Not Protected Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures (Supplementary Line Management Standards and Guidance) Reference No. P49:2013 Implementation date 14 February 2014 Version Number 1.2 Reference No: Name. Linked documents P27:2003 Health and Wellbeing P11:2012 Police Officer Ill Health Management Policy and Procedure P10:2011 Police Officer Restricted Duties Policy and Procedure P15:2003 Competency Related Threshold Payments Scheme Policy and Procedure P26:2004 Private Medical Intervention Procedure P05:2005 Management of staff with disabilities procedure (P05:2005) P24:2006 Stress Management Procedure Policy Section Procedure Section Suitable for Publication Yes Yes Protective Marking PRINTED VERSIONS SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. THE MOST UP TO DATE VERSION CAN BE FOUND ON THE FORCE INTRANET POLICIES SITE. Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures 1 P49:2013 v1.2
Table of Contents 1 Policy Section... 3 1.1 Statement of Intent Aim and Rationale... 3 1.2 Our Visions and Values... 3 1.3 People, Confidence and Equality... 4 2 Standards... 5 2.1 Legal Basis... 5 2.2 People, Confidence and Equality Impact Assessment... 5 2.3 Any Other Standards... 5 2.4 Monitoring / Feedback... 6 3 Procedure Section... 7 3.1 Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures - Supplementary Line Management Standards and Guidance 4 Consultation and Authorisation... 15 4.1 Consultation... 15 4.2 Authorisation of this version... 15 5 Version Control... 15 5.1 Review... 15 5.2 Version History... 15 5.3 Related Forms... 16 5.4 Document History... 16 Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 2
1 Policy Section The regular and reliable attendance of all officers at work is fundamental to the ability of Dorset Police to effectively deliver the Police and Crime Plan and enable the force to achieve two clear strategic objectives To Make Dorset Safer and To Make Dorset Feel Safer. This document has been developed to supplement the Home Office Guidance to the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 which relate to the use of Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures. Whilst the Home Office Guidance provides detailed advice and explanation relating to the operation of the Regulations it does not provide the Force context as to either the circumstances or timing of when they should apply or who performs the various roles and at what stages. This document, therefore, bridges the gap and has been designed in the form of questions and answers for ease to reflect the main concerns and queries raised by managers, officers and staff association representatives. It is imperative that managers who are required to utilise the Regulations not only read both documents in conjunction with each other but also have an understanding of the other polices and procedures linked to this procedure. This is in order that they fully understand the process, their roles within it and crucially, the management and occupational health support that must be implemented before, during and alongside their use. It is equally imperative that managers liaise with the HR Business Support Team (BST) at appropriate stages throughout an officer s absence to ensure a fair and consistent approach is maintained to the application of the Regulations and that relevant considerations such as disability are made appropriately. 1.1 Statement of Intent Aim and Rationale The primary aim of this document is to improve police officer attendance. It is envisaged that early intervention via management action will ordinarily achieve the desired effect of improving and maintaining an officer s attendance to an acceptable level and negate the need for more formal action. However, there will be cases where it will be appropriate for managers to take formal action under this procedure where attendance does not improve to an acceptable level (short-term) or where there is no realistic prospect of a return to work in a reasonable time-frame (long-term). 1.2 Our Visions and Values Dorset Police is committed to the principles of One Team, One Vision A Safer Dorset for You Our strategic priority is to achieve two clear objectives: To make Dorset safer To make Dorset feel safer In doing this we will act in accordance with our values of: Integrity Professionalism Fairness and Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 3
Respect National Decision Model The National Decision Model (NDM) is the primary decision-making model used in Dorset Police. The NDM is inherently flexible and is applied to the development and review of all policy, procedure, strategy, project, plan or guidance. Understanding, using and measuring the NDM ensures that we are able to make ethical (see Code of Ethics), proportionate and defensible decisions in relation to policy, procedure, strategy, project, plan or guidance. Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics underpins every day policy, procedures, decision and action in policing today. The Code of Ethics is an everyday business consideration. This document has been developed with the Code of Ethics at the heart ensuring consideration of the 9 Policing principles and the 10 standards of professional behaviour. Monitoring is carried out through the Equality Impact Assessment process which has been designed to specifically include the Code of Ethics 1.3 People, Confidence and Equality This document seeks to achieve the priority to make Dorset feel safer by securing trust and confidence. Research identifies that this is achieved through delivering services which: 1. Address individual needs and expectations 2. Improve perceptions of order and community cohesion 3. Focus on community priorities 4. Demonstrate professionalism 5. Express Force values 6. Instil confidence in staff This document also recognises that some people will be part of many communities defined by different characteristics. It is probable that all people share common needs and expectations whilst at the same time everyone is different. Comprehensive consultation and surveying has identified a common need and expectation for communities in Dorset to be:- Listened to Kept informed Protected, and Supported Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 4
