by Allan Norman, Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.
The similarities are alarming. The differences are alarming. And the fact that they were brought at all is alarming. It is not misconduct to have a second job.
Similarities
Both of these registrants were social workers whose second job was out of hours. Neither played the system by being absent from one post in order to be present at the other. In neither case was any harm to any service user identified. Both admitted to failing to tell either employer of the other work.
Differences
One startling difference is in the formal allegations recorded against Doccus Nyabunze. What, we may wonder, is so very terrible about taking on a second job? Is it illegal? Well, no. Do the long hours place service users at risk? Well, it is possible, but it didn't form part of the formal allegations - if it did, the harm or risk of harm would have to be proven, and in fact it is the absence of harm that is recorded in the decision. Is it dishonest? Well, there may be dishonesty involved in such cases. If so, one might expect that to form part of the allegation that has to be proven. But surprisingly, since dishonesty features in a significant proportion of GSCC cases, dishonesty appears not to have been alleged in this recent case, only that she failed to inform the other employer.
So the sum total of the allegations as framed in this more recent case is, you had two jobs, despite opportunities you failed to inform each employer of the other, that is misconduct.
The other startling difference was in outcome. Alice did not admit that her failure to disclose each employment was misconduct. Misconduct was not found in Alice's case. Alice did not face a sanction.
Why were they brought at all?
Here is the nub of the matter. Our Press Release asked exactly this question in Alice's case. We are left wondering the same thing after the more recent case.
Our point about the framing of the allegations is no mere legalistic pedantry. The framed allegations are what have to be proven. You would therefore hope that at least the allegations represent serious misconduct. If the heart of the matter is harm or risk of harm, allege it and prove it. If the heart of the matter is honesty and integrity, allege it and prove it. But in this latter case the heart of the matter appears to be secretly having a second job - and the facts and misconduct being admitted, it is a bit late in the day to be thinking at the sanction stage about why this must be misconduct.
I repeat. It is not misconduct to have a second job. Get a life. There are better things to be spending our resources on than sanctioning social workers for working too hard.
Both of these registrants were social workers whose second job was out of hours. Neither played the system by being absent from one post in order to be present at the other. In neither case was any harm to any service user identified. Both admitted to failing to tell either employer of the other work.
Differences
One startling difference is in the formal allegations recorded against Doccus Nyabunze. What, we may wonder, is so very terrible about taking on a second job? Is it illegal? Well, no. Do the long hours place service users at risk? Well, it is possible, but it didn't form part of the formal allegations - if it did, the harm or risk of harm would have to be proven, and in fact it is the absence of harm that is recorded in the decision. Is it dishonest? Well, there may be dishonesty involved in such cases. If so, one might expect that to form part of the allegation that has to be proven. But surprisingly, since dishonesty features in a significant proportion of GSCC cases, dishonesty appears not to have been alleged in this recent case, only that she failed to inform the other employer.
So the sum total of the allegations as framed in this more recent case is, you had two jobs, despite opportunities you failed to inform each employer of the other, that is misconduct.
The other startling difference was in outcome. Alice did not admit that her failure to disclose each employment was misconduct. Misconduct was not found in Alice's case. Alice did not face a sanction.
Why were they brought at all?
Here is the nub of the matter. Our Press Release asked exactly this question in Alice's case. We are left wondering the same thing after the more recent case.
Our point about the framing of the allegations is no mere legalistic pedantry. The framed allegations are what have to be proven. You would therefore hope that at least the allegations represent serious misconduct. If the heart of the matter is harm or risk of harm, allege it and prove it. If the heart of the matter is honesty and integrity, allege it and prove it. But in this latter case the heart of the matter appears to be secretly having a second job - and the facts and misconduct being admitted, it is a bit late in the day to be thinking at the sanction stage about why this must be misconduct.
I repeat. It is not misconduct to have a second job. Get a life. There are better things to be spending our resources on than sanctioning social workers for working too hard.
Leave a comment