Police Arbitration Tribunal judgment on Winsor 2 - compulsory severance and restricted duties
Please find below confirmation that the Police Arbitration Tribunal has rejected compulsory severance for police officers. The issue around restricted officers needs more work so we can fully understand the implications.
Regarding compulsory severance this is the best outcome we could have had, it shows that the arguments put forward by the staff side were compelling and reasonable.
What happens next?
The result of the PAT are binding on the staff side but they are not binding on the Home Secretary. However, previously the Home Secretary has stated if she was going to ignore the PAT then she would seek the agreement of Parliament. hopefully, for all the reasons we have given previously the Home Secretary will ratify thios decision as soon as possible.
As soon as we have further details they will be circulated.
Hampshire Police Federation
The Police Arbitration Tribunal has issued its judgment this morning on the Winsor report part 2, see attached. The panel met on 15th November 2013 to consider a failure to reach agreement between the two sides of the Police Negotiation Board, official and staff. The two key issues were;
- Compulsory severance
- Restricted duties
The PAT has wholesale rejected the introduction of a system of compulsory severance for police officers with less than full pensionable service. Clearly this is the best possible outcome for rank and file officers.
On restricted duties, the Sides only differed on one, recommendation 39. The view put forward by the Official Side on the meaning of restricted duty was accepted, so now the definition and potential pay reduction applies to officers unable to undertake the full range of duties of a police officer. Staff Side remain concerned that this could lead to discrimination for disabled officers.
The tribunal decision now rests with the Home Secretary for ratification in due course.
The PAT judgment is also available on www.polfed.org