2 Standards 2.1 Legal Basis The Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 and Home Office Circular - 23/2012 The Home Office Guidance to the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 details the procedure by which managers should address unsatisfactory attendance. This is both on an informal basis through general supervision and Supportive Management Action (SMA) and on a formal basis through the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP). This document provides the local standards and guidance that have been made to supplement the Home Office guidance and these relate to both the circumstances and timing of when the procedures should be used and the expectations and responsibilities of the various stakeholders who have a role to play within them. They are provided in the form of questions and answers for ease and reflect the main concerns and queries raised by managers, officers and staff association representatives. 2.2 People, Confidence and Equality Impact Assessment During the creation of this document, this business area is subject to an assessment process entitled People, Confidence and Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). Its aim is to establish the impact of the business area on all people and to also ensure that it complies with the requirements imposed by a range of legislation. 2.3 Any Other Standards This document is subject to an assessment process to establish its impact in relation to the requirements imposed a wide range of legislation that might be affected by its implementation. The Health Safety and Welfare at Work Act 1974 places a duty on employers, so far as is reasonably practicable, to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of their employees while they are at work. Dorset Police is duty bound to ensure that officers are fit to carry out their duties and achieve a satisfactory level of attendance; This policy complies with the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 however some elements have been replaced by local standards for example Force sickness triggers; The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on employers to consider reasonable adjustments. This is supported by recent case law i.e. the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire versus JELIC 2010; Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 5
Police Pension Regulations 1987 and 2006 which set out the compulsory retirement on grounds of disablement procedures (please see Police Officer Ill Health Management Policy and Procedure P11:2012); Access to Medical Records Act 1988 establishes a right of access by individuals to reports relating to themselves. 2.4 Monitoring / Feedback Specific attendance support data is included in the Human Resources live Dashboard data, which is reported to the Force Executive Board on a monthly basis, and also quarterly performance measures which is reported to the Health Safety and Wellbeing Group. This includes the number of officers exceeding the Force s current absence triggers and, by gender disability and ethnicity, those in the informal and formal process. Feedback relating to this policy can be made in writing or by e-mail to:- Address: HR Specialist, (Wellbeing and Engagement) Police Headquarters, Winfrith, Dorset DT2 8DZ E-mail: human-resources@dorset.pnn.police.uk Telephone: 01305 223764 Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 6
3 Procedure Section Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures - Supplementary Line Management Standards and Guidance 3.1.1 What constitutes unsatisfactory attendance? The Police (Performance) Regulations define unsatisfactory attendance as: 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. The terms failure and satisfactory are occasionally perceived by both managers considering action and officers who have been absent as somewhat emotive and that they suggest that it is considered that the absence(s) is not genuine and that the officer should have been able to attend work when they have not. This is not the case. The Force Health and Wellbeing Procedure provides the local context as to what is the satisfactory standard and what initial actions need to be made when it is breached. This is simply the fact that the Force Bradford Factor trigger levels have been reached in respect of short-term absences or that there is no actual or foreseeable return to work date for long-term absence (28 days or more) i.e. it is the situation that is considered to be unsatisfactory not the officer concerned. 3.1.2 When should Supportive Management Action (SMA) be undertaken? The Force Health and Wellbeing Procedure advises that when a Bradford Factor trigger level has been breached Line Managers will be prompted to undertake an indepth discussion and this is what is referred to as Supportive Management Action. The procedure states At this stage the manager should be clarifying their understanding of the reasons for absence, checking that reasonable support has been provided and considering the appropriateness of progressing the case via the Police (Performance) Regulations. The procedure similarly makes it clear that appropriate action needs to be undertaken if there are other concerns relating to the officer s attendance record irrespective of whether a trigger has been reached. 