Providing another option means doctors will be able to advise employers that the employee would be able to return to work if temporary arrangements such as reduced hours, changes to duties and responsibilities or moving office can be provided to take account of the fact that the individual is not fully fit to resume a normal working life.

“The changes are not about trying to get people back to work before they are ready but about removing the challenges to them returning,” says guidance notes produced for employers by the Work and Pensions department. See:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2010/february-2010/dwp030-10-190210.shtml

In response, the TUC has issued guidance to unions, http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/fitnote.pdf pointing out that because many employers do not have sufficient occupational health advice to implement recommendations from GPs, union representatives in the workplace will have a “key role in supporting people where the doctor recomends an early return to work may be possible”.

In cases where employees disagree with their GP, workers are advised to seek a second opinion or talk to their union representative. If employers fail to make changes to accommodate a phased return to work the TUC says the employee should stay at home.

The TUC also suggests employees should seek union advice if they find themselves in a situation where they agree with their GP about a return to work but do not think their employer has gone far enough to cope with their limitations.

The TUC says any attempts by employers to match reduced duties with reduced pay should be resisted. Employees should be employed under the same conditions they enjoyed before going on the sick list with modifications to help the transition back to work.

Roger Kline of Aspect said:

“The key purpose of this government policy is to reduce sickness absence, not improve staff health. It is most unfortunate that staff sickness has become an election issue in health and local government not least because of the wildly inflated savings claimed for the policy.

Although the new policy gives GPs (and therefore employers) more flexibility, for example around a phased return to work, the real risk is that staff will be forced back to work when they are still ill. This is particularly dangerous in occupations where staff mistakes can have serious consequences for other people.

What employers in highly stressed workplaces where absenteeism may be relatively high should do is to look at the workplace causes of absenteeism – excessive workloads, stress, concerns about job security, bullying – and tackle those. That is why the Social Work Task Force health check is such a good start.

If this policy forces staff back to work when their long term future (and their long term contribution in the workplace) means they should stay off sick , it will be completely counter productive. We would also be concerned that the new policy could give too much influence to occupational health staff, some of whom are excellent but some of whom are not regarded by staff as being sufficiently independent”

The decision overturns a ten year long injustice in which Lisa Arthurworrey, who lost her job and ten years of her career in the wake of the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, has twice had her character and competence upheld by the Care Standards Tribunal.

The Care Standards Tribunal, a specialist court in these matters, has on two separate occasions, supported Lisa’s request to be allowed to practice. It is deplorable that she has had to wait ten years to be able to start practicing again whilst some of those responsible for the shortcomings in training, staffing and management culture, so heavily criticised at the time, went on to advance their careers.

Aspect represented Lisa, who is an Aspect member, at the last two hearings of the Registration Committee of the GSCC. Our thanks to Lisa for her determination to be able to practice again. And we could not have got Lisa back on the register without the assistance of Liz Davies who has given Lisa endless support over the last decade.

It remains too easy for employers to try to blame individual social workers when things go wrong rather than scrutinise the decisions on staffing levels, workloads, training, management culture and changes in government child protection policy which are often the real reasons for tragedies.

We welcome the Registration Committee’s eventual decision. Over the next months we will be following up the case by:

• Making formal representations to the GSCC to try to ensure that the way social workers are treated is fairer and more timely that the treatment afforded Lisa
• Working within the Social Work reform Board, on which aspect is represented, to ensure that the employer’s Standards eventually agreed make it easier for staff to raise concerns, better protect those who do raise concerns, and stop the culture whereby it is too easy to blame staff for any shortcomings instead of looking at the underlying resources, management culture, training, supervision and procedures which are generally the real cause of shortcomings in individual practice.

The full press statement from Aspect, including the statement from Lisa Arthurworrey herself, from Dr Liz Davies who was an expert witness for Ms Arthurworrey at the Care Standards Tribunal, and from Mor Dioum, Director of the Victoria Climbié Foundation below

You can also read the Community Care report and an article by Dr Davies at

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/08/113989/arthurworrey-wins-10-year-battle-for-registration.htm

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

PRESS STATEMENT

GSCC finally agrees Lisa Arthurworrey can practice

In a landmark decision, the General Social Care Council has finally agreed to implement the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal that Ms Lisa Arthurworrey can be placed on the professional social work register.

The decision overturns a ten year long injustice in which Ms Arthurworrey, who lost her job and ten years of her career in the wake of the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, has twice had her character and competence upheld by the Care Standards Tribunal.

