Late attendance sanctions ES19 Policy

[Darcus42]

Hi,

 

I don't know if this has been posted before, but having recently been issued with an ES19 warning for my first instance of lateness in 6 months, and a threat of a DMA sanction should it occur again, I located the government policy document online, which someone else had requested under a FOI. I also recorded the JC office manager stating that they issue them as a matter of course i.e. whenever they want, which led me to believe they are using them as part of a policy to increase DMA suspensions. My warning was issued 8 days after receiving a compensation payment for being escorted off the premises for exercising my legal right to record my interactions at the JobCentre.

 

Please note part 11, which states:

''11. The ES19 should only be used in exceptional circumstances where all other measures have been tried and failed.''

 

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient posts to be allowed links yet, so to locate, type: ''Freedom of Information request 1829/2013'' into a search engine to locate.

 

I hope this helps anyone who has been unfairly penalised.

[Mr.P]

FoI 1829/2013

 

 

My warning was issued 8 days after receiving a compensation payment for being escorted off the premises for exercising my legal right to record my interactions at the JobCentre

 

The DWP/JCP have a duty to protect the confidentiality of all customers using their premises - It could be argued that seating advisers within feet of each other negates this ability as does conducting business in an open plan environment. The "official" line that should you wish to record conversations, the request should be made in advance so that (typically) a private room can be booked.

 

Whilst the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act makes provision for a private individual to record conversations there is just one bit of legislation that can be used against you - In the terms and conditions of entry to DWP/JCP premises, they could specify "No audio or video recording allowed" - Breaching this would fall under the umbrella of trespass which is a civil offence and would be a costly and fruitless prosecution for the DWP to pursue.

[Darcus42]

This was a weak argument (or hypothetical point) made by the JC+ Complaints department, but holds no water, as not only are the desks at least 8ft apart, but it would be difficult for most personal audio equipment i.e. phones etc, wouldn't be of sufficient quality to pick up general ambient sound. Obviously the use of a boom operator may be deemed intrusive. Also, any background noise would have to sufficiently loud for personally identifying information to be recorded, so unless someone is angrily shouting out their national insurance number and name, it probably wouldn't occur.

 

As for redesignating a public access government building into something else, which would require an act of parliament for special exemption for JobCentres, it still wouldn't override relevant exemptions under the Data Protection Act i,e. public interest, to prove a truth and revealing criminal conduct.

 

The fact is, despite departments such as the JobCentre recording and videoing the public (and failing to provide copies of such when requested), they are mostly ignorant of the public's basic rights under the same legislations, but consistently misinform, or just outright bully people to deter those that wish to keep them honest. There are in fact, sensible staff who are fully aware of the law and who don't have to worry about what they say in a their professional capacity, who have no problem with the public recording their meetings. It is always worrying when I encounter staff, managers and even directors, who either through ignorance or wilful deceit, will endeavour to deny people their rights.