| UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch |
|
The Edinburgh InquiryQuestions to UNISON and ResponsesClick here for Initial Briefing after Inquiry Q1. How does UNISON see its members role and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding young people looked after by Edinburgh City Council? A1. We would wish to make it clear that the ultimate responsibility is the Council's. By the very nature of their employment our members have to work within the culture, standards and statutory requirements, and indeed financial restraints, of the Council. Nevertheless, UNISON would expect its members to have at least the same responsibilities as any member of the public. That is not to abuse children and not to keep quiet about any abuse they suspect may be happening. Our members have consistently demonstrated that, as well as their professional responsibilities, they feel a moral and personal responsibility. We believe that many have demonstrated this time and again in their approaches to the union for assistance in raising concerns about matters of practice. It is when the Council's position on standards and our members' professional views conflict that our members face the difficulty. For example, when you have to separate young brothers and sisters when they come into care, the safeguarding work focuses on mitigating the effects of the lack of resources. UNISON has a role in advising and supporting members in these circumstances. It also has a role in representing our members' collective and professional views regarding how Social Work operates at a more general level, both organisationally and politically. ............................................................................................. Q2. What potential conflicts exist between UNISON's responsibilities towards safeguarding children and its role in representing and defending its members? How are these conflicts managed? A2. Again, the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding children lies with the authority but clearly UNISON like anyone else has to recognise a social responsibility for protecting children. We subscribe to the view that child protection is the first consideration and have readily accepted that the Child Protection Guidelines have the highest priority when allegations are made. Specific agreements are in place regarding this, including the issue of precautionary suspensions. There are many potential conflicts when children make allegations against a member and it is a matter of managing those conflicts. Firstly it should be made clear that no member has an unqualified right to representation. Decisions are made all the time about how, at what stage, at what level and whether to represent someone at all. UNISON is also very often in a position when not only the accused is a member, but also other staff witnesses or indeed accusers. We have a system that relates to issues like harassment or bullying that makes judgments on whether someone would receive representation. There are also strict guidelines on how such cases are dealt with. A parallel could be drawn with allegations by children to these procedures. However, these decisions can only be made on the facts of the case as they emerge, and it can be that we may well be some way down the process before it becomes clear as to what position the union should take. We have refused representation in the past in such circumstances and would again. But we must also ensure that members are dealt with within agreed procedures and that members are represented where appropriate. Without that option, there would be no point in any procedures because there would be an assumption of guilt in every case. We would also point out that if UNISON believes a member has committed acts of abuse, that individual could also face disciplinary action from the union.. .................................................................................. Q3. What are UNISON's views on the operation of Edinburgh City Council's grievance and disciplinary procedures, in relation to members of staff against whom allegations have been made by children? A3. We believe that the new procedures negotiated at Local Government reorganisation are largely effective. The Grievance Procedure allows an informal stage to try to resolve problems in a common-sense way and also has a series of very quick timescales to ensure that matters are dealt with quickly. But there is also flexibility in that these timescales can be mutually changed if need be. It is a procedure that allows staff to raise concerns about a range of issues that could and has included care concerns and it has stages that can take it to directorate and elected members. The disciplinary procedure has in the past been geared to more traditional employment offences. But in the last few years both the Council and UNISON have recognised the need for specific procedures in relation to safeguarding children. For example, the acceptance of the 'Moorov' principle where clients have made allegations, and the specific child protection procedures negotiated in the Education Department. These negotiated away some 'traditional' rights in order to try to get the balance right between dealing seriously with allegations while maintaining natural justice. We have some concerns about that balance at times and there are situations where staff are beginning to feel that the procedure is too inflexible and suspensions can be too long. Staff also feel that this inflexibility puts them at risk of mud sticking from untrue or malicious allegations. ................................................................................ Q4. What are UNISON's views on the operation of Edinburgh City Council's complaints procedures? A4. As far as I understand it, complaints procedures from the old councils have not yet been harmonised. However, there has been a reasonably long standing procedure in the Social Work Department which I would be surprised if most staff are not aware of. Members have not raised issues with UNISON about these procedures, but anecdotally it would appear that the client complaints officer and the childrens rights officer are used and that they do take complaints seriously and fairly. It is not unusual for the director to personally contact staff to ask for explanations and offer robust opinion. While the union has challenged this, it has been on the basis of style rather than content. ............................................................................
