Public and Commercial Services Union

DWP/BB/118/08

DWP introduces changes

Changes to the DWP discipline policy and the decision makers guide have been made to address concerns raised by PCS. The Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) has been consulted about the changes which should help to support a fair and reasonable application of the disciplinary process.

Informal disciplinary action

The provisions for informal disciplinary action are moved to policy paragraphs 5 to 7. A new paragraph confirms that:

“there is nothing to prevent a manager who starts a formal disciplinary process from reverting to informal action if, when more facts or evidence becomes available, it appears that the issue is not serious enough to warrant formal action.”

Investigation and preparation

The contents of policy paras 8 to 10 were previously published as paragraphs 10 to 12.

Penalties for misconduct

The penalties for misconduct policy is changed under a revised policy paragraph 13.

The “possible outcome” box for serious misconduct has been revised to state:

• The minimum penalty will be a written warning. In more serious cases the penalty will be a final written warning.
• If managers accept mitigation put forward by the employee a final written warning may be reduced to a written warning.
• Exceptionally, a written warning for serious misconduct may be reduced to an oral warning without reducing the level of the misconduct.

Formal disciplinary stages

The definitions of the formal disciplinary stages are moved to policy paragraph 15.

Repeated offences advice

A new disciplinary advice Q&A 23 is introduced to clarify the definition of repeated minor offences and how they link together to become serious misconduct.

The policy intent is that warnings should act as a deterrent. A repeated minor offence occurs when there is already a live warning in place for a previous minor offence. The repeated offence links with the warning already in place and becomes serious misconduct.

If several minor offences occur and no live warnings are in place, these would be treated as one minor offence. They would not be repeated minor offences because no previous warning record exists.

Decision makers guide – New evidence

Amendments are introduced to the decision makers guide (reviewing decisions – appeal manager) under paragraph 5.

The final bullet point under para 5.2, on what an appeal manager should consider, is revised to include a new second sentence.

• “Has consideration been given to any new evidence? Has this been shared with all parties for comment before the appeal decision is made, where relevant to confirming or changing the decision in question?”

This amendment to para 5.2 is introduced to address a bad practice which has occurred in appeal decisions under the grievance procedures. The examples of the failure to comply with a principle of natural justice were in attendance management rather than disciplinary cases.

When an appeal manager has new evidence which the employee has not seen, but is relevant to the decision to be made on the appeal , such evidence needs to be shared with the employee for comment before the appeal decision is made.

Decision makers guide – Proportionality and justification

The second bullet point under paragraph 5.3 is revised to include proportionality and justification so that in disciplinary cases the appeal manager must be satisfied that:

• “The penalty imposed was consistent and proportionate with any different outcomes for similar types of cases being justified”

The Civil Service Appeal Board Good Practice Principles outline how the principle of proportionality may be applied in practice.

Disciplinary advice Q&A 8 provides guidance on mitigating circumstances.

Advice for members

Circular DWP/MB/027/08 provides guidance for members on their individual rights and procedural fairness when formal disciplinary action is initiated.

Evidence for improvements

Evidence of problems with the application of the disciplinary policy, procedures and advice should be sent by branches to the DWP group office.

Such evidence is essential to support our case for further improvements.