WMP Privertisation

Briefing for MPs Home Affairs Select Committee
Introduction
Unite and Unison represent Police staff. We are frankly aghast that there is a serious discussion taking place about privatising our police force less than a year after the Home Secretary tasked HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to “[investigate] and consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangement and other abuses of power in police relationships”1 as a result of the recent spotlight placed on alleged police corruption.
West Midlands and Surrey Police forces have begun a process of privatising all of what they designate as ‘non-core’ services. These are services that do not require the office of constable, i.e. the powers of arrest. The privatisation would take place through two contracts; firstly, for custody, and the second contract covering all other service areas. It is essential to explain that many of these services are still roles which the public would regard as being, and are, central to the function of the police force and the exercise of their duties. These roles include: Forensic scene investigators, contact centres (first point of contact for calls from the public), arrest referral workers, Police National Computer bureau (handles the updating of all Police National Computer records), analysts (analysis crime patters to assist in the early detection and prevention of crime, for example, high volumes of burglary in an area), economic crime teams (police staff are employed as financial investigators to investigate high value crime), 999 call takers.
In short, the services it is proposed to privatise cover;
• Dealing with confidential, sensitive information
• Crime prevention, detection and investigation
• Police response to 999 calls
• Victim handling and public safety
• Custody
On 13th March 2012 a bidders conference was held, bringing together interested companies. These included, amongst others; Amey, Accenture, Serco, G4S and many others. The conference also brought together other Police forces – the advert placed in the Official Journal of the European Union allows other police forces to join in with the privatisation process.
We believe this Business Partnership – the privatisation of parts of our police force – will be detrimental to the quality and functioning of those services. It threatens the transparency and accountability of local policing services – two key principles of the Police forces’ commitment to the public. This carries grave implications for the safety of the public and the future integrity of our policing system. The HMIC report Without Fear or Favour highlighted several areas that police forces need to concentrate on to ensure the impartiality and honesty of policing. Most importantly it found that the public believe a service to have integrity not only with being treated fairly, but in also being absolutely transparent and being seen to be fair.
There is no business case that outsourcing will improve services or generate savings
The Home Office has refused to reveal its business case for privatisation; West Midlands and Surrey police forces have agreed to start the competition without seeing a proper business case either. In the case of West Midlands the privatisation is being justified on the grounds of needing to meet the financial reductions in the current Comprehensive Spending Review. However, they already have a budget plan in place to achieve these reductions without the need to privatise services. For the financial year 2011-12 West Midlands Police force has a planned under spend of £9million. In addition, the force has yet to submit their own detailed business case to the Police Authority about the benefits of outsourcing.
The economic case for outsourcing services on the grounds of efficiency has not yet been proven, nor has it been proven that as outsourced service would be of a higher quality or of a lower cost. Across the public sector the empirical evidence over many years does not show that the private sector is more efficient2, and even the IMF admits that “the evidence is mixed”3. There is evidence to demonstrate that in the long-run

ET Rules that Lap Dancer was an Employee.

EAT Rules that Lap Dancer was an Employee
Many employment rights - including the right to sue for unfair dismissal - are confined to employees. Defining just who is and who is not an employee has long proved something of a challenge for the courts and tribunals.

Take, for example, the recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Quashie v. Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd. Q worked as a lap dancer at Stringfellows. She was paid in what was described as "Heavenly Money " - vouchers paid to her by customers which Stringfellows later redeemed for real money minus deductions. Those deductions included commission payable to Stringfellows, a "house fee" and fines. Dancers were fined for such things as being off rota or late for a shift or stage dance. Dancers were also required to pay a set fee to the "House Mother", who was responsible for ensuring that the dancers were well turned out and for looking after the dancers' general wellbeing. Q's earnings came entirely from the customers. On any particular night, it was possible that her earnings might be less than the amount she had to pay out, with the result that she would earn nothing for that night.

When Stringfellows terminated Q's contract over drug dealing allegations, she sued for unfair dismissal. Stringfellows had two lines of defence. It argued, first, that Q was not an employee and, second, that Q's contract had been illegally performed by reason of her tax returns and claims for tax credit. Dealing with the employee point as a preliminary "knock-out" point, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Q was not an employee.

The EAT allowed Q's appeal. Although Q's earnings came entirely from customers, rather than Stringfellows, she was being paid for work done. Employment status is not a matter of the source, or the route, of the payment. The Employment Tribunal had been wrong to focus too narrowly on the "wage/work" bargain. Q had been obliged to turn up for work in accordance with the rota. She was not entitled to send a substitute. The imposition of fines or deductions by agreement implied an ongoing relationship.

The EAT sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal so that it could hear Q's unfair dismissal claim and deal with the illegality point.

Whether or not an individual is an employee will always depend on the facts of the particular case. Employers need to appreciate that an Employment Tribunal will always look at the substance, or reality, of the situation. It will not be bound to accept the particular label which the parties have chosen to put on their relationship. Even an individual whose contract clearly states that he or she is not an employee may, in fact, be an employee in law and have all the rights of an employee.

To find out more, please contact Nick Crook or Gareth Pobjoy.
Filed: 14/05/2012 09:07:07

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill has, this afternoon, been laid before parliament.

