Chapter 4 - Inefficiency policy

help staff to improve their performance and/or attendance to an acceptable level;
explain the procedures by which line managers and Human Resources can deal fairly and firmly with inefficient staff.

Top of page

Principles

The aims of the procedures, which must be followed carefully, are first and foremost to improve performance and/or attendance, but if this fails

to ensure that a decision to dismiss or downgrade someone is taken only after full investigation, and with proper safeguards for the individual;

There are six main principles underlying the operation of inefficiency procedures:

staff must know what is expected of them and have shortcomings pointed out, preferably as they arise or as soon as they are discovered;
staff must have ready access to inefficiency procedures;
staff must be given help, advice, the opportunity and time to improve their performance and/or attendance;
managers must tackle inefficiency firmly, fairly and promptly;
the procedures should be applied equitably. If the person has a disability, the HR Ability Advisor in the Service Centre should be consulted before inefficiency procedures are started and at each subsequent stage;
written records should be kept at every stage of the procedures.

Top of page

What is inefficiency?

An inefficient employee is one who is not competently carrying out the duties for which they are employed either for reasons of poor performance or poor attendance or both. In cases of poor performers, inefficiency arises in cases where performance has been, or is likely to be assessed at Box 4 or Box 5. Limited efficiency early retirement action may also be considered when a Box 4 marking is given (see Volume 3 Chapter 2).

Inefficiency must not be confused with misconduct for which separate disciplinary procedures exist (Chapter 3).

Definitions of inefficiency are given below;

Poor performance

a low standard or output of work where the individual has been told what is expected, but even with close supervision and after appropriate training and re-training is unable to achieve the required level;

Poor attendance

frequent absences which adversely affect the effectiveness of the individual or the efficient running of the office;

Long term sickness absence

continuous absence of more than 20 calendar days.

Top of page

Procedures - poor performance

The performance appraisal system provides an opportunity, periodically, to assess the performance of staff. Regular monitoring will ensure early identification of potential poor performers who may merit Box 4 or 5 markings in their next performance appraisals. However, where monitoring shows performance has deteriorated, line managers need not wait until the next appraisal is due before taking action, as an out of cycle performance appraisal report may be requested at any time.
The definitions of unacceptable performance under the appraisal system are set out below:

Box 4: This mark should be a transitional one which should not normally be repeated from the previous report. The individual will have failed to deliver the standard of performance expected from the level/pay band and will have failed to achieve some or many of the objectives, without acceptable reasons. While some of the work will be acceptable, definite weaknesses will have been shown and must have been drawn to the attention of the individual in the course of the year. A box 4 marking may also indicate that early retirement on limited efficiency grounds should be considered (see Volume 3 Chapter 2);
Box 5: The individual will have produced work of a consistently poor standard and will have failed to meet most or all of the objectives to the standards set. A box 5 marking should be given if an individual was awarded a box 4 mark the previous year and has failed to improve sufficiently to justify a box 3 mark.

If, during the course of a reporting year, an individual's performance is identified as likely to lead to a Box 4 or 5 rating, the line manager should discuss their performance with the individual at the earliest opportunity. The discussion should explore in depth;

the nature of the shortcomings identified with, if possible, concrete examples of poor performance that had been drawn to the individual's attention at the time;
the standard expected to bring performance up to a satisfactory level;
the possible reasons for poor performance - these might include the local working arrangements, the individual's present skills and knowledge and any personal or domestic problems which might have led to a loss of motivation;
and should culminate in an agreed plan of action to remedy the position. This might include the provision of on-the job training, a formal training course, some modification of working arrangements and specific short-term objectives to help chart progress. It will also set a specific date when work performance will again be reviewed. Such discussion constitutes an oral warning.

