Police officer given written warning following gross misconduct disciplinary hearing
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
A police officer has been given a written warning following a gross misconduct disciplinary hearing.
The hearing was held by Northamptonshire Police at the force headquarters last Thursday and Friday (August 17 and 18), in relation to Inspector X0214 Kevin Wooldridge.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdA statement issued by Northamptonshire Police said it was alleged that the officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour between January and February 2020, in respect of his dealings with a staff member. This came after said staff member raised a report, known as a fairness at work complaint, in line with the force’s grievance policy.
"It is alleged that the officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour, relating to authority, respect and courtesy, and discreditable conduct," the statement said.
"The officer was present at the hearing and did not accept that he acted in breach of the standards of professional behaviour, as alleged.
"However, he conceded that he could have done more to avoid coming into contact with the staff member concerned.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad"The panel considered the available evidence and considered whether the proven conduct amounted to a lack of authority, respect and courtesy, and/or discreditable conduct. And if so, did the proven conduct amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.
"The panel noted that, on his return to work after a period of sick leave, Inspector Wooldridge was not made aware of the detail of a fairness at work complaint that was submitted in his absence.
"However, given the ongoing relationship issues with the staff member and his experience as a serving officer of more than 20 years’ service, he knew or ought to have known that it was in his and the staff member’s best interest to avoid contact prior to the conclusion of the complaint.
"The panel concluded that Inspector Wooldridge’s failure to avoid contact with the staff member demonstrated a lack of judgement and amounted to misconduct only.
"The appropriate and proportionate outcome was a written warning of 18 months duration."