Welcoming the decision, Roger Kline, social care spokesperson for Aspect, Lisa’s trade union, who represented Lisa in her final hearing with the GSCC, said:

“The Care Standards Tribunal, a specialist court in these matters, has on two separate occasions, supported Lisa’s request to be allowed to practice. It is deplorable that she has had to wait ten years to be able to start practicing again whilst some of those responsible for the shortcomings in training, staffing and management culture, so heavily criticised at the time, went on to advance their careers.”

Lisa Arthurworrey said today:

“I am naturally pleased that this decision has finally come. The last ten years have been incredibly difficult ones and I now want to start rebuilding my career”.

Dr Liz Davies, senior lecturer in social work at London Metropolitan University who was an expert witness for Ms Arthurworrey at the Care Standards Tribunal, said:

“In his recent report of the progress of child protection in England, Lord Laming stated, ‘the time is long past when the most junior employee should carry the heaviest burden of accountability.’ Yet this scapegoating is exactly what happened to Lisa and it is to her credit that she continued her struggle to resume her chosen career.”

“Laming’s words have unfortunately been ignored as front-line social workers, following the death of Peter Connolly in Haringey, are currently involved in numerous legal battles to clear their names.  Like Lisa, these social workers are dedicated, conscientious staff who were implementing a government policy of family support without effective systems in place to support their practice around child protection.”

Mor Dioum, Director of the Victoria Climbié Foundation (1) said today:

“The sad reality is that frontline staff are often not fully supported by their managers. In cases of child death or serious injury, it is frontline staff that become a target for public outrage. Lisa’s case epitomises how difficult it can be for frontline staff when they are faced with a high profile case and calls for someone to bear the blame.

“We believe that this culture of blaming an individual social worker, or any frontline staff, must come to an end. Frontline staff, like Lisa, will continue to be singled out for blame if the agencies they work for fail to properly support them.”

Roger Kline added:

“It is too easy for employers to try to blame individual social workers when things go wrong rather than scrutinise the decisions on staffing levels, workloads, training, management culture and changes in government child protection policy which are often the real reasons for tragedies.”

“We welcome the Registration Committee’s decision and hope the case will cause the GSCC to reflect on, and change, the culture which subjected Lisa to incorrect decisions and long delays.”

Ends

Note to editors.

1 The Victoria Climbie Foundation has long campaigned against inherent failings in cases where children are abused, and failed by the system. Since the tragic death of Victoria ten years ago, VCF has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the need for frontline staff to be effectively supported.
2            Aspect is the only professional association and trade union exclusively representing professionals working in educational improvement, social care and children’s services. It maintains an autonomous section for social care professionals.

Aspect members include social care professionals, advisory head teachers, directors and managers of children’s services, school improvement and early years advisers, education welfare officers, 14-19 coordinators, heads of Sure Start, Ofsted inspectors, Early Years Professionals, parent partnership staff and self-employed consultants. Over the past five years, membership has doubled and Aspect now represents over 4,000 professionals working in the field.

Association of Professionals in Education and Children’s Trusts
Woolley Hall, Woolley, Wakefield,
West Yorkshire, WF4 2JR

info@aspect.org.uk
www.aspect.org.uk

Background information

Extracts from the two Care Standards Tribunal decisions that upheld Lisa Arthurworrey’s claims are reprinted below.

1. CST [2004] 286.PC wrote (at para 143)

“Sadly, there has been another victim of the failures in Haringey in 1999 and early 2000, and we see Ms Arthurworrey as such a victim. She has certainly been traumatised by Victoria’s death, and we heard her father bravely provide us with details of her health since the events of February 2000. We agree with much of what Lord Laming had to say about where the responsibility should be when allocating blame for Victoria’s death.”

2. CST [2007] 985.SW (at Para 49) when considering whether a finding of misconduct should be found against Ms Arthurworrey said that:

“The key issue is whether, if registered, Ms Arthurworrey has the potential to grow professionally and overcome what she has been through (our emphasis). This is not easy to determine. It is not a situation where an individual’s conduct had been exemplary except for a one-off incident. However, we also need to bear in mind the professional environment in which Ms Arthurworrey was operating: from what we read and heard the department was chaotic; she had no detailed supervision; there was no obvious benchmark against which she could self-assess and we assume that there was no appraisal scheme in place in the department. Whilst we acknowledge that carrying more cases than expected is often an indication of good competence, in this department it was just a question of cases being handed out and the staff being told to close them. In addition, we also need to bear in mind that there was no apparent criticism of LA’s work in other cases, which suggests that she was not totally incompetent and must have been doing something right.