If personal or domestic problems are revealed or suspected, staff should be reminded of the availability of the Counselling and Support Service (CSS). Consideration should also be given to other measures which may help, for example, part-time working.
If the line manager has reason to believe that the drop in performance is caused by health problems, or if the individual maintains that this is so, they should be advised to consult their doctor and warned that unless an improvement in performance is effected the Department may have to institute formal proceedings leading to either termination of employment on the grounds of inefficiency or medical retirement.
A note of the discussion should be made by the line manager and copied to the individual.
Following the interview the line manager should continue to monitor the individual's performance and keep detailed notes of any shortcomings and any progress made (sample monitoring form at Appendix 1). Performance should be reviewed regularly with the individual, and in any case, no later than 3 months after the oral warning.
Different jobs dictate different approaches - e.g. routine tasks might justify a review in weeks rather than months. However, if, after 3 months, performance shows no signs of reaching a fully satisfactory level, or there is a sudden deterioration, the line manager, having informed the individual, should approach the Area Business Manager (ABM)/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff and call for an appraisal report out of cycle.
The individual should be given the opportunity to discuss matters with their trade union representative or work colleague, and to be represented at all subsequent stages of the procedure.
If a Box 4 is awarded, either out of cycle or at the end of the appraisal period, the line manager should issue the warning minute at Appendix 2. If early retirement on limited efficiency grounds is likely to be an option this should be discussed with the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff.
Monitoring and review meetings with the individual should continue. Again, subject to the type of work, if, after 3 months following a Box 4 assessment, performance shows no signs of reaching a fully satisfactory level, an appraisal report should be called for and a box 5 assessment given. The individual should be informed of the proposed course of action.
The formal inefficiency procedures consists of:

a box 5 assessment;
a written warning;
a trial period. This will normally be a minimum of 3 months but may be longer (not normally more than 6 months) if the line manager thinks it would be appropriate in all the circumstances - e.g. health or domestic difficulties, adjusting to new work etc;
a second box 5 assessment, if insufficient improvement is shown during the trial period, and a recommendation to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff for dismissal or downgrading.

Top of page

Transfer to other work

At this stage, the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff, together with the line manager, will consider whether it would be in the individual's best interests for them to be moved to other duties under a different line manager for the length of the trial period. This will not always be the case nor will it always be possible in the case of some levels or in small offices. The ABM/Corporate HR Services will advise in such cases and will also know of any suitable posts available.

Top of page

Written warning

Following the initial box 5 assessment and prior to the issue of a written warning, the line manager should arrange an interview with the individual, ensuring that they have a copy of the inefficiency chapter.
At the interview the line manager must:

inform the individual of their unacceptable performance;
specify in detail the problems with performance;
give the individual the opportunity of discussing reasons for the problems;
tell the individual what improvements are required, to what standard and within what time scale - i.e. a trial period is to be set up;
offer the services of the Staff Counsellor and remind them that they can seek the help of their trade union representative or colleague;
inform them of the seriousness of the situation and possible consequences, including dismissal, of failing to achieve the required improvements;
where either the individual or the manager considers that poor performance may be attributable to medical causes, the case will be referred to the occupational health services (OHS) (see paragraphs 40 to 41). In this case, the individual will be told of the referral, that inefficiency procedures will continue and that they will have a right of appeal against any recommendation the OHS may make regarding the appropriateness of medical retirement.

The written warning (Appendix 3) issued after this interview must include the points raised above. The line manager must ask the individual to sign the warning as evidence of receipt and provide both them and the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff with a copy. A full record of the interview should also be kept by the line manager and copied as above.
During the trial period, performance should be monitored (see sample monitoring form at Appendix 1) and the employee given regular feedback by line managers. At the end of the trial period an appraisal report must be completed. If a further adverse marking (Box 5) is given, a recommendation should be put to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff for downgrading or dismissal (see paragraphs 61 to 65).

Top of page

Procedures - poor attendance

Employees whose frequent or continuous absences from work adversely affect their effectiveness and/or the efficient running of the office are regarded as poor attenders. It is a condition of employment that all staff give regular and effective service and those who fail to do so may have their employment terminated. However, in dealing with unsatisfactory attendance, line managers should understand that the Department is concerned about the health and welfare of staff as well as the effect the poor attendance has on the efficiency of the service.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE AGE TRIGGERS BELOW SHOULD NOT BE USED

There is no rigid standard number of day's absence which is regarded as unsatisfactory but any individual who is absent:

for more than 14 calendar days in any 12 month period at age 44 or under; or
for 21 calendar days or more in any 12 month period at age 45 or over; or
on 4 occasions regardless of the number of days and regardless of the officer's age, in any period of less than 6 months, and on 8 occasions in any period of less than 12 months

may be regarded as in need of further attention and investigation. The need for inefficiency action against part-time staff must be determined by the number of days/working periods when they would normally work but were absent because of sickness. Further advice on sickness absence can be found in Volume 4 Chapter 3.