3.1.3 Are there circumstances when Supportive Management Action would not be appropriate? The short answer is no. SMA is a key feature of appropriate sickness absence management and the formal opportunity to establish that all relevant support has been considered and the officer consulted regarding their absence(s) and assistance required. There will, therefore, be very few exceptions when it will be appropriate for SMA not to be undertaken and it must always be undertaken in cases of long-term absence, irrespective of the nature or cause of the illness or injury. Supportive Management Action does not form part of UPP. It is simply an informal structured discussion between the line manager and the officer with no other person present. Neither the manager leading the discussion nor the officer subject to it should have any concerns regarding its use and should be reassured that its main Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 7
purpose is to ensure that all reasonable support is being provided to assist the officer achieve and maintain regular and reliable attendance in the shortest possible timeframe. 3.1.4 Is it the line manager s decision whether or not Supportive Management Action should be undertaken irrespective of the fact that a trigger has been breached? Yes, where a trigger level has been breached it is for the manager to decide that SMA should be undertaken. However as explained above there should be very few situations when it would not be appropriate and to ensure a fair and consistent approach a line manager not wishing to instigate the action is required to justify their decision. A designated member of the Command Team will consider the circumstances and reason for the decision in consultation with a Senior HR Business Partner. The Home Office Guidance states that in relation to Management Action Managers are expected to deal with unsatisfactory attendance issues in the light of their knowledge of the individual and the circumstances giving rise to these concerns. Occasionally Managers have attempted to rely upon this statement as a basis not to undertake SMA as they consider that they know the individual well and they do not have any particular concerns as to the attendance record irrespective of the fact that a trigger has been reached. Such a view is fundamentally flawed and misses the key part of the statement that they are still expected to deal with the issue but in doing so have cognisance of the information they have already gleaned through their supervisory management of the absence to date, including welfare contact, return to work discussions etc. The circumstances giving rise to these concerns similarly relates to the fact that a standard set by the Force has been breached and as such management action is required. 3.1.5 Should absences related to Injury on duty and a disability covered by the Equality Act be disregarded in considering Supportive Management Action? No, the reason for the absence(s) is not relevant. As explained above unsatisfactory simply means a Force trigger has been breached and this is an indication that it is the situation and not the officer that is considered unsatisfactory. It has also been explained that a key feature of SMA is the check that all appropriate support is being provided and that the officer has the opportunity to be consulted regarding the absences and this is the same irrespective of the reason for the absence. 3.1.6 Should absences during pregnancy be generally disregarded? Yes. The Expectant Mothers Risk Assessment process ensures that appropriate support is provided and there are regular opportunities to discuss all relevant issues including those that may be impacting upon the officer s ability to provide regular and reliable attendance. 3.1.7 How long should the Supportive Management Action review period be? The default position is 3 months although should a manager wish to depart from this they must consult with the Personnel Services BST to ensure a consistent approach is maintained. Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 8
3.1.8 Do officers have to be made aware that Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP) will be considered if there is no improvement or an insufficient improvement in the review period? The Home Office Guidance is slightly contradictory on this issue as it advises in one part that it may be appropriate to indicate this but in another it advises that managers should take into consideration whether the officer was made aware (as one of many things to consider) when deciding whether UPP should be invoked. These two statements seem at odds with each other particularly bearing in mind that it will usually be the same manager who would make the officer aware (or not) and then take into consideration whether they were made aware. It is the Force view that, save in rare and exceptional circumstances, there is no reason at all not to make an officer who is in SMA aware that unless there is an improvement in the situation UPP will be considered. Not to do so could be perceived as disingenuous as this is precisely what will have to happen if there is insufficient improvement irrespective of the nature or reason for the absence. Such a warning doesn t infer that UPP will be invoked nor predict the timing of when it may be if it is. However, there will not be a bar on using UPP if, for whatever reason, an officer was not specifically made