Q5 What is UNISON's view on the right of an employer to retain information on an employee's file where allegations have not been substantiated? A5. UNISON has negotiated such an option with the council and it forms part of the disciplinary policy and procedure. Keeping these records has many dangers and in most employment circumstances, is both unnecessary and conflicts with natural justice. However, we agreed to this particularly because of the fact that there are circumstances where abuse cannot be corroborated in terms of an individual act. This is where we accepted the parallel with the 'Moorov' principle where incidents can corroborate each other even though individually they are not corroborated. Information about such allegations are kept, albeit in a separate file. We have, however, to distinguish between 'unsubstantiated' and 'unfounded' allegations. We are in favour of more being done to ensure that the outcome of a complaint or disciplinary procedure is one whereby there can be confidence in whether an event happened or not, both in the interests of the children and the staff.
................................................................................
Q6. What is UNISON's position on the rights of the employer to instigate disciplinary proceedings where allegations have been made, but there has been insufficient evidence for criminal proceedings to take place? A6. The level of proof required in Employment Law is far less than that required in Criminal Law. There is no 'beyond reasonable doubt' in terms of employment and the Council's Disciplinary Procedure, merely "a decision that is reasonable in all the circumstances". So UNISON obviously accepts that the employer can proceed with a disciplinary even if there is no criminal case pursued. However, we would want to be clear what is meant by 'insufficient evidence' and what the circumstances are of a case. It can be that 'insufficient evidence' means there is no evidence and that would be tested at a disciplinary hearing. It would be dangerous to assume that all allegations have foundation, it is just that nobody can find enough evidence to back them up.
..........................................................................................
Q7. What is UNISON's view of Edinburgh City Council's "Whistle-Blowing Policy"? A7. UNISON agreed a policy relating to the Social Work Department, called "Free Expressions of Staff Concerns About the Safety and Well-Being of Service Users" which lays down a welcome statement of the responsibilities and duties of staff and managers to report concerns and act on concerns brought to their attention. It also allows routes whereby concerns can be raised outwith the internal management of the unit, albeit still within the direct line management. We have no current reliable information as to how it is working but we will be monitoring it. In negotiating the Harassment Policy we agreed a system of independent contact people outwith direct management structures whom staff could approach with concerns and that may be something to be considered for the future. We believe the policy is needed because it is very difficult to raise concerns about a manager with that manager. If a suspicion is not substantiated, or if it was wrong based on misunderstandings, it leaves the staff member in a very vulnerable position. There also needs to be a route for staff who may be concerned that if they raise a concern and 'fail', then it may be harder to raise a concern in the future. That is why we welcomed the statement in the policy that says the department "will not tolerate harassment or victimisation of an employee who has raised concerns through this process".
.........................................................................................
Q8. What is UNISON's view about the right of members of staff to remain in employment in a residential setting where allegations have been made but not substantiated? A8. There is a need to deal with situations fairly and to try to come to conclusions that are clear and not as uncertain as 'unsubstantiated'. 'Unsubstantiated' can come from it not being possible to substantiate while still harbouring a concern. However, it can also come from not investigating as thoroughly as might be desirable. There may also be cases whereby the member of staff would not wish to work in that area with such a cloud hanging over them and the possible risk it may present to them. However, at the end of the day decisions have to be made as to whether it is more likely that someone is innocent than guilty or vice-versa. Not all allegations are true. It is a supremely difficult job working in residential care these days with a population that is mainly teenagers. Staff are subjected to violence and are subjected to malicious allegations. That does happen. We have to be very careful not to set up a situation where it becomes impossible for staff to function in a situation where physical restraint for the safety of young people and staff is unfortunately part of the job.