LogicaCMG print-outs are produced automatically at the end of each month for individuals in the above categories; these print-outs are passed via the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff to line managers for their action. However, as these print-outs are only received a month in arrears it is important that line manager's keep their own records to identify poor attenders and take action at the earliest opportunity.
Receipt of a print-out for an individual is a prompt for further investigation by the line manager and possible inefficiency action. The inefficiency procedures should not, however, be applied automatically; each case should be assessed on its merits in the light of the full background. It would, for example, be inappropriate to interview anyone who had a single absence due to hospitalisation for a medical condition which was unlikely to be on-going - e.g. broken leg.
A number of days absence taken in short periods might indicate that attendance cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Where, however, the quality and output of the individual's work is satisfactory and is maintained over the year as a whole, a more lenient view may be considered. For example, an individual suffering from migraine or asthma (confirmed by a doctor) might need to take a more than normally acceptable amount of sick absence. However, all cases of regular and continuous absence must be re-considered periodically and if there is any doubt as to the appropriate course of action, advice should be sought from the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff.
The fact that an individual is disabled does not prevent them from being fairly dismissed on poor attendance grounds. However, such an individual is entitled to special consideration. This is because an employer must consider an employee's personal circumstances, including any disability, when deciding to dismiss. The standard by which a disabled individual's attendance is measured must take into account their disability. If, after making such an allowance, the individual's attendance is still unsatisfactory, then formal inefficiency action may be fair.
Once an absence has continued for 4 weeks, the ABM/line managers in HQ Divisions should notify the Counselling and Support Service. In the event of a serious illness or if the diagnosis is one of depression, stress or anxiety, immediate notification should be made.
Where, despite help, an employee is unable to overcome their problems and attendance remains unsatisfactory, the Department may have to say it cannot accept the position any longer. In other words, no matter how genuine or unavoidable absences may be, the Department may have to give consideration to terminating an employee's employment.

Top of page

Poor attenders - first stage

As soon as it becomes apparent that an individual's absences are likely to reach unacceptable levels or are forming a definite pattern they should be interviewed by the line manager and the absence record discussed. (The interview should not be left until the annual performance appraisal is due). The objectives of the interview are:

to give the individual the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in their attendance record ( A copy of this record should be given to the individual before the interview to give them an opportunity to consider it);
to establish whether there is any underlying cause for the absences such as personal or domestic problems. If problems are identified efforts must be made to resolve them and individuals encouraged to seek the assistance of CSS;
to explain that the Department is concerned about the individual's health and welfare but it also has to be concerned about the effect that unsatisfactory attendance has on the efficiency of the office. Further, the Department is concerned about the effect on other staff who have to cover the duties of the absent individual. The individual should be reminded of the requirement in their conditions of service to maintain a satisfactory level of attendance and performance and the likely consequences if they fail to do so. A specific date when attendance will be reviewed again and the level of attendance expected in the future will be set. This interview constitutes an oral warning.

A note of this interview should be made and a copy sent to the individual and the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff.

Top of page

Poor attenders - second stage

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE AGE TRIGGERS BELOW SHOULD NOT BE USED

If during, or at the end of, the review period it becomes apparent that the individual's absences have reached an unsatisfactory level a formal approach should be taken. The criteria to be applied are:

individuals aged 44 and under who are absent for 21 calendar days in any period of 18 months
individuals aged 45 and over who are absent for 28 calendar days in any period of 18 months
individuals of any age who incur one of the following

2 absences within 3 months of an oral warning
3 absences within 6 months of an oral warning
4 absences within 12 months of an oral warning
5 absences within 18 months of an oral warning

The formal inefficiency procedure for poor attenders consists of:

a first written warning (Appendix 4);
a referral to the OHS;
if there is insufficient improvement (and taking into account advice received from OHS) a final written warning followed by a trial period (of at least 3 months);
if there is still insufficient improvement (and taking into account advice received from OHS), a recommendation to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff for dismissal or medical retirement.