aware of it. 3.1.9 The Home Office Guidance states that it will be appropriate to use UPP s if there is no improvement or insufficient improvement or if the improvement is not sustained over a reasonable period of time. What constitutes such a failing? The Guidance provides no further explanation and advises that there is no single formula for determining that UPP should be invoked and that each case should be considered on its merits. The following has, therefore, been determined to assist managers: Short-term absences Given that the SMA review period is by default 3 months any further period of absence within such a short timescale should naturally lead to consideration of the formal stages of UPP being invoked unless the absence(s) is related to pregnancy as these should be disregarded. If there are no absences at all during the review period UPP should still be considered if the officer s attendance causes further concern during the 12 month period following the instigation of SMA. Further concern may relate to the number, frequency and length of the absence(s). N.B. The officers Bradford Factor score is not relevant in determining whether or not no improvement or insufficient improvement has been made. This is because it is possible for the score to go down even if further absences occur given the rolling 12 month period that is used to calculate it, i.e. the score will reduce if more absences that occurred at the start of the period drop-off than have occurred during the review period. Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 9
Long-term absence Formal UPP should be considered where there is no clear return to work date identified. It should similarly be considered where a potential return date has been identified but it is more than 6 weeks following the expiry of the SMA review period. 3.1.10 Is it appropriate to use UPP if the officer s is covered by the Equality Act? The short answer is yes but there are considerations that need to be made. The Force recognises that individuals who have a disability may from time to time have periods of sickness absence that are either connected to, or as a direct result of their disability, but this is not in itself a reason why UPP should not be used. However where an individual has a disability that is impacting upon their ability to provide regular and reliable attendance, potential adjustments must be considered in relation to the environment, duties, working pattern etc that may assist them to provide regular and reliable attendance. The adjustments can also extend in certain exceptional circumstances to permitting more frequent or a longer period of continuous absence than a non-disabled person in terms of either deferring the application of the formal stages of UPP or adjusting the timescale between stages. The test of reasonableness as to whether the adjustment should be applied will depend on the individual circumstances but for the avoidance of doubt an unlimited level of sickness absence will not be considered as reasonable in any situation. To ensure a consistent and appropriate approach is maintained line managers must consult with the Personnel Services BST where potential adjustments are being considered to the application of UPP. 3.1.11 Is it the line manager s decision whether or not UPP should be invoked? Yes. However, a key feature of the Force sickness absence strategy is that absences are monitored and the Personnel Services BST has a critical role to play in this regard. Consultation between the line manager and the team will naturally occur at the point the SMA review occurs as it is important that a consistent and fair approach is maintained. 3.1.12 The Home Office supplementary Guidance on Attendance Management states that UPP should only be used after all supportive approaches have been offered in line with Force Policy. What are all the supportive approaches that must be offered? These will naturally vary from situation to situation and depend on the nature of the illness or injury, its cause and whether the absence is one of a short or long-term nature. They may include, depending upon the circumstances, Occupational Health and/or Welfare support (including the Force Employee Assistance Provider), appropriate supervisory support and the consideration and implementation of any necessary and reasonable adjustments. However, notwithstanding the fact that individual circumstances differ considerably, the following general standard must have been met before UPP can be considered: a) The officer has had the opportunity to formally discuss the situation with their line manager (or other appropriate manager) and is aware that their attendance Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 10
record has reached one of the Force Bradford Factor trigger levels or that there are other concerns related to their current attendance record. This will usually have been through the use of SMA but if for whatever the reason this is not the case it will not be a bar to the use of UPP. This is providing the discussion has considered the issue of support and any measures identified as reasonable by the line manager implemented. b) Occupational Health advice has been obtained in relation to the condition suffered, the prognosis, the potential for a return to work or achievement of regular and reliable attendance, the support that could be offered and whether the officer is likely to be covered by the Equality Act. The advice will also cover whether the officer suffers from an underlying medical condition if the absences are of a short-term nature. 3.1.13 The Regulations require Managers to advise the officer why the attendance is considered unsatisfactory when requiring them to attend a First or Second stage UPP meeting. What is unsatisfactory about an officer not being able to come to work when they are genuinely sick? The Force accepts that illness and injury will from time to time prevent an officer from attending for duty and similarly does not wish officers to attend when they are unwell or unfit to do so. However, when officers are unable to provide regular and reliable attendance it is the situation and not the officer that is considered unsatisfactory and this must, therefore, be addressed. This may also be the situation when officers attend for duty but in a severely restricted post, usually on a supernumerary basis, or who are unable to work their full contracted hours on a long-term basis. It is important to note that the genuineness of the officer s condition is not in question during any stage of UPP and occupational health advice will be sought to ensure that the officer s situation is managed appropriately. In terms of short-term absence unsatisfactory refers to the fact that the number or pattern of absence(s) had initially caused concern and the situation has not improved sufficiently for the Force to no longer be concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. In terms of long-term absence unsatisfactory refers to the fact that the officer continues to be absent and there is currently no return to work date identified and realistically there is little or no prospect of a return to work in a reasonable timeframe and in a manner sufficient for the Force to no longer be concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. In terms of severely restricted duties or working hours unsatisfactory refers to the fact that following a lengthy period of either having been worked there is little prospect of a significant improvement being achieved within a reasonable timeframe. 3.1.14 At all three stages of UPP the officer concerned must be provided with copies of documentation relied upon by the line manager in support of their view that attendance is unsatisfactory. What Documents need to be given? At the First and Second stage meeting the officer (and staff association representative at the officer s request) will be provided with a copy of their sickness record, the most Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 11
relevant Occupational Health advice, a further copy of any earlier action plan and a further copy of the record of potential adjustments matrix (if relevant). A covering report summarising the management of the officer s attendance will be prepared by the Personnel Services BST for the panel at a Third Stage meeting which will enclose the above and any other relevant documentation and this will also be provided to the officer (and staff association representative at the officer s request) 3.1.15 If the Manager determines during a First or Second stage UPP meeting that the attendance is unsatisfactory they are required to inform the officer of the improvement that is required in their attendance and the period over which the improvement must be made. How can an officer improve their attendance if they are genuinely ill and unable to attend for duty? It is accepted that the officer may well have little or no ability to improve their health but this is not relevant to this issue as it is simply the improvement in the general situation that will prevent consideration of the next stage of UPP that needs to be identified. In terms of Short-term absences the improvement required is as follows: The Force is no longer concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. In terms of Long-term absence the improvement required is as follows: The officer has returned to duty or the Occupational Health Department has advised the Force that a return to work will be achieved by a specified date (which is deemed to be within a reasonable timescale) in a manner such that the Force is no longer concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. In terms of severely restricted duties or working hours the improvement required is as follows: The officer has achieved a significant improvement such that the Force is no longer concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. The period over which the improvement must be made is called the specified period and this will not normally exceed 3 months although in line with the advice within paragraph 3.1.10 above, this can be extended where it is deemed appropriate to do so as a reasonable adjustment on disability grounds. 3.1.16 Why are officers advised during a First stage UPP meeting that if they remain unwell and are unable to improve their attendance to a satisfactory standard that dismissal from the Force is a possible outcome at Stage Three of the procedures. Isn t this unnecessary and uncaring given that the First stage is, as its name suggests, the very early part of the procedure? The Home Office Guidance states that The police officer should be made aware at the start of the UPP s that if he or she remains unwell and if necessary adjustments cannot Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 12
