Union reps lift lid on Government 'culture of intimidation'

Wednesday 09 June 2021

A culture of intimidation is leaving Government employees in fear of repercussions if they speak out to support colleagues, while an "awful lot of money" is being spent on compromise agreements because lessons are not learnt from previous mistakes, according to union reps.

Lyndsay Feltham, the Chair of the Civil Service Branch of Unite the Union, says that employees’ concerns about the consequences of getting involved in disciplinary, bullying or harassment cases is preventing “fair process” from happening.

Along with James Turner, the Regional Officer for Unite the Union, as well as Chris Hopkins and Gary Davies, the Vice President and President of JCSA Prospect, she met the Corporate Services Panel, which is currently reviewing the Government’s People and Culture strategy, last week.

During the hearing, Ms Feltham raised concerns about the “big issues” involved with disciplinary processes, with the case management process being currently so overwhelmed that the team handling it would have to grow.

Mr Turner suggested that the Government is also wasting money on suspensions that are not needed, because “power happy” managers are suspending employees in the first instance rather than undertaking a “very simple process of basic handling of disciplinary and grievances”.

Pictured: Lyndsay Feltham is the Chair of the Civil Service Branch of Unite the Union.

One of the main issues, they said, was that employees aren’t willing to support each other in disciplinary processes or when one of them makes a complaint because they fear of the backlash it might cause.

Mr Davies referred to the case of one employee who was criticised for being a witness in a harassment case, suggesting that in a criminal case this would amount to “tampering with witnesses or perjury”.

“We do have an inherent problem, being on an island, being a small community, people are going to be reluctant to stick their head above the parapet because that will affect their career opportunities,” he said. “I’ve heard of examples of reps almost going, ‘I’ve got to stand down,’ because they are fearful it could impact on their career things if they were to be vocal.

“Unfortunately, I’m at a stage of my career now where I will say what I feel - if somebody doesn’t like it, so be it - but certainly people in the early parts of their careers, they could have another 20, 30 years’ career with the States, they are certainly fearful of making waves, whether that be grievances, whether it be bullying, harassment etc… We certainly see and that’s not only people making bullying or harassment complaints, but also witnesses.

"There is a culture of a reluctance to make statements, be witnesses and everything else.”

Pictured: "There is a culture of a reluctance to make statements, be witnesses and everything else," Mr Davies said.

Ms Feltham described the process as “inherently unfair” because employees are supposed to call their own witnesses, suggesting that people are more likely to take part in the process if they are asked by a senior manager or Human Resources, rather than a colleague subject to a disciplinary hearing.

“We very often find that people don’t feel comfortable being a witness on behalf of our members because they  are worried about how that will be seen by their senior managers, so we get the sense that is stopping fair process from happening,” she said.

Mr Turner went so far as to say the process itself is “designed to be intimidating” for employees.

“Although it is a stressful situation anyway to be in a disciplinary process, with the additional pressure or intimidation, it creates a culture of no one wants to be involved, no one wants to support maybe an individual that’s being bullied by their management. That’s something that needs to be on the radar as an employer that you have got a culture from certain managers that could be getting away with this regularly and if people aren’t going to stand up and be counted because they suffer detrimental treatment from being a witness or providing a statement, that’s a bad culture to be in and that’s what we are here for today, to eradicate the process because that is happening, I’ve seen it a number of times in the five months I have been on the island.”

Mr Hopkins also mentioned a witness involved in an ongoing case who was moved and saw their hours changed after giving evidence during a case management hearing.

“It’s not going to be long until you can’t get a witness even if you are asked,” he said. “Nobody will put their job or their earnings, or their hours at risk.”

The union representatives said that they hadn’t received any responses when raising the issues during meetings with the senior leadership team. Ms Feltham also said that despite “consistent requests” to meet with the States Employment Board, she still hadn’t met them two years after starting in her role.

Pictured: Ms Feltham has been requesting a meeting with the States Employment Board for two years.

Ms Feltham also voiced concerns over the fact the outcome of disciplinary investigations are handled down differently “depending on who the employee is”, explaining that she had seen no disciplinary action taken against Senior Managers despite evidence of bullying whilst employees had been given much harsher sanctions for minor issues.

Mr Hopkins noted an “awful lot of money” is being spent on compromise agreements, which can never be reviewed due to the nature of the agreement, suggesting that mistakes done in the disciplinary processes are being repeated and leading to compensation being required.

“Everyone, including the government, signs up to the fact they are not going to talk about it and it’s never going to come out or the person - in my view, the victim - loses the money they’ve been given because of the way they have been treated,” he said.

“The biggest issue is, I have spoken to a member of the SEB about my concerns in the past because I have been defending people or investigating for the States now for over 21 years and nothing really changes, it’s the same mistakes that are made time and time again, which in my case has related to two £181,000 pay-offs and it’s all the same mistakes every time.”