Quite separate from the Adrian Beecroft proposals which have been in the news this week, this new Bill provides for:-

a mandatory period of Acas conciliation before instituting tribunal proceedings (with heavy reliance on as yet unpublished detail by way of Regulations)
extension of limitation periods to allow for pre-issue Acas conciliation
introduction of 'legal officers' to make decisions in certain cases if all parties agree in writing
EAT cases to be heard by a judge alone, unless ordered otherwise
power for Secretary of State to limit unfair dismissal compensatory award to a maximum between the national median earnings and 3 x median earnings. [According to Wikipedia, median earnings in 2010 were £20,800, which gives a power to impose a cap of between £20,800 and £62,400]
alternatively, power for the Secretary of State to limit unfair dismissal compensatory award to one year's earnings
power for a tribunal to impose a penalty on employers of 50% of any financial award, subject to a minimum of £100 and maximum of £5,000, where there are "aggravating features" (not defined), with a 50% discount for payment within 21 days
defintion of 'qualifying disclosure' in whistleblowing legislation to be restricted to disclosures "in the public interest" (not defined)
'compromise agreements' to be renamed 'settlement agreements'
The Bill is here (see sections 7-17, and Schedule 2)

Daniel Barnett

The UK Government has today launched consultations on measures intended to reduce what it sees as unnecessary bureaucracy for employers created by the Equality Act 2010. The proposed measures are:
• Repealing the third party harassment provisions which potentially make employers liable for the harassment of their employees by third parties.
• Removing the Employment Tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases and the procedure for obtaining information. The consultation document proposes repeal of the power – introduced under the Equality Act 2010 – enabling an Employment Tribunal to make wider recommendations to an employer when a claimant brings a successful discrimination claim, for example that it should introduce an equal opportunities policy or retrain staff.

2.2. Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC

2.2. Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC
Mr Homer worked as a legal adviser for the Police National Legal Database. The PNLD had difficulty attracting suitably qualified staff because of comparatively low pay and no career structure. To make itself more attractive and also to help retain existing staff, it introduced a new grading structure in 2005. In order to obtain the top threshold, it was necessary to have a law degree. Mr Homer would reach the PNLD’s normal retirement age of 65 in February 2009. If he now undertook a part-time course for a law-degree, he would not graduate until the summer of 2010 at the earliest, i.e. after he planned to retire. Mr Homer brought a claim for indirect age discrimination. He argued that people in the 60-65 year age group would be unable to obtain a law degree before they retired. (He did not try to argue that fewer people in that age group would be likely to have a l aw degree in the first place.) The employment tribunal upheld his claim and said the law degree requirement was unjustified.
The tribunal decision was overturned on appeal. The EAT and Court of Appeal said that Mr Homer was put at a disadvantage by his impending retirement, not by his age. Mr Homer appealed again.
By a majority, the Supreme Court upheld Mr Homer’s appeal. It said that it is unrealistic to distinguish between age and retirement. A requirement which works to the comparative disadvantage of a person approaching compulsory retirement age must be indirectly discriminatory on grounds of age. The key question is then whether the requirement is justifiable. The Supreme Court gave guidance on the test for whether indirect discrimination can be justified. It said that, to be proportionate, a measure has to be both an appropriate means of achieving the legitimate aim and (reasonably) necessary in order to do so. The case would be sent back to the tribunal to reconsider whether the indirect discrimination was justified as it had not previously approached the matter in a sufficiently structured way

POLICE inspector is at the centre of a force investigation after being accused of making racist comments.

A POLICE inspector is at the centre of a force investigation after being accused of making racist comments.
The West Midlands officer, who has not been named, has been moved to other duties while the allegations are looked into.
It is understood the claims relate to comments made in front of colleagues.
A complaint was later made to the force, sparking the internal investigation into the officer who strenuously denies the allegations.

Detective Chief Inspector Julian Harper, from the force Professional Standards Department, said: ‘’We are currently making inquiries into an allegation regarding comments made by an officer which were perceived to be of a racist nature.
‘’The officer, of inspector rank, is currently performing duties elsewhere in the force whilst the matter is being investigated.
‘’We expect all officers and staff to maintain the highest levels of professionalism and any allegations to the contrary will be thoroughly investigated.’’
The inquiry involving the West Midlands force comes as the Metropolitan Police is battling its latest racism crisis.
Thirteen reports of racism involving 27 officers and staff are currently being probed by the Met and the independent police watchdog, the IPCC.
The watchdog announced last month that it is carrying out a review into how racism allegations are dealt with by the country’s largest force.

Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2012/05/10/west-midlands-police-inspector-accused-of-making-racist-comments-97319-30936466/#ixzz1ukFAJqSk

Express and Star

A POLICE inspector is at the centre of a force investigation after being accused of making racist comments.
The West Midlands officer, who has not been named, has been moved to other duties while the allegations are looked into.
It is understood the claims relate to comments made in front of colleagues.
A complaint was later made to the force, sparking the internal investigation into the officer who strenuously denies the allegations.



Detective Chief Inspector Julian Harper, from the force Professional Standards Department, said: ‘’We are currently making inquiries into an allegation regarding comments made by an officer which were perceived to be of a racist nature.
‘’The officer, of inspector rank, is currently performing duties elsewhere in the force whilst the matter is being investigated.
‘’We expect all officers and staff to maintain the highest levels of professionalism and any allegations to the contrary will be thoroughly investigated.’’
The inquiry involving the West Midlands force comes as the Metropolitan Police is battling its latest racism crisis.
Thirteen reports of racism involving 27 officers and staff are currently being probed by the Met and the independent police watchdog, the IPCC.
The watchdog announced last month that it is carrying out a review into how racism allegations are dealt with by the country’s largest force.



Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2012/05/10/west-midlands-police-inspector-accused-of-making-racist-comments-97319-30936466/#ixzz1ukFAJqSk