be made dismissal from the force is a possible outcome at stage three. Such a statement is, therefore, a requirement. The Home Office Guidance states that where an officer has improved his attendance to an acceptable standard during the specified period of a Written Improvement Notice (WIN) but then fails to maintain that standard within the 12 month validity period, the next stage of the process can be initiated. What constitutes maintaining the standard? The improvement required will have been defined on the WIN and will reflect the standards detailed above in paragraph 3.1.15 above. The officer needs to maintain this standard during the 12 month period. N.B. Officers returning from a period of long-term sickness absence often do so on a recuperative basis. It will be for the line manager monitoring and assessing the officers attendance during the validity period whether the return achieved is such that the Force is no longer concerned as to whether regular and reliable attendance has and will continue to be achieved. 3.1.17 Can an officer have legal representation at any stage of the UPP proceedings? No. The right to be accompanied or represented is limited to a police friend from their staff association although officers are of course free to seek legal advice at any time (save during actual meetings). 3.1.18 Who conducts the various UPP stages and is anyone else involved? The Appropriate Authority is the Chief Constable. Day to day responsibility for administering the Chief s responsibilities within the Regulations, including the arrangements for a Third Stage meeting, has been delegated to the HR Specialist (Health & Wellbeing) The various meetings will be conducted as detailed below although it should be noted that other managers can be asked to undertake the meetings instead. Such managers can be either officers or Police Staff of at least the same rank or equivalent to the officer concerned. First Stage Meeting will be conducted by the line manager with a member of the Personnel Services BST also in attendance. First Stage Appeal Meeting will be conducted by the second line manager with a different member of the Personnel Services BST also in attendance. Second Stage Meeting will be also conducted by the second line manager with a member of the Personnel Services BST also in attendance. Second Stage Appeal Meeting will be conducted by the supervisor of the second line manager with a different member of the Personnel Services BST also in attendance. Third Stage Panel Membership Chair: Assistant Chief Constable or Director of HR Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 13
2nd & 3rd member: Chief Superintendent, Superintendent, Head of Personnel Services, Head of Organisational Development NB. The Regs require that at least one panellist must be a Police Officer and one an HR Professional and that none should be junior in rank to the officer concerned. 3.1.19 The Home Office Guidance advices that Forces must have in place formal attendance management policy and procedures. It also advises that a failure to have one or to follow such a policy could be taken into account when decisions are being made, or appeals, decided under UPP. What does the Force have in place? The Health and Wellbeing Procedure details the Forces overarching approach to attendance management including supervisory responsibility, contact, return to work arrangements, Occupational Health s role, recuperative and restrictive duty etc. This is supplemented by a raft of other supportive procedures relating to specific areas of attendance management and these include the following: The Police Officer Ill Health Management Policy and Procedure Police Officer Restricted Duties Policy and Procedure Private Medical Intervention Procedure Management of staff with Disabilities Procedure Stress Management Procedure N.B. Arguments have regularly been put forward by officers (and their staff association representatives) required to attend UPP meetings and associated appeal meetings that the Force s application of the procedures is flawed as a specific Force UPP procedure has not been developed and this is a requirement under the Regulations. This is not the case and is a misunderstanding. The requirement is as explained above and relates to a much wider need for Force policies related to all aspects of good attendance management and the support available to officers who are unable for whatever reason to provide regular and reliable attendance. The Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 clearly detail how UPP should be applied and are supplemented by detailed Home Office Guidance which themselves are supplemented by these local standards and guidance. There is, therefore, neither a requirement nor indeed a need for a UPP policy. Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 14
4 Consultation and Authorisation 4.1 Consultation Version No: Name Signature Date Police & Crime Commissioner Police Federation Superintendents Association UNISON Other Relevant Partners (if applicable) 4.2 Authorisation of this version Version No: Name Signature Date Prepared: Quality assured: Authorised: Approved: 5 Version Control 5.1 Review Date of next scheduled review Date: 24 February 2015 5.2 Version History Version Date Reason for Change Created / Amended by 1.0 June 2013 Initial Document Change in designation 7/4/14 Mrs L Tong, HR Specialist, Wellbeing & Engagement 1.1 24/11/14 The policy has been reviewed in Policy Co-ordinator preparation for NICHE implementation (April 2015), no changes necessary 1.2 13/4/16 Amendments made to contact details Policy Co-ordinator (6362) Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 15
5.3 Related Forms Force Ref. No. Title / Name Version No. Review Date 5.4 Document History Present Portfolio Holder Director of Human Resources Present Document Owner Mr P Channon Present Owning Department HR W&E Details only required for version 1.0 and any major amendment ie 2.0 or 3.0: Name of Board: People Board Date Approved: 14 th February 2014 Chief Officer Approving: Director of Human Resources Template version January 2013 Police Officer Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedures P49:2013 v1.2 16