Public and Commercial Services Union

DWP/BB/116/07

Management compliance checks

Jobcentre Plus has introduced three attendance management compliance checks. The volume of checks can be increased at managements discretion but the minimum requirements are:

• 100% check of in-month absences reaching the consideration point
• A 5% check of in-month absences exceeding 28 days;
• A 5% check of all in-month absence cases, including those above.

These are the only attendance management compliance checks which should be used in Jobcentre Plus. This means that the toolkit pro forma that was for use prior to formal action should not now be used. The required consideration point check details (para 8) include:

“Has appropriate formal action been considered and followed? Is relevant documentation held on file? Has any decision not to give a formal warning been recorded, following consultation with a band E manager, including reasons not to do so? Where reasons are included in the list of exceptions details at para 3.2b of AM procedures, these cases are referred to a band E Manager for information purposes only.”

Transparency, justice and fairness

Whatever compliance checks are devised, and wherever they are used in DWP, the same basic principles must be applied in all circumstances. These principles are management standards for delivery of:

• transparency of decision making;
• natural justice, and;
• procedural fairness.

The arrangements for the local delivery of the compliance checks is a legitimate subject for consultation under the corporate employee relations framework. Applying HR policies is listed under paragraph 2.17 of the framework as one of the common issues which should be the subject of consultation. Local discussion may include concerns about compliance with the circumstances when a warning should not be given (procedures para 3.2a).

Disclosure of advice

Transparency of decision making is supported by the DWP data handling procedures (para 7.5) which expects managers to disclose personal data which they hold to the employee, when asked to do so, without need for a formal subject access request. Disclosure would be appropriate under the Data Protection Act in any case. Disclosure of advice given by a senior manager, HR or case conference is also a requirement of natural justice (decision makers guide glossary para 8).

Delivery of natural justice

The delivery of natural justice requires compliance with the procedure for the member and their PCS representative to be given a fair opportunity both to state the member’s case (and to know and answer the DWP case) at a meeting with a decision maker at each stage of the formal procedures.

Some managers, under pressure from compliance checks, may feel that they have, in reality, no authority to actually act as the decision maker. In such cases the formal meeting will need to be arranged with a more senior manager who does have the real authority to make decisions and not simply apply “advice” as an instruction.

Evidence that a more senior manager is the real decision maker may be provided by:

• admissions by line managers that they must adopt advice as an instruction.
• evidence from the full written record of the discussion and outcome which should include reasons for giving or not giving a warning (attendance procedures para 3.13 and 3.24).

Where a manager admits they are not the decision maker an oral/written warning meeting must be arranged with a genuine decision maker.

Where the written record provides evidence that advice has been misused as an instruction then the grievance meeting should be arranged with the genuine decision maker.

Procedural fairness compliance

Jobcentre Plus has confirmed the importance of procedural fairness. Branch briefing DWP/BB/108/07 provides a copy of the letter issued to managers which asks them to ensure that the following standards are met as a minimum:

• Dismissal/demotion decision makers and appeal managers must have had no previous involvement in the case (attendance procedures paras 6.5 and 7.0)
• A formal meeting must take place with the decision maker at each stage of the procedure (attendance policy paras 6 and 21)
• When deciding on the appropriateness of improvement warnings, decision makers may take advice but not instructions from senior managers.

PCS representatives should raise non compliance using the employee relations framework or the grievance procedures as appropriate.

Appeal unfair warnings

The grievance procedures should be used to appeal all unfair warnings. A formal grievance should be raised without delay within the DWP time limit of 15 working days of the decision. An appeal must be submitted within 10 working days of the grievance decision.

The appeal manager must be of a higher grade and “demonstrably independent and not previously involved in the disputed decision” (grievance procedures para 4.2).

The decision makers guide glossary (para 11) defines “procedural correctness” and expects appeal managers to consider procedural shortcomings and make a judgement about:

• the effect of these on natural justice and;
• to what extent, if any, they disadvantaged the employee.

Branches which remain concerned that the decision remains fundamentally flawed after the appeal stage should refer such cases to PCS DWP group office (attendance policy para 33).