|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Avril Lavigne
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 27 2010 08:24 PM - Post subject: "Untainted" Panels
What law says that panels of governors hearing eg staff disciplinary, staff grievances, have to have had no previous involvement in the case? I've read it on here frequently that the law requires "untainted" governors but what is the legal basis for saying that?
|
| Back to top |
|
PHILIP SIMS
philipjfsims@googlemail.com
|
Posted: Wed Jan 27 2010 10:42 PM - Reply subject: If things are so bad. .
. . that this question needs answering, I'd hate to be in your shoes!
I'm NOT legally trained, but do have (too) many years of experience as a Governor, and am currently Chair.
Pragmatically, I would say a governor has to have some involvement with all staff, and so all could be considered 'tainted'.
More specifically I would think it means foreknowledge of (some) details of the case before being asked to be a member of the Panel.
Treat it like a request for you to do Jury Service.
Hope this helps - at least you know SOMEONE is out here reading :-)
|
| Back to top |
|
| pandapie one
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28 2010 08:38 AM - Reply subject: ???
I have always thought that it means any governor on these sort of panels even to apeals etc would have no prior knowledge of grievences etc to be in a position where there are no preconceived ideas one way or the other.
This means that desicions reached will be fair, well thought out and based only on evidence presented.
(Doesn't mean I'm right...)
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rhys Chesters-Lewis
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28 2010 09:15 AM - Reply subject: I'm not a lawyer but..
The answer relates to employment law and notions of natural justice. There are a number of statutory and procedural stages that need to be followed. At some of these points legal notions of natural justice expect that a fresh look will be taken at the facts and a judgement made on the evidence presented, rather than prior knowledge. Hence the more "facts" are widely known the harder it will be to demonstrate that a genuinely fresh look has been taken. If you want to research further info can be found on the BIS or directgov website under Employment disputes.
|
| Back to top |
|
| Law Boar
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28 2010 11:19 AM - Reply subject: Public law
I'm a bit rusty on this, but when the GB or a committee is exercising a quasi-judicial function there are requirements of natural justice. This means that people who are, or might appear to be, biased cannot be involved. There is some fine latin, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
On employment issues I'm less clear. The reason might be that you are exercising a public function, and are therefore bound by all the usual rules on the decisions of public bodies such as rationality etc. or it could be that these decisions can end up being challenged at tribunal, and it is best to keep the panel that keeps the decision clear of any possible bias that might cause the tribunal to disregard the panels decision.
If you need me to clarify or expand on anything, I can explain public law principles all day long, just ask.
|
| Back to top |
|
| T. D.
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28 2010 12:46 PM - Reply subject: Untainted panels
I'm not aware of any legislation which defines taintedness or non-taintedness of staffing panels, but it certainly is the case, as Law Boar outlines, that having a potentially tainted panel could easily lead to a decision being challenged at an employment tribunal.
It would be very easy for a staff member to go to an employment tribunal with a claim such as 'the panel were biased because they had discussed the matter in a committee meeting last week'. How easily could the GB prove to the tribunal that dispite holding such a discussion the panel members were the right ones to choose to serve on the panel, and that they had not been influenced by the discussion? If the tribunal aren't convinced by the GB on that matter then the member of staff might easily win their case dispite being completely wrong on the substantive matter.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Return to/Back to: