Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
increased chance of resolving the dispute where the parties actively
communicate with each other. The tendency to get on with preparing
the Tribunal case and to abandon further settlement discussions should
be resisted.
● Does the Applicant simply want an apology? In a number of the cases we
looked at, the Applicant made it clear from the outset that he or she was
merely seeking an apology. It is not possible to lodge a claim simply to
obtain an apology. These cases might have been settled earlier and more
economically if management had been prepared to admit to errors and
apologise. We found evidence of the ‘blame culture’ we have referred to
elsewhere in this report.
● Learning lessons from Employment Tribunal cases. We consider that it would
be helpful to the MPS if a pro forma were to be kept recording the reasons
for settlement. There is a need to monitor management practice and
responses to workplace conflicts to ensure that proper steps are taken to
resolve disputes at an early stage. In addition, where things go wrong
(which is inevitable) lessons can be learnt. Annual reviews of trends and
lessons to be learnt from Employment Tribunal cases should become
common practice within the MPS. We are greatly encouraged by the MPS’
response that they already do this.
4.138 We are asked in note 5 to our terms of reference to consider “whether
there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involving
allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part
of the MPS handling of such cases, in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve
resolution by agreement.”
4.139 While we have not received extensive evidence on this point, we are firmly
of the view that the MPS should manage its own disputes and problems without
involving external assistance. We are, therefore, not persuaded that external review
would assist the organisation in the long term.
96