Police officers are not allowed to make complaints, therefore the only recourse they have when things go wrong, is through the grievance procedure and so you would hope it is fit for purpose ensuring that people are confident in using it. Any police officers out there feeling confident, having read this? No, no, I didn’t think so!! Well, you’ve read what Superintendent Kevin Purcell said to me and Fed Rep 1 in my Grievance appeal meeting. Like I said, not a man to mince his words. I knew he would be mortified to find out that, having said in, what I thought were the strongest possible terms, that DI TAYLOR was a ‘danger’ to the organisation, that absolutely nothing happened to him. He would have serious concerns about this, wouldn’t he? I thought I would write and ask him………….On 31st August 2017 I wrote………
Superintendent Purcell, In respect of the attached email from Superintendent Thomas on 06/07/17, she states that she does not assess there is a performance matter or any misconduct issues in respect of DI Taylor.
He has told Superintendent Thomas and CI Francis that in the same circumstances he would do the same thing again.
My understanding is that ‘Misconduct’ is a breach of the standards of Professional behaviour and ‘Unsatisfactory Performance’ is an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he or she is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level.
That being the case, I fail to see how Superintendent Thomas has come to this conclusion based on the findings of your letter of 09/05/17.
Are you able to say whether or not you agree with Superintendent Thomas, as I fear that lessons have not been learned?
On the following day, Supt Purcell wrote back………
I hope you are well.
I dealt with the grievance and made all parties aware of my findings.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the difference between a grievance and misconduct.
A grievance seeks to consider whether the person grieving has in effect given the circumstances dealt with in a manner that wasn’t appropriate.
In my opinion or that of the force it doesn’t follow that a discipline must follow.
It is a matter for Supt Thomas as to whether she considers any further action is appropriate.
For my part Richard I hoped that your focus was on you not Martin Taylor. I am saddened that you are clearing feeling as you were and cannot move forward.
Ah, I see. It’s MY fault that I cannot move forward. Yes, as you can see, it would appear that Superintendent Purcell had obviously drunk from the fountain of fantasy on the top floor and washed down a corporate bullshit pill before making a complete u turn! No longer did he think DI TAYLOR was a danger to the organisation. Shame on him. I wrote back…….
Superintendent Purcell, Thank you for your response. The Grievance Resolution Policy and Procedure is intended to repair working relations when they have been damaged in some way.
I concur that it does not follow that a discipline must follow a grievance being upheld, but surely that is dependant upon whether the Fact-Finder is satisfied in ‘3.1.5 Delivering the outcome – showing how the individual and the organisation may learn from the issue to stop the same thing happening again’. ‘Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them’.
DI Taylor has made it clear to two senior officers that he would do the same thing again!I therefore cannot see how the working relations have been repaired or that anyone has learned from the issue to stop the same thing happening again.
It is in these very circumstances that it would appear appropriate for disciplinary action to take place. In my meeting with Superintendent Thomas on 05/07/17 she told me that it would have been for you to decide whether disciplinary action should have been taken and in your email below you state it is a matter for her!
As stated in my grievance, all I wanted is an apology, (which you kindly gave on behalf of West Mercia), and for lessons to be learned. Unfortunately the latter has not happened.
As for moving forward, this is what I am trying to do. In our meeting, in respect of DI Taylor, you said, “He’s a danger to me. He’s a danger to the organisation”. These are strong words and you will appreciate words that make moving on, in the knowledge that DI Martin could and would do the same/ similar thing again to me or any of my colleagues, very uncomfortable.
Indeed, Sect4.11 in the Policy Guidance states, ‘Managers should not assume that individuals will just ‘get on with it, or get over it’.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
And…………I never heard from him again. He was apparently promoted to Chief Superintendent and has since retired!
Anyway, moving on…… On 14th September, 2017 I sent an email to DS Husbands in Professional Standards, as I hadn’t had an update for a while…
He replied on the same day.
On 15th September 2017 I further wrote…..
And his response on the same day…..
So…….what do you think they did next?