and her section manager said she was rude (perhaps she was, I wasn't there) and seemingly what happened at that interview was the deciding factor at the 4 December misconduct meeting.

For interest, I have posted the misconduct papers. PS15 was that originally served and daughter's understanding is that the allegations it contains were those investigated throughout. Allegation 1 - they were PSI's, not police officers, and there was no neighbour dispute, but in fact an assault and public order issue. PS21 that was issued on 12 November was included in the misconduct pack that was sent to my daughter the same day(received on 16 November). The wording of the allegation was altered, but again, there was no antisocial behaviour dispute. Finally PS36 is the documents served re the findings of the 4 Dec misconduct meeting. Part of her appeal concerned the changed wording of the allegations - using O’Farrill v New Manage Ltd t/a Hooks Gym London Shootfighters on the grounds that although the employer could investigate different things, they could not find her guilty of something different than what they had told her was alleged. The appeal response was The allegations were not changed. This point was covered in the misconduct meeting, and it was explained to you how the allegations needed to be made more specific as to where Standards of Professional Behaviour had been breached. Quite often following an investigation the wording of the allegations can be made more specific and in this case one of the allegations was dropped.
PSIs are trained police staff Investigators. This has not been considered as part of the misconduct appeal as it had no bearing on the outcome of the misconduct meeting.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a good read

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Update: look at this government guidance (Home Office) for conducting police misconduct investigations, reporting police conduct. It's about 100 pages but you can do key word searches. I am sure you'll find something interest in there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...anceJuly14.pdf

The Code of Ethics is meant to stop police abusing their positions. The problem is that the PSI investigated criminal matters affecting your daughter who has a disability who just happens to be a civilian in her police employment. You say she was accused of 'gross misconduct'....was this thoroughly investigated?

She was accused of misconduct. The papers are attached, PS15, PS21, PS36.

The sole evidence was the word of the PSI and her witness (who came with her on 23 Feb as a witness) against that of my daughter and me, her witness. The HR investigator then went trawling for evidence to use against daughter. She obtained a statement from a colleague that daughter got thrown out because we proved it to be a distortion of facts and therefore unreliable. My daughter, after being served with misconduct papers on 8 May and being refused temporary redeployment on 27 June, 01 & 02 July and other dates, as well as the Section 4a Public order offence on 29 June became totally distraught and broken. When interviewed on (I think) 21 July by the HR interviewer in the presence of a manager and another HR person as well as her Unison rep, my daughter was resentful and did not want to answer the questions put to her. Both the HR manager and her section manager said she was rude (perhaps she was, I wasn't there) and seemingly what happened at that interview was the deciding factor at the 4 December misconduct meeting.

For interest, I have posted the misconduct papers. PS15 was that originally served and daughter's understanding is that the allegations it contains were those investigated throughout. Allegation 1 - they were PSI's, not police officers, and there was no neighbour dispute, but in fact an assault and public order issue. PS21 that was issued on 12 November was included in the misconduct pack that was sent to my daughter the same day(received on 16 November). The wording of the allegation was altered, but again, there was no antisocial behaviour dispute. Finally PS36 is the documents served re the findings of the 4 Dec misconduct meeting. Part of her appeal concerned the changed wording of the allegations - using O’Farrill v New Manage Ltd t/a Hooks Gym London Shootfighters on the grounds that although the employer could investigate different things, they could not find her guilty of something different than what they had told her was alleged. The appeal response was The allegations were not changed. This point was covered in the misconduct meeting, and it was explained to you how the allegations needed to be made more specific as to where Standards of Professional Behaviour had been breached. Quite often following an investigation the wording of the allegations can be made more specific and in this case one of the allegations was dropped.
PSIs are trained police staff Investigators. This has not been considered as part of the misconduct appeal as it had no bearing on the outcome of the misconduct meeting.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a good read[/QUOTE]

What did your daughter say on face book.. as this could be a breach of trust, which could be grounds to justify her police employer's actions.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

What did your daughter say on face book.. as this could be a breach of trust, which could be grounds to justify her police employer's actions.

She doesn't remember saying anything other than that the police had let her down again (as they did over an incident in 2012 involving her parked car that was hit by a neighbour who lied to the police). She took the posting down soon after she put it up.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Out of interest, I'm posting the Unison solicitor, Godric Jolliffe's 21 March letter giving reasons why daughter has no case for an employment tribunal and why Unison won't take her case. I haven't studied this in detail but what stands out to me is page 2, penultimate paragraph:

"Ms xxxxxxxx says that she was told in a meeting that it was normal to refuse transfer requests where a Hampshire employee was subject to misconduct proceedings"

whereas the document (her statement) that was included in the documents Unison sent to Godric Jollife says:

"(During the meeting) it was confirmed that it was quite normal for someone under Misconduct to be moved temporarily to another department, that there were vacancies in Alarms admin and other departments and the only valid reason for Insp Pxxxxx to refuse my request would have been if I was not doing my job properly (Unison have obtained information that mine was one of the highest performances in the job)"

Happy reading