Prior to the issue of the first written warning the line manager should arrange an interview with the individual, ensuring that they have a copy of the inefficiency chapter, and remind them that they may discuss the matter with their trade union representative or work colleague, and be represented at all subsequent stages of the procedures.
At the interview the line manager must cover the same points as were covered in the first stage interview (see paragraph 32) but also emphasise the following points:

stress that the individual's attendance record is still unsatisfactory and that its effect is to reduce their overall efficiency to a level which is unacceptable to the Department;
that the inefficiency arises not only because of the proportion of working days lost, but also because of the disruption and uncertainty caused by the frequency of absences;
it should be made clear that the Department is looking to the individual to achieve quickly and thereafter sustain an improvement in attendance to a satisfactory level. If attendance does not improve to the required level the Department will be obliged, after consultation with CSS and the OHS, to consider action which may lead to termination of appointment on the grounds of inefficiency arising from unsatisfactory attendance;
the individual should be told that they will not be considered, even if they were suitable in all other respects, for deputising or temporary promotion during the next 12 months. The individual should also be told that any application for promotion will also be endorsed to the effect that they should not be seen;
advice will be sought at this stage from the OHS as to the effect any medical condition may be having on their level of attendance and that inefficiency procedures will continue if the OHS do not recommend, or the individual contests, medical retirement. The individual should also be reminded that they have the right to apply for medical retirement (if after consulting their doctor they think their condition justifies it), and if their application is unsuccessful, to appeal to a medical board.

It is important that the reporting officer reacts positively to any new factors which may arise during the course of the interview and, if appropriate, tones down the warning or postpones a decision until the new information can be evaluated. It may become clear that the underlying cause of the poor attendance has been overcome and no further action, apart from monitoring, is required.
The first written warning (Appendix 4), which is issued after the interview, must include the points raised above. The line manager must ask the individual to sign the warning as evidence of receipt and provide both them and the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff with a copy.

Top of page

Occupational Health Service (OHS)

Advice should always be obtained from the OHS once the second stage of the inefficiency action has been started, and in all cases where health problems may be affecting attendance or where an individual makes a request for medical retirement. Health related inefficiency may show itself either in frequent absences for minor ailments or, at the other extreme, long term sickness absence. The consent of the individual concerned must be sought, but is not essential, before referring the case to the OHS. Their written permission is however required for the release of medical information from their doctor or consultant to the OHS.
The Department will, obviously, consider carefully any recommendation received from the OHS but a decision to dismiss is an employment, not a medical matter. The decision will turn largely on the balance of the employee's and the Department's interests, and whether, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the Department to carry on employing the individual. For further details on OHS referrals see Volume 4 Chapter 4.

Top of page

Poor attenders - third stage (trial period)

As soon as it becomes apparent that an individual's attendance has not or is unlikely to reach an acceptable standard following stage two, the line manager should discuss with the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff the issuing of a final written warning letter and the setting of a trial period. This period will normally be a minimum of 3 months. The advice obtained from OHS and CSS will be taken into account in deciding what action to take.
At this stage consideration will also be given to transferring the individual to another post for the duration of any trial period. This may be appropriate, where circumstances permit, if it is thought that the individual's present duties may have contributed to the frequent absences or that a move may help the individual to overcome their problems. Clearly, such a move should be considered carefully and management should be satisfied that the move would not exacerbate the situation.
If the decision is taken to set up a trial period, the individual should be interviewed by the line manager. The objectives of the interview are as set out in paragraphs 31 and 36 and as extended below:

to remind the individual of the previous interview and first warning letter;
to inform the individual that their attendance has not improved to a satisfactory and acceptable level;
to inform the individual that they are being placed on a trial period and that failure to improve attendance to a satisfactory and acceptable level could result in termination of appointment on the grounds of inefficiency, with or without compensation, at any time during, or at the end of, the trial period;
to point out that it is a condition of continued employment that the individual maintains satisfactory attendance both during and after the trial period. Normally, a further trial will not be allowed.

Immediately after the interview, a final written warning (Appendix 5) should be given to the individual and a signed copy obtained. Copies should be provided as per paragraph 38.
If, after the issue of the final warning, the individual begins a period of extended sick absence, the line manager, having consulted the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff, should write to the individual stating that if they do not return to work within 2 weeks, or a firm indication of an acceptable return date is not given, termination proceedings will be instituted.
For termination procedures following completion of the trial period see paragraphs 61 to 65.

