Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
to our consideration of the MPS’ Fairness at Work procedure, which replaced the
previous grievance procedure.
1.16 We consider that the Fairness at Work procedure is fundamentally flawed in a
number of ways. Firstly, there is concern about the impartiality of the Fairness at
Work Advisors and, secondly, the Advisors can only give advice; they do not have
the power to resolve the issue, except where the parties agree. In addition, we are
concerned at evidence which indicates that, in some cases, people wishing to raise
a Fairness at Work issue have not been allowed to invoke the procedure.
1.17 Managers must take responsibility for managing and resolving workplace
disputes. We favour a grievance procedure based on the recent ACAS Code of
Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to cover all workplace conflicts.
1.18 We are also in favour of the increased use of mediation and note the work the
MPS is already undertaking in this area. We recommend that the MPS examines
best practice elsewhere and ensures that this informs the organisation’s own
approach to mediation.
1.19 The final recommendation we make in this area is directed at the Department
of Trade and Industry, which is the Government department responsible for
Employment Tribunals. The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 ensures that
discussions with a conciliation officer during the course of a mediation process
cannot be used in evidence before an Employment Tribunal. We consider that it
would be very helpful if this protection were to be extended to discussions between
the parties to a mediation process. We consider that this would act as an incentive
to the greater use of mediation and thus, we hope, to earlier resolution of
workplace disputes.
Managing Difference
1.20 We have heard much about the approach of the MPS to ‘diversity’. Indeed, it
dominated the evidence we received. We appreciate that extensive work has been
undertaken in developing the policies of the MPS in this area and in trying to
implement them across the organisation.
1.21 However, we were left with the concern that there is no common
understanding of diversity within the organisation and that it is not embedded in
the culture of the MPS. We fear that it remains, at worse, a source of fear and
anxiety and, at best, a process of ticking boxes.
1.22 We fear that some of the efforts the MPS has made to promote the message
of diversity across the organisation have been counterproductive and that the
organisation may now be seeing the beginnings of a backlash. This would be
13