3. CST [2007] 985.SW (at Paras 106 and 108) stated:

“We can think of no instance throughout the entire period when Ms Arthurworrey was given real help and support from her managers. Likewise, we can think of no instance when her handling of the case had ever been criticised by a manager, and no instance of her ever attempting to conceal or dissemble any errors she may have unwittingly been making.”

“We have formed the opinion that the office environment was chaotic, the reference tool was totally inadequate, and that mistakes made by Ms Arthurworrey in dealing with Victoria’s case must be considered within that context as well as her inexperience, lack of training and lack of any effective supervision.”

“The key issue is whether, if registered, Ms Arthurworrey has the potential to grow professionally and overcome what she has been through (our emphasis). This is not easy to determine. It is not a situation where an individual’s conduct had been exemplary except for a one-off incident. However, we also need to bear in mind the professional environment in which Ms Arthurworrey was operating: from what we read and heard the department was chaotic; she had no detailed supervision; there was no obvious benchmark against which she could self-assess and we assume that there was no appraisal scheme in place in the department. Whilst we acknowledge that carrying more cases than expected is often an indication of good competence, in this department it was just a question of cases being handed out and the staff being told to close them. In addition, we also need to bear in mind that there was no apparent criticism of LA’s work in other cases, which suggests that she was not totally incompetent and must have been doing something right.

4. CST [2004] 268.PC stated (at Para 141):

“It is our view that the Secretary of State has wholly failed to satisfy us that Ms Arthurworrey is unsuitable to work with children. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Ms Arthurworrey came over to us in her evidence as a straightforward and caring individual who has fully acknowledged the mistakes she made in connection with this case. She told us that she failed in her responsibility towards Victoria. She was frank in her assessment of herself. (our emphasis)

144. Accordingly ……… we would have had no hesitation in deciding that notwithstanding, Ms Arthurworrey is today suitable to work with children. (our emphasis)

5. In a recent judgement by the First Tier Tribunal of Wales [2009] UKFTT 213 (HESC), that Tribunal upheld an appeal by social worker Eleni Cordingley, and concluded with a statement that might equally apply to this case:

The Tribunal, having also taken note of Eleni Cordingley’s own suffering and remorse, stated (at Para 42) that:

“It is important that those charged with the regulation of the professions remain vigilant not only in rooting out dangerous practice but to the necessity not to be swayed by apparent calls for retribution towards professionals.”

6. Finally, the Care Standards Tribunal in Sonia West V General Social Care Council [2009] 1614.SW-SUS at Para 4 made a statement in respect of a different GSCC function (the imposition of ISOs) which might reasonably be considered pertinent to this case:

“The committee should bear in mind the effects of any sanction on the registrant and whether it would be proportionate. The need for the protection of the public, particularly service users, and the maintenance of the public’s confidence in social care provision must be balanced against the consequences of an ISO for the registrant.”

1. The new careers structure set out in the report will require job descriptions which reflect levels of skill, responsibility and role.
2. The current job evaluation of basic grade social workers should be reviewed
3. The steps should be done “swiftly” within the current national pay agreement
4. Should this not happen swiftly then consideration should be given to a new national pay structure for social workers

Roger Kline told Community Care that Aspect’s evidence to the Task Force on pay recommended what the final sentence of this section says “not least because in our view the current two main job evaluation schemes in use are fundamentally not fit for the grading of social workers”.

What the Final Report says

3.29 Social worker pay has been raised in a number of ways with the Task Force, and the concerns we have heard were summarised in our interim report.

3.30 Pay for new social workers is comparable to other professions. However, there is evidence that a clearer career structure, with opportunities to progress to greater responsibility and higher pay, while continuing to work on the front line, will help recruitment, promote retention, and ultimately improve the quality of frontline services.

3.31 The Task Force has also seen evidence that suggests social workers have done badly in the job evaluation exercises carried out in some local authorities, which underrated their knowledge and skills. This has led to them being paid less than other professionals with comparable expertise and knowledge.

3.32 We believe these issues need to be resolved by setting out clearly defined levels of skill, responsibility and role, which can be reflected in local authority grading structures in order to deliver pay progression. This would provide agreed and nationally recognised career progression, while leaving to local arrangements the structure and size of individual teams.

3.33 We also recommend that, as part of the standard for employers (see Chapter 2), employers should review their job evaluation of basic grade social workers to ensure that their knowledge and skills are being fairly rewarded. We are making recommendations founded on the current national agreement on local government pay, as both employers and unions have told us they are willing to act swiftly to make significant change a reality.

