Any of you who've been on the website this morning will have seen that we've gone rather mad about the GSCC conduct system. Out today is a review of the conduct system to date by the GSCC as well as a survey we've conducted of 300 social workers on their attitudes to inappropriate relationships, sexual boundaries and the like (the issues that have been very prominent so far in conduct cases).

One issue that has come up in the GSCC review is whether it should have more sanctions in its armoury beyond the current three - admonishment (basically, a caution in police terms), suspension and removal.

It is considering seeking primary legislation to provide extra sanctions which would require social workers to demonstrate they have learned from their mistakes. For instance, suspended social workers may have to face a review hearing before returning to the workforce. Conditions of practice are another possibility.

This has been reasonably well-received by organisations including BASW as a way of using the conduct system to drive improvement in the profession.

But what to people reckon?

I must admit I do think it's quite odd that social workers who are found guilty of bad practice or inappropriate behaviour can be suspended then just allowed to return to work without any kind of check to see if they have learned from their mistakes. I don't think this is the case in the medical profession. We want to champion the social work profession and tell everyone what a great job social workers do - but you can only do that if any bad practice is highlighted and dealt with suitably. If those suspended can just return to work, the public will no doubt not have the confidence in the profession that they should.

And it's quite possible that a wider range of sanctions would be of direct benefit to social workers found guilty of misconduct. For instance, instead of facing a suspension - and losing the opportunity to make a living from social work for a period of time - a practitioner may be given some practice conditions instead, thus being able to retain their job, but having to demonstrate improvement in areas where they have fallen short.

I dont think it will really matter what the GSCC do in terms of admonishment, suspension or removal. Once a social worker goes down the process of misconduct hearing it is a case of 'mud sticks'. As a social worker you have to declare whether any disciplinary or conduct action (whether found guilty or not) was heard against you, as soon as a potential employer hears this they err on the side of caution and wont offer you a positition. So you become unemployable as a social worker by default of the hearing.

I was dismissed from my place of work, as a social worker, despite proving that I had done nothing, despite the support from BASW and despite the GSCC declaring that there was no conduct issue because the complaint was none factual I find myself unemployable as a social worker three years on.

A convicted criminal has more rights and support than a social worker in terms of declaration of offences.

As someone who has been through the system, how would you improve things? Do you think other professionals, such as doctors, get a fairer deal through their conduct systems? It is surely right that the social work conduct system must be strengthened to protect service users, but are implying this should also include strengthened rights for social workers too?

I think it is absolutely right that the system must be strengthened to protect service users but I believe that there should be some comparability to the Employers Disciplinary Hearing when it comes to dismissing any social worker. In my case, I was dismissed for 'Preying on at least one vulnerable client of W.....  S........ social services' (words of the dismissal letter). I struggle to see how an employer can use this terminology and the GSCC can conclude that there was no conduct issue. This could have potentially destroyed my career although it has taken me three years to get back into what is a challenging but rewarding career, it has taken in excess of 40 interviews to get back into social work, so you can see my earlier point.What I am saying is that there has to be a better and higher level for social work practitioners than a balance of probabilities and reasonable belief. For example if there was £5 missing from petty cash and two of your colleagues stated that they saw you putting £5 into your wallet/purse then the employer could dismiss you on a balance of probabilities. Now put this within the context of social work, if two clients put in a complaint that you had acted in an unprofessional manner, i.e. sworn at them and made threats, you as the social worker, once their statements are taken, could be sacked on a 'balance of probabilities' for Gross Misconduct. I challenge anyone to attempt to get employment once they have been dismissed for that.I believe that there is a need for one complaints and investigatory procedure throughout social care, if there are complaints or allegations they need to be investigated impartially, without biased and there needs to be a consistent approach to the disciplinary sanction imposed.Social workers sign up to the Code of Practice and apparently so do the employer. The difference is that if a social worker is alleged to breach this code they have lifelong consequences, if an employer breaches this code in terms of protecting and supporting their social worker there are no repercussions.

 

Having reported on a number of conduct cases, I think the GSCC is right to consider adding to its list of sanctions. It is perhaps worrying that of the current three options suspension is used the least. It makes me wonder if there may have been cases where social workers have been treated too harshly when removed from the register, when a suspension may have done the job, or admonished because removal seemed too harsh. By attaching recommendations to a suspension eg training in a specifc area of practice, or introducing conditions of practice orders, the GSCC would be in a position to help social workers whose misconduct was the result of lack of knowledge or experience improve their practice, rather than simply punish them.  

 

 

Once the evidence is heard the conduct committee members often ask the social worker (or registrant) what

I agree with the first paragraph but unsure what happened to the 2nd.

Pearshape, did you seek legal advice over the matter? If you feel you have been unfairly treated in the workplace, as a social worker you may not be protected by the GSCC's code of practice for employers, but you are protected, like all employees, under UK employment law. Therefore you may have a case for unfair dismissal?

Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out, Pearshape. Not sure what happened there... What the second paragraph should have said was that a number of the social workers who have been called before the conduct committee have said at the end of their hearing that they would like, for example, the opportunity to undertake extra training. Of course there is no mechanism at the moment for the committee members to take the wishes of social workers on board and add in such a recommendation to a suspension.

It doesnt matter Daniel. You are one of the many that have this utopia belief that an employee is protected by employment law, in my case it was not the case. I did take it to an ET and after 11 days the tribunal declared that as far as the law stands the threshold is extremely low, and my ex employer (a local authority) took the lowest threshold and actually acted within the law. As I stated this threshold is on a 'reasonable belief', the tribunal did state that their findings did not in anyway mean that they thought I had done anything but that if I had been with another local authority they probably would not have taken the same course of action and that it is totally subjective as to what constitutes as a 'reasonable belief'. This is why I would like to see a different threshold introduced for social workers and why any allegations of 'Gross Misconduct should be investigated by GSCC regardless and that there should be different options. I also believe that social work employers should have more accountability in terms of protecting their employees.

In the olden days when OTs were registered with the CPSM, its only power was to strike off or do nothing. Now we're registered with the HPC which has much broader pwers - http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearing/

 

What powers does the panel have?

 If the panel finds the case to be well-founded, they will return to hear from those present about what action they should take. The panel will return to hear any statements on what they should do. The panel have the following options available.

 1 take no further action;

2 impose (give) a caution order. This means that the word ‘caution’ will appear against the registrant’s name on the register. Caution orders can be between one and five years long.;

3 place some sort of restriction or conditions on the registrant’s registration. This is known as a ‘conditions of practice order’. This might include demanding that the registrant works under supervision or has further training;

 4 suspend registration. This may not be for longer than one year; or

 5 make a ‘striking-off order’. This means the registrant’s name is removed from the register.

 Practice Note - Sanctions

Striking off

We recognise that striking off is a very serious step. A striking-off order will only be imposed in cases where the panel feels that there is no other adequate way to protect the public and maintain public confidence. Circumstances in which a striking-off order may be considered include serious convictions involving violence or sexual misconduct, or where there has been dishonesty or a serious abuse of trust. Any action the panel takes is intended to protect the public and is not intended as a punishment. The panel will always consider the individual circumstances of a case and take account of what has been said by everyone at the hearing before deciding what to do.

In hearings of the health committee or where the allegation relates to lack of competence, the panel will not have the option to strike off a registrant at the first hearing. This is because we recognise that in cases where ill health has impaired fitness to practise, or where competence has fallen below expected standards, it is possible that the registrant’s health may improve or, in competence cases the registrant may receive extra training or supervised practice.

I think those options are much fairer and more reasonable than striking people off or doing nothing and I hope that eventually the GSCC/SSSC will amend their policies.