HR procedures could delay Sue Gray inquiry details, employment lawyer warns
Amanda Lennon said if staff are identified, it is possible ‘they could claim the process is procedurally and substantively unfair’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.HR procedures for staff subject to Sue Gray’s inquiry into allegations of lockdown-breaking parties at Downing Street could delay the publication of her detailed findings, an employment lawyer has suggested.
Amanda Lennon said the senior civil servant could face difficulties in publishing her report in any detail if she intends to identify the staff involved, if internal procedures are not completed first.
The employment lawyer at Spencer West and HR director told the PA news agency: “Fair investigations, and as appropriate follow up disciplinary action, in line with the relevant civil service HR policy, will have to have been carried out before it’s fair for conclusions to be reached in each case, from an employment law and HR perspective.
“If an employee is dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation and/or any ensuing disciplinary process they have the right to appeal. This must be considered and concluded before the report is published unless the matter is couched in such a way that no particulars that could identify the individual are given.
“Otherwise the employee could claim that the process is procedurally and substantively unfair and a breach of their right to privacy.”
Concerns facing unions and the civil service’s HR department will be “centred around the need to follow a fair and thorough process with each individual, including concluding any appeal process against the decision”, she said, warning: “This could take weeks if not months.”
It will be difficult for the report to go into the detail people are expecting without the HR processes having been concluded, otherwise the report will be too subjective
Ms Lennon added: “In contrast, the Government is under immense pressure to publish the report as a matter of urgency. The only way that I can see they could publish the report before concluding the HR process is to remove mention of any particular cases/individuals, and include some vague wording along the lines of ‘the civil servants involved are currently subject to an ongoing investigation, and disciplinary action may be taken where appropriate’.
“These individuals’ reputations and employment positions could be seriously undermined, especially if their investigations haven’t been concluded, not to mention their privacy – their names will be a matter of public record.
“I believe that despite the pressure the Government is under to publish the report now, it should be delayed until the HR processes are all complete if names are to be included.
“The holding wording could be used to appease the pressure and publish the report now, but it will be difficult for the report to go into the detail people are expecting without the processes having been concluded, otherwise the report will be too subjective.”
A spokesman for the FDA union, which represents senior civil servants, said: “It would be the FDA’s expectation that, as is normal practice when the results of investigations are made public, no officials below the level of the senior civil service would be individually identified.
“Additionally, we would expect that anyone who is named would be given prior notice of what the report says about them.
“As those involved may also face further action by the police, it is important not to in anyway prejudice the ongoing investigation by the Metropolitan Police.”