However, if this turns out not be the case, we believe that the government shouldconsider whether a national pay body is needed to ensure social workers are fairlyrewarded.

“Doctors, unless they lack the ability or insight to practice safely, are frequently allowed the period while charges are pending to prove and to develop themselves. Equally, final outcomes may also be less draconian for a doctor than a social worker.

“The CHRE report on the GSCC latches onto one of the key reasons why this might be so, and in recommending a similar approach for social workers, opens up the possibility that we may better protect the public by being less tough. It notes most healthcare regulators focus on fitness to practice rather than misconduct.

“Within the GSCC regulatory regime, misconduct is central, and this is problematic.”

You can read the rest of his blog at:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/11/a-tougher-gscc-no-thanks.html

Roger Kline from Aspect gave a brief response to this post which you can read below the blog.  This is an important discussion and any thoughts you may have are welcome.

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/940CEBBE-88BF-48DF-A645-0E1B5E7FE1EB/0/090930_CHRE_GSCC_Finalreport.pdf

Conducted by the CHRE, whose job is to oversee the healthcare regulators, the report found poor-quality investigations, record-keeping and inconsistent decision-making andsays that inexperienced staff were not provided with adequate training, guidance or reasonable caseloads

Roger Kline of Aspect told Community Care that “the report will come as a surprise to no one who has had experience of the GSCC’c conduct procedures in recent months.”

However, he warned that “Aspect is concerned that the problems at the GSCC should not be used to justify halting the extension of conduct regulation to the rest of the social care workforce at a time when increased “remodelling” of the workforce means more work previously done by social workers may be delegated to other staff. The need for effective regulation is greater than ever and that message should not be lost in the response to this report.”

Alongside a chapter from Helga Pile of UNISON, the book contains a short chapter by Roger Kline of Aspect discussing why large numbers of social workers are not currently in a trade union at a time when trade union membership of other public sector professions is rising.- and some suggestions on how that might change.

The book can be ordered via http://www.socialworkfuture.org/?attachment_id=412

The Social Work Action Network has a web site at http://www.socialworkfuture.org/

Aspect’s evidence http://www.aspect.org.uk/files/1851 was submitted earlier this month, and includes an analysis of both the levels of pay and the job evaluation schemes that local authorities rely on when grading social workers.

Aspect’s General Secretary John Chowcat says

“It is obvious that many social workers are significantly underpaid. The current arrangements depend on a legion of local supplements on a scale which confirms something fundamental is wrong. Our analysis of the two main job evaluation schemes in use in local government suggests that they are a major cause of the underpayment of social workers, as they understate their skills and responsibilities.”

Aspect’s analysis compares the two main job evaluation schemes in use in local government with the job evaluation scheme developed nationally in the NHS. John Chowcat says

“It is clear that the two main local government schemes do social workers no favours and significantly understate their skills and responsibilities. Until we have a national framework for pay that replaces the myriad of local supplements with a fair pay structure which addresses social workers specific skills and responsibilities, pay will continue to be too low and threatens to undermine other initiatives to improve recruitment, retention and morale.”

“Our evidence calls on the Social Work Taskforce to recommend an early review so that improvements to the pay of social workers can be made in ways that are sustainable and permanent. We know it will cost money to implement but that is part of the price of tackling the current crisis in social work.”

In a decision that should have patients and relatives everywhere jumping for joy, and has implications for social workers, whistleblowing nurse Margaret Haywood has been reinstated onto the nursing register.

Margaret Haywood was struck off the register after she assisted a Panorama exposure of shocking conditions at the Royal Sussex Hospital.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, whose scandalous decision ended Margaret’s career earlier this year, has done a spectacular u-turn. Having vigorously defended their original decision which sent out a message to whistleblowers across the NHS to seal their lips, the regulator has had to execute a humiliating climb down.

Faced with a vigorous campaign and legal action by the Royal College of Nursing, and isolated by public opinion, the Council has agreed at the High Court to replace the career-wrecking removal from the register with a one year caution. Apparently the High Court has powers of persuasion that the original hearing that struck her off the Register failed to understand.

Read the agreed  statement at:

http://www.nmc-uk.org/aArticle.aspx?ArticleID=3893

Roger Kline welcomed the decision on behalf of Aspect and said “The original decision was perverse and unjust and sent out competely the wrong signals. This agreement redresses the balance and I hope the NMC have learnt their lesson. Time will tell if they have”.