Staffing/Additional Comments (Maybe best included in submission?) UNISON would also like to draw attention to staffing levels here. Ideally units would be staffed in such a way that allows 'safe caring' with no member of staff being in a position of being alone for extended periods with a resident. We accept that that can be unrealistic in many situations and may not even be desirable in terms of relationship building and trying to instill a sense of normality in an abnormal situation. Young people do at times want to say something in confidence to one person. However, staffing levels do not come near to the ideal on many occasions and there is, in UNISON's view, an over-reliance on temporary staff in residential care to provide cover in situations where consistency should be of the essence. We have instances where temporary or locum staff have not been re-engaged because of concerns held by managers. UNISON has pushed for these staff to be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure both in fairness to them and so that whatever concerns there are can be investigated properly in the interests of other staff and young people alike. Staffing levels, in UNISON's view are under extreme pressure after years of cuts. Moral in the residential sector has taken severe blows over the years from as far back as "Time of Change" in 1981. At this time inappropriate homes were rightly closed with plans to transfer the money saved into community and preventative resources. Unfortunately this coincided with enormous cuts in the Lothian Region budget, which in turn led to only a fraction of the savings being transferred. Since then, the residential sector, in UNISON's view, has struggled to maintain morale. This is perhaps exemplified in the problem of members of staff not returning to residential care after they had been seconded for training and qualification. Since the inception of the City of Edinburgh Council, almost £15 million has been cut from the Social Work budget with around £4 million having to be saved this year through delaying filling or not filling vacancies. This leads to many more temporary workers in residential care. It has also led to cuts in the number of senior managers available to provide a strategic direction and to deal with operational issues. Fostering resources are now under enormous pressure after a period in the 80's when resources were readily available. This means that many young people are not placed in residential units as a positive choice, but because the preferred option is not available. It is UNISON's view that the type of placement for a child or young person should be a positive choice, whether that choice be fostering or residential care. ........................................................................................
Q9. What is UNISON's position in relation to Equal Opportunities and ensuring gender balance in staffing residential units.?
A9. UNISON has a proud history of campaigning for equality of opportunity for women, for disabled people, for black members and for lesbian and gay members. We would always want to ensure that everyone had equality of access and that shortcomings were redressed. However, it seems to us that this issue is more about the client group than an employment equality issue. We are in favour of gender balance in staffing residential units and over the years this has tended to develop. CHECK LEGAL POSITION. I DO NOT THINK RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE COVERED BY LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS TO ADVERTISE OR SELECT ON BASIS OF GENDER.
..........................................................................
Q10. What is UNISON's position in relation to the use of 'probationary' periods for staff newly recruited to residential care work? A10. We think this is a red herring. There is no current provision in national conditions for probationary periods for qualified staff and we do not believe there should be. Firstly, anyone who is a risk to children is unlikely to display that risk during a probationary period. The type of abuse that caused this inquiry is the type of abuse that we know is carefully planned over long periods in very devious and secretive ways. Such people are unlikely to give themselves away in a probationary period. Probationary periods are also open to misuse. What happens to the probationer who is unhappy about the standards or practices in a unit? They are hardly likely to speak up if they know they can lose their job at the end of a probationary period with far less safeguards than in a normal 'sacking' situation. Currently, qualified staff will have had several months on practice placements under much closer and much more intense supervision than a probationer. They will have had to have reached a standard that allows a qualified practice teacher and a college to pass them. Some will have taken the course of study as part of their job and will have been closely supervised throughout that, having to account for, explain and evidence their practice. There may be an argument for probationary periods for unqualified staff or for staff on lesser qualifications than are currently listed as the acceptable standard. But UNISON, having fought for a qualified professional residential service, would resist such recruitment.
...............................................................................
Q11. What is UNISON's view on Staff Appraisal Schemes A11. UNISON supports such schemes where they look at ensuring standards and work on development and training and we have an agreement on this with the Council as part of the Performance Management Policy. However, we do not support schemes that are used to decide on pay or disciplinary matters because we believe they are open to abuse and there are better systems for dealing with these. More forward-thinking social work offices and residential units already employed an informal Staff Appraisal Scheme even before this policy. These concentrate on building better practice and they form a structured basis for supervision to ensure that issues are addressed. Some units have even put into place systems for people to seek second opinions. UNISON would hope that these would continue in tandem with the formal scheme which does tend to concentrate on management-speak like 'achieving objectives'. |