Statistics on staff suspensions as a result of disciplinary infractions up to the end of 2006

1240/5(3202)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY D.W. MEZBOURIAN OF ST. LAWRENCE

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 13th MARCH 2007

Question

Would the Chief Minister inform Members –

1. o f the total number of staff, by Department, who were suspended as a result of disciplinary infractions during the year 2006 and in each case identify the employee group concerned, the nature of the alleged infraction, the period of suspension, and the means of disposal of the case?
2. o u t of the total number of staff who were suspended during the period 2000 to 2005 and who remain suspended, identify in each case the Department concerned, the employee group concerned, the nature of the alleged infraction, the period of suspension, and the means of disposal of the case?

Answer

The information requested by Deputy Mezbourian is given in the attached tables - (see overleaf)

EMPLOYEE SUSPENSIONS

Table A – This table depicts the number of employees (defined by Department) who were suspended between January and December 2006

Notes to Table A.

• Despite the Deputy asking for the nature of the infraction, this has not been given in this report as there is a concern that it could be possible to identify an individual from the description of the nature of the

infraction.  Given  that  a  suspension  is  carried  out  in  the  first  instance  on  an accusation  that  upon investigation could subsequently be unfounded, it could be considered reckless and unreasonable of the employer to run the risk of identifying an employee in this way.  This is of particular concern in a small island community such as Jersey where an individual's professional reputation could be severely affected by a spurious or unfounded allegation.  However, it is factual to say that suspensions are carried out due to alleged behaviour or actions which, if proven, would constitute gross misconduct. There were 20 employees who were either suspended in 2006 or whose suspension carried on into 2006.  They were made up of the following pay groups:

Civil Service x 5

Manual Workers x 3

Teachers x 1

Police x 3

Nurses and Midwives x 6

Residential Child Care Officer x 1

Doctors/Dentists x 1

• Following a report and recommendations presented to the States Employment Board (SEB) in May 2006,  the  situation  regarding  employee  suspensions  in  the  public  sector  has  become  more  closely

monitored.  Foremost in that report were the recommendations that:

All suspensions be notified to the Employee Relations Section of the Chief Minister's Department at the time of the suspension thus enabling the level and duration of the suspension to be monitored; and,

Chief Officers to ensure that all suspensions were formally reviewed one month from the suspension date and no less frequently than a month thereafter.

The maximum time between suspension date and the disciplinary hearing be 8 weeks (with an expectation that it will be done before that time if possible).

• The SEB now reviews all employee suspensions by way of a twice yearly report.

• Despite the fact that 5 suspensions currently remain in place due to either the suspended employee being certified sick or the case requiring a lengthy and detailed investigation due to the nature of the alleged

infraction, there is no doubt that the recommendations agreed by the SEB are resulting in a reduction in the  time  between  suspension  and  disciplinary  hearing.  Clearly  though,  it  remains  the  case  that  the Employer is unlikely to conduct a disciplinary hearing if a Police investigation is being conducted as it would not wish to risk interference in the legal process. Of the total of 20 employees under suspension, a total of 15 were actually suspended during 2006. Several of those cases have been delayed due to the need for an internal or external investigation or

because the employee has been signed off sick. These are considered by the SEB to be genuine reasons for a delay to a case being resolved and if those cases are removed, the remaining cases were all dealt with within the recommended 8 week time period.

EMPLOYEE SUSPENSIONS (CONT.)

Table B – This Table depicts the number of employees (by department) who were suspended between 2002 and 2005 and who remain suspended.

DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES WHO

REMAIN SUSPENDED

EDD None TTS None Airport None Harbour None ESS None ESC None HA None P&E None CMD None Housing None HSS None Treasury & Resources None

Notes to Table B

• The 2nd part of the Deputy 's question was possibly aimed at a recent and highly publicized case. That case was significantly delayed due to the resulting Police investigation The particular case in question has

now been decided in the Police Court and subsequently by a Disciplinary Hearing at which the employee in question was summarily dismissed. The case referred to above was clearly exceptional and it is the SEB's intention that such an unsatisfactory state of affairs is not repeated. It believes that the checks and balances it has put in to place will prevent

such a repeat. In response to the specific question asked by the Deputy , no other employees suspended between 2002 and 2005 remain suspended at this time.

[1]

 Case delayed due to employee signed off sick

[2]

 Case significantly delayed due to employee signed off sick

[3]

 Suspension extended due to a delay in case coming to court

[4]

 Suspended for police investigation followed by internal investigation, no disciplinary case to answer and reinstated [5]

 Suspended for police investigation followed by internal investigation, no disciplinary case to answer and reinstated [6]

 Subject to investigation

[7]

 Case significantly delayed due to employee signed off sick

[8]

 Suspension lifted as after investigation, it was found that there was no case to answer

[9]

 Case significantly delayed due to employee signed off sick

[10]

 Suspension extended due to a delay in case coming to court