EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION, CHRISTCHURCH PRISON

Executive Summary of Investigation Report

22nd May 2001

Background

Three staff from Canterbury Prisons have been the subject of an employment investigation into alleged breaches of the Department’s Code of Conduct.

In mid 2000 several staff from within Canterbury Prisons made a number of serious allegations in relation to the work performance of these three staff members. These allegations covered a number of broad areas as follows:

• Falsification of timesheets
• Use of Departmental resources for private purposes
• Inequitable and inappropriate staff rosters and disposition of overtime
• Non-compliance with key PPS security procedures. Particularly in relation to visitor management, confiscation, handling and storage of prohibited items
• Non compliance with the Department’s Human Resources procedures
• Inappropriate allocation of staffing resources
• Non-compliance with the Department’s financial procedures in relation to activities undertaken outside of Christchurch.

Apart from one staff complaint involving leave, these matters had not been raised previously with the Department.

As the investigation progressed, some additional allegations were raised during the staff interviews. These included allegations that the staff being investigated had authorised inappropriate use of force on inmates (by other staff) and had not complied with PPS procedures in relation to inmate searching and use of force. These further allegations against the staff concerned have been examined and dealt with as part of the employment investigation.

Employment Investigation

The Department treats all allegations seriously and immediately initiated an employment investigation in relation to the allegations made against the three staff members.

The employment investigation was undertaken in accordance with the Department’s standard procedures for such investigations. These included the establishment of clear terms of reference (attached separately), interviews with all staff involved (those making the allegations and those subject to them), collection and review of all relevant documentary evidence and formal feedback/submissions from the three staff members subject to the allegations.

This investigation has taken a significant amount of time to complete due to the range and complexity of the allegations, the involvement of several complainants and the need to examine separately the allegations against the three individuals involved. Additionally, the Department’s processes allow those subject to such investigations full disclosure of all relevant documentation and the opportunity to make submissions on all findings and proposed actions.

Findings

The investigation into the allegations was thorough and robust. Based on the results of the employment investigation, appropriate disciplinary action has been taken against the three staff involved. In respect of a number of the allegations, we found these could not be substantiated or did not warrant disciplinary action. However, in respect of some of the allegations it was found that there were breaches of the Department’s Code of Conduct and that these warranted disciplinary action. These breaches arose because there had been serious or numerous examples of non compliance with the Department’s procedures/policies in several key areas:

• PPM procedures in respect of visitor management and searching particularly, confiscation, handling and storage of prohibited items
• The Department’s Human Resources procedures in respect of discipline of staff
• Inappropriate (but not fraudulent) use of Department resources.

Privacy considerations mean that it is inappropriate to detail the breaches in respect of each individual. However, it is worth noting that the above list represents the collective breaches identified in respect of all three.

For all those areas where non compliance with Department procedures was identified, appropriate remedial action has been taken to ensure full compliance. This has included clear instructions to relevant managers and inclusion of several new items on the quality assurance and audit programme operated throughout the region.

Disciplinary Action

The Department expects high standards from all staff and we do not condone any breaches of our Code of Conduct. When deciding what disciplinary action should be taken we have taken into account how similar breaches have been treated and the employment records of the individuals concerned.

The detail of the disciplinary action taken in respect of each individual is a confidential matter between the Department and the employee.

EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION – TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. To ascertain whether there is evidence of falsification of timesheets in relation to staff working in the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) and, if so, to what extent (e.g. instances of claiming for time not worked, travel allowance not due).
2. To determine whether Departmental vehicles or staff have been used for private purposes.
3. To determine whether rosters and work practices in the ERU were structured for the personal gain of individual staff.
4. To identify whether ERU management had advantaged certain staff in relation to disposition of work/overtime, etc.
5. To determine whether PPM and Departmental procedures in relation to the handling/storage of confiscated items (drugs, contraband, etc) had been followed on all occasions.
6. To review the procedures used for the visits (2) of the ERU to Dunedin Prison particularly in relation to financial/staffing matters.
7. To identify any other matters that are considered relevant in relation to this investigation.
8. To make recommendations as to whether any individual has breached the Department’s Code of Conduct, and if so, to what degree.
9. If it is determined that there has been a breach of the Department’s Code of Conduct, to recommend the level of disciplinary action that should be taken.

Previous Next Show Contents