The HCPC has let a social worker continue practising without a sanction after she lied about working 12-hour night shifts at a care home before coming into work.
A HCPC panel ruled there was no action necessary for the social worker’s misconduct as it did not have a direct impact on service users, and happened at a time while the social worker was going through very serious difficulties in her personal life.
The panel heard that the social worker started the second job to remedy significant financial difficulties she was in, but that were not caused by her.
She started her first role as a social worker in a children’s team in October 2013. In January 2014, she started a 36-hour contract with a care home to work three 12-hour night shifts on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. She would also do overtime night shifts.
‘Without sleep’
She continued to work in the care home for 21 months, during which time on a number of occasions she would do the night shift and go straight into her role as a social worker “without sleep, or reasonable respite”.
“There were occasions when this occurred over consecutive days amounting to, in effect, almost 72 hours of continuous working without reasonable respite,” the panel found.
As a result the social worker was likely to have “compromised her capacity” to do her job, the panel said.
After the care home called her council to inform it that she worked a second job, a disciplinary investigation began.
She fully admitted her actions to the HCPC and council after she initially lied about working night shifts before doing her job as a social worker. She also made a sincere apology in evidence to the HCPC.
Exceptional circumstances
The panel said it was not wrong for a social worker to have a second job as long as it was appropriately managed by their main employer.
In this case however, the social worker failed to recognise the wider risks of carrying out the care home job, did not exercise sound judgement in taking job, and therefore was not acting responsibly or in the best interests of service users, the panel added.
But it took into consideration the “exceptional” personal circumstances, as well as the social worker being newly qualified and without “consistent managerial oversight and supervisory support” in the first stage of her time at the council.
For example, her Assessed and Supported Year in Employment, which normally starts at the start of a newly qualified practitioner’s first year, started a year after she began working for the council. The council also failed to give her an induction into its policies and procedures when she started her job, the panel said.
The HCPC criticised the social worker for not pursuing other means to help with her private life, such as accessing help from family and friends, who subsequently did offer to support her.
Managing risk
After a new, supportive manager was appointed, “she did not fully inform him of the difficulties she faced, in particular that she had a second job”.
“As a result [the manager] was unable to assist her in managing the situation, nor was he able to manage any risk to the service users, or to the reputation of the council.”
The unwillingness to share her problems with colleagues was due to her being a “deeply private person” who wanted to resolve the situation herself, the panel said.
It also said her decision to lie to her employer was serious, but a “knee-jerk” one made under distress, and followed her already resigning her post at the care home. The panel concluded the lie was “at the very low end of the spectrum of dishonesty”.
Despite her employers starting disciplinary proceedings, they continued to employ her in a non-social work role. The panel said she had an ongoing commitment to social work and “significant potential”.
It concluded that under the case’s “wholly exceptional circumstances”, the social worker had shown insight, remediated her failings, and posed no risk of repeating her errors.
“The panel has therefore decided that…it will take no further action, and that this matter should be brought to a conclusion.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
I like this decision, I even like that they acknowledge the employers role it shows HCPC are learning that social workers are human beings.
I also like that there is a new message being sent out there, in times of austerity, that sometimes we need a second job to sustain our living means. As well as that, social workers do work over and beyond to meet the needs of not only our clients but ourselves. As do our allied professional brothers and sisters in nursing, midwifery, medicine, law etc
I am pleased to see that the hardship in this social workers circumstances were recognised and not punished but instead used as a pillar for learning from how things could have been different. For example, it is unacceptable that she received no support in her first year as a social worker under hr ASYE programme.
Well done to HCPC
Well done HCPC a well thought through decision.
I’m not calling for sanctions in this case, but where is the consistency from the HCPC here? They struck another Social Worker off for doing the same thing!
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/10/06/social-worker-struck-second-job-home-care-worker/
I think the difference being the total lack of honesty in the case you are refering to.
The worker in this case admited to her mistakes, albeit initially lying as a knee jerk response, whereas in the one you point to the worker continued to lie, shift blame and produce false evidence, therefore I would suggest that they have no remose for any wrong doing and have limited, if any insight into this.
I agree there is a big difference in the actions of these two people
Now hang on a cotton picking minute. Both lied and both worked dangerously long hours due to personal pressure which of course we are not allowed to have. The HCPC is playing to the gallery given the criticism they have received recently. I don’t want anyone punished for having problems but this scattergun approach from the HCPC is unacceptable. Get yourselves sorted out. Its simply ridiculous that you don’t even have clear guidelines – obviously. Jeepers and Pah!
Gosh! Organisation and indiviadulas must really value themselves and each other
This outcome almost made me cry in relief. Hcpc evidenced empathy and understanding of human circumstances.
A very reasonable decision, for once, from the HCPC. My MP (Geoff Cox, QC; West Devon), works, according to official figures, 35hrs a week as QC, earning nigh on £1m year. He somehow fits this in with being a full time MP. For this, in some quarters, he gets praise for, not sanctioned. If George Osbourne takes up editor of Evening Standard, he will have (including his full time MP job) THREE jobs. Double standards?
Great outcome for the social worker. I don’t see why it is wrong to have two jobs as a social worker yet others egGeorge Osborne now has 3 jobs
The issue isn’t that the registrant has more than one job, the issue is that they initially lied about it to their employer.