Top of page

Procedures - long term sickness absence

Long term sickness absence -informal approach

Where an employee is on long term sick absence and there is no prospect of a return to work (and medical retirement is inappropriate), the interests of the employee and those of the Department have to be balanced carefully. A manager, whilst responsible for maintaining efficiency and effectiveness, must also have regard to the Department's responsibilities as a caring employer. Each case must be treated sympathetically and on its merits.
The principal factor to be considered with the long term sick is the absence of any real expectation that the individual will return to duty, rather than the length of their absence. It is important that action should not be taken with undue haste where prolonged absence is the result of an isolated illness or injury. In appropriate cases, however, termination of appointment on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance may be considered.
When monitoring sick absence cases, line managers will normally become aware at an early stage when an absence is likely to be lengthy, from either the diagnosis or the period of incapacity shown on the medical certificate. However, an illness which appears initially to be short term may lead subsequently to a long period of absence. Regular monitoring is, therefore, essential.
Line managers should keep in touch with any individual who has been absent for 20 calendar days or more. This contact should be made by telephone and/or personal visits to the home or hospital by the line manager or another colleague if more appropriate. In turn, the absent individual should keep in touch with the office. Home visits should not be made without warning and if the absent individual does not wish to be seen, that wish should be respected. In that event, the line manager should ensure that CSS is aware of the absence and has offered their services. Although management should not seek to interfere in an individual's personal life, help should be offered where appropriate.
Once 90 calendar days have elapsed, the ABM/Payroll and Allowances Unit, for HQ staff should complete Form ABS to notify Payroll and Allowances Unit of the absence so that transfer to the Central Staffing Pool can be effected.

Top of page

Long term sickness absence - formal approach

If there is no immediate prospect of a return to work (which may be assessed from the medical certificates or information from the absent individual) the advice of the OHS should be sought (see Volume 4 Chapter 4 for further details). The line manager should either write to (Appendix 6), or visit, the individual and explain why a referral to OHS is being made and ask them to complete a consent form (BMI OHR 05/98) to allow OHS access to their medical records. It should be explained to them that if they do not sign the consent form, a referral will still be made and that the OHS may then contact them direct to arrange for them to be examined by the OHS's Local Medical Officer. The individual should be reminded that they have the right to apply for medical retirement and to appeal to a medical board if their application, via OHS, is unsuccessful. The individual should also be provided with a copy of the inefficiency chapter.
If a meeting takes place, the line manager should send a letter (Appendix 6) confirming the meeting. Copies should be given to the individual and the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff.
OHS may advise one of the following:

medical retirement is appropriate, in which case the procedures set out in Volume 3 Chapter 2 should be followed;
a continued period of sickness absence should be allowed. In this case the line manager should review the position regularly by reference to the medical certificates and by keeping in touch with the absent individual.

The primary intention here is to give the individual enough time to return to full fitness and then to come back to work. Care should be taken to ensure that the individual is aware when they are due to go on half pay (normally after 6 months absence on full pay during any 12 month period) or sick pay at pension rate (SPPR) (see Volume 4 Chapter 3 for further information about procedures). If the OHS did not specify a review date, a re-referral should be considered in conjunction with the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff (assuming no change in circumstances) at the 9 months stage:

a return to work is appropriate but to alternative or part-time duties for a specified period. In this case line managers, in consultation with the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff should make every effort to accommodate the individual. If the individual agrees to return, their attendance/performance should be monitored closely by the line manager and at the first indication of a further period of extended sickness absence, a further referral to OHS should be considered. If the individual refuses an offer of alternative/part-time duties and remains on sick absence with no indication of a likely return date, termination procedures will commence;
the individual should be fit to return to work within a specified period. In this case the individual should be informed of this in writing by the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff and given the date on which they will be expected back at work. The individual should be told to provide medical evidence if they wish to contest the return to work date and reminded of their right of appeal if they wish to contest a decision by OHS to turn down their application for medical retirement. If the individual fails to respond satisfactorily to the letter, termination procedures will commence.

Top of page

Long term sickness absence - termination procedures

If there is no evidence to suggest that the individual will return to work in the foreseeable future, and any appeal against the decision to refuse medical retirement has taken place, it may be necessary to begin termination procedures. In coming to this decision, the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff should take into account any relevant factors including the type of illness, the length of absence and the age and length of service of the individual.
The line manager should interview the absent individual, at their home if necessary. The following points should be discussed:

the individual should be given a copy of their sickness absence record and asked whether there is any likelihood of a return to work in the foreseeable future. They should also be asked whether alternative or part-time work would help;
it should be made clear to the individual that the length of their absence is having an adverse effect on the efficiency of the office;
if there is no prospect of a return to work and no new facts emerge, the individual should be told that they will be expected to return to work within 7 days or provide a firm indication of a date for return, otherwise procedures to terminate their employment on grounds of unsatisfactory attendance will commence;
if the individual does return within the 7 day period, they will be required to serve a trial period which will normally last 6 months. If either during or at the end of the trial period the individual's attendance is deemed to be unsatisfactory, consideration will be given to terminating their employment on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance;
the individual should be told that following the interview they will receive a confirmatory letter (Appendix 7) in duplicate and asked to sign one copy as acknowledgement of receipt. Copies will also be sent to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff and CSS.

If the individual does return, the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ should ensure that Payroll and Allowances Unit are informed in order that the individual may be taken off the Central Staffing Pool.
If the individual does not return or provide a firm and acceptable date for return, line management should write formally warning them that unless there is a return to work within one calendar month, termination of the individual's employment on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance will be considered. The letter (Appendix 8) should be sent in duplicate and the individual asked to sign and return one copy as acknowledgement of receipt. The ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff and CSS should also receive a copy.
If the individual does not return within the month, and there is no evidence of an imminent return, the line manager should put a case to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff, recommending termination of employment. A letter should be sent to the individual advising them that this has taken place (Appendix 9).

Top of page

Poor performance/attendance - at the end of the trial period

At the end of the trial period (or during if circumstances warrant) the line manager should:

in cases where the problem has been poor performance, call for and complete a performance appraisal report;
discuss the case with the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff;
interview the individual and inform them that either they have successfully completed the trial period or they have failed to reach the required standard and downgrading/dismissal is to be recommended.

The individual should be advised in advance of the interview that they may be accompanied by a trade union representative or colleague and should let their line manager know if they will be accompanied.
In poor attendance cases, the content of the interview should be confirmed in writing (Appendix 10 and Appendix 11), and, in cases where downgrading or dismissal is being recommended the individual should be asked to submit any written comments within 7 working days. Copies should be sent to the individual and the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff.

Top of page

Downgrading/dismissal

Where downgrading or dismissal is being recommended the submission should contain:

a background summary;
a clear statement of the individual's weaknesses and any documentary evidence on performance, conduct or attendance (e.g. performance appraisals, attendance records, pieces of work);
corrective action taken so that the following can be demonstrated:

the individual knew specifically what was required;
training and encouragement had been given;
weaknesses had been spelt out;
reference has been made to CSS and, in appropriate cases, to the OHA;
adequate opportunity for improvement has been given;

details of warnings given;
the individual's comments (if any);
a recommendation for either downgrading or dismissal with reasons why this action would be appropriate. If dismissal is recommended, suggestions should also be included regarding payment of compensation.

The case should be sent to the ABM/Corporate HR Services for HQ staff. Decisions on downgrading or dismissal reside with the Chief Crown Prosecutor, CCP/HR Directorate for HQ staff, or to those postholders to whom the CCP has delegated that authority. Such postholders will be at least two pay bands above the member of staff being considered for downgrading/dismissal and, as a minimum, will not be below Level B Pay Band B2. Appellate authorities should be one level or pay band above the determining authority.

Top of page

Downgrading

Downgrading may sometimes be an alternative to dismissal where there is good reason to believe that the individual will be fully effective in a lower level/pay band. An example of when this might be appropriate is:

when an individual has been promoted and is not coping at the new level/pay band. In such cases it may be unreasonable to pursue termination when the problem seems to be over-promotion.

Top of page

Dismissal

A decision to dismiss will only be taken where it is clearly shown that line management have taken all reasonable steps to help the individual reach the standard of performance/attendance required. Where dismissal is appropriate, the determining authority will send an "intention to dismiss" letter (Appendix 12) to the individual.

Top of page

Compensation

An employee dismissed on grounds of inefficiency may receive a lump sum compensation payment (payable immediately) if the determining authority decides it is appropriate (see paragraph 69). Each case must be considered on its merits but some general guidelines on when compensation might be appropriate are given below:

the long term sick whose absence cannot continue to be accommodated, but whose condition is not considered appropriate for medical retirement. Most such cases would normally qualify for full compensation where medical evidence exists or can be obtained to show that the inability to attend is beyond the control of the individual;
the intermittently sick whose frequent absence for short periods, caused either by a specific illness or an apparently poor level of general health, can no longer be accommodated. Staff in this category might qualify for either partial or full compensation where management are satisfied, firstly after the necessary investigations (including obtaining medical evidence as appropriate) as to the nature and severity of the illness concerned, and, secondly, that the member of staff has done everything within their power to alleviate the problem. Where investigations establish that the sick absence provisions are being abused, compensation will not be appropriate;
health problems which, while not serious or incapacitating enough to make medical retirement appropriate, have an adverse effect on performance/timekeeping or where domestic difficulties or responsibilities impinge on the work performance to the extent that the job is not carried out satisfactorily (in the case of the latter, management will first need to consider what measures can be taken to solve the difficulties, in line with the Departments policy on equality and diversity, and the reconciliation of employment with domestic responsibilities). Full or partial compensation may be appropriate unless it can be shown that the individual has not sought to alleviate the problem by all available means;
where new work practices have been introduced which mean that a formerly competent individual produces measurably lower performance. The amount of any compensation payable will depend on the extent to which the individual has been offered training schemes and has co-operated by making every effort to master the new techniques;
poor performers who are unable to perform satisfactorily because they have been promoted beyond their capabilities, or where there has been a degree of management tolerance of poor performance over a number of years which can no longer be supported. Eligibility for compensation will depend on the extent to which it can be demonstrated that the individual has co-operated in measures to improve performance;
problem drinkers whose health and mental capacity are reduced to a level at which inefficiency dismissal, as opposed to medical retirement, is considered appropriate. The decision as to whether to award some compensation will usually be tempered by the degree to which the individual has been prepared to co-operate with the departmental policy on alcohol dependency (Volume 4 Chapter 11 Appendix 4).

In cases where, after consideration of all the relevant circumstances, an individual's general approach to work is unsatisfactory, although stopping short of a breach of the conduct rules, compensation is unlikely to be appropriate. Examples include laziness, negligence or carelessness, attitudinal problems and difficulties in working relationships with other staff.
Decisions on compensation will be made by the determining authority in accordance with the above criteria. Compensation, which may be awarded in percentage amounts up to the maximum payable in each case, is paid out of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS), budgetary responsibility for which rests with HR Directorate. ABMs must therefore inform the Head of Pay and Performance Policy at the earliest opportunity of any cases which might involve the payment of compensation. It is important that the line manager does not imply to the individual that compensation will or will not be paid. If the Department decides to exercise its discretion not to pay compensation, or to withhold a percentage of the maximum payable, the individual will be informed of this decision and of the right of appeal when notice of dismissal is given.

Top of page

Internal appeal

Any individual served with a letter of intention to dismiss or downgrade will have a right of appeal before the decision is implemented. Any appeal should be made in writing, to the appellate authority, within 10 working days of the date of the letter. If no appeal is received the determining authority will confirm, in writing, the decision to dismiss (Appendix 13).
If the appeal is not upheld dismissal will be confirmed, by the appellate authority, in writing (Appendix 14).
Notice will normally be given in accordance with the details shown in Volume 3 Chapter 4. Where notice has been given and the individual leaves before it has expired, payment will only be made up to the last day of attendance. Alternatively, the appointment may be terminated with immediate effect and salary paid in lieu of notice.

Top of page

Appeal to CSAB/Employment Tribunal

In addition to this internal right of appeal, an individual with service of 12 months or more who has been dismissed because of inefficiency has the right of appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board (CSAB) and to an Employment Tribunal. They may also appeal to the CSAB against a Departmental decision not to pay compensation, in whole or part. The letter of dismissal will inform the individual of their rights of appeal and will include the address of the CSAB. For further details see Chapter 5.

Top of page

Back to Staff conduct and working practices index

Quick Links

Chapter 4 - Inefficiency policy

Appendices

Introduction

Principles

What is inefficiency?

Poor performance

Poor attendance

Long term sickness absence

Procedures - poor performance

Transfer to other work

Written warning

Procedures - poor attendance

Poor attenders - first stage

Poor attenders - second stage

Occupational Health Service (OHS)

Poor attenders - third stage (trial period)

Procedures - long term sickness absence

Long term sickness absence -informal approach

Long term sickness absence - formal approach

Long term sickness absence - termination procedures

Poor performance/attendance - at the end of the trial period

Downgrading/dismissal

Downgrading

Dismissal

Compensation

Internal appeal

Appeal to CSAB/Employment Tribunal

The Crown Prosecution Service

DirectGov