POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
@
POST OFFICE LIMITED
GROUP EXECUTIVE REPORT
Title: Past Roles Review Meeting Date: I 17 January 2024
Patrick Quinn Remediation
Unit Programme Lead
Laurence O'Neill, Head of
Legal HR/IR
Author: Sponsor: Nick Read, CEO
Input Sought: Noting
GE is asked to note the update in respect of the ‘past roles’ work being undertaken in RU and
similar work being rolled out across the business, since being approved by GE on 7 July 2023
and clarified on 8 November 2023 and 20 December 2023.
Executive Summary
If colleagues who worked in certain past roles (e.g., roles in the audit, suspension, investigation
or prosecution of postmasters) are employed by POL today, and in particular, if they are
performing certain roles e.g., roles in compensating postmasters, investigating shortfalls, or
recovering postmaster debt, it presents risks for POL and for colleagues. Risks include: such
employees may be conflicted or could be singled out and criticised on social media. It further
risks undermining the integrity of, or the public or postmaster confidence in, the work being
done by POL today. POL wishes to mitigate these risks whilst having regard to the part POL has
played in the history and the duties it owes to its employees. POL will undertake work to
consider which roles present material risk, what are the range of steps that could be taken to
mitigate the risks, and what is the proportionate step to take in each case.
This paper updates on the work done on this matter since 20 December 2023, which includes:
(i) Appointment of additional resource;
(ii) Updated data analysis;
(iii) Establishing of applicable Principles;
(iv) Agreed constitution of, and Terms of Reference for a Panel;
(v) Union engagement; and
(vi) Key messages for comms.
It also outlines next steps.
For the avoidance of doubt, this work is not concerned with dealing with any colleague in
respect of whom wrongdoing has been alleged. This work is about the roles employees may
have performed in the past and not about how they may have performed those roles. If there
are specific allegations of wrongdoing made against a colleague, they should be (and in many
cases are being) picked up by the People team elsewhere.
Strictly Confidential
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24 125 of 195
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past
Report
(i) Additional Resource
At GE on 20 December, it was agreed that this work would be allocated budget and additional
resource. As at the date of this paper the following additional resource has been allocated:
(i) Appointment of a Programme Manager: Manager De Matteis
(ii) Use of the MI Coordinator within the HR Data Team
(iii) Budget: Has been granted for a Programme Manager for 8 weeks
(ii) Updated data analysis
Original data analysis concentrated on identifying those currently employed by the business
who had a role in the past within audit, suspension or prosecution of Postmasters. Within the
Remediation Unit, 32 roles were flagged. In the wider business 92 were flagged, totalling 124.
That data has since been reviewed with regards to the Remediation Unit, including by Andrew
Scales MI Coordinator , Madeleine De Matteis , Programme Manager and Patrick Quinn People
Director. Initial analysis reveals that inside the RU, 30 colleagues are flagged and will now
require Case Review through the Past Roles Panel. A Data Review Methodology will be written
in the coming week to describe how colleagues were identified and their case reviewed. This
will be agreed by Past Roles Panel.
Detail data sets are now being compiled for the rest of the business, and these will be shared
with each GE member so that they are aware of the impact to their area.
(iii) Establish Principles
At GE on 20 December, it was agreed that establishing “principles” would assist in narrowing
the issues, laying groundwork for redeployment discussions, and, potentially, reducing the
number of employees within scope. The principles are at Appendix 1. These will be reviewed
and agreed at the first panel discussion on 15 January and any changes/variations will be
discussed at GE on 17 January.
Significantly, the principles reflect the GE’s previous direction that redeployment should be a
focus and that, absent an allegation of wrongdoing, no employee should be dismissed purely
because they performed a certain role in the past. The one development on that principle is,
however, that if an employee is working in a particularly sensitive role and they unreasonably
refuse to engage with the concept of redeployment into a suitable alternative role, then POL
will consider commencing a process to formally vary their employment.
One principle that we are not able to agree is that any grade can be discounted. It was hoped
that if we could discount, say, all PO grades that would narrow the number of “in scope” roles.
However, analysis shows it would not be safe to do that, as even PO grade employees could
have performed roles that could give rise to risk of the sort we wish to mitigate against.
Strictly Confidential
126 of 195 Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0001
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
@
(iv) Agree terms of reference and constitution of panel
The updated panel members can be found in Appendix 2. Business Director, Neil O’Sullivan,
replaces Diane Wills who appeared in the previous proposal. Postmaster Experience Director,
Mark Eldridge, will be able to bring a postmaster perspective to proceedings.
The updated terms of reference can be found in Appendix 3. These will be reviewed at the first
panel discussion on 15 January and any changes/variations will be discussed at GE on 17
January.
(v) Union Engagement
Since many of the employees who will be in scope for this work are union grades (PO grades
through to 3B managers) POL has engaged with both unions to canvass views. Neither union
would support the dismissal of colleagues based solely on roles they had performed in the past.
Both unions understand the sensitivities around the issues, however. Both could support
collaborative redeployment discussions in appropriate cases but would want to reserve their
rights to support their members in opposing POL's views that redeployment is necessary in any
given case. Ultimately the unions will want to support their members and protect employment.
It may be possible to agree joint comms with our trade unions, perhaps even agreeing a joint
statement. However, Unite at least, have requested that they run any draft comms via their
internal teams, including legal team.
(vi) Draft Comms
The key messages that we anticipate wanting to include in comms is at Appendix 4. These will
be reviewed and agreed at the first panel discussion on 15 January and any changes/variations
will be discussed at GE on 17 January.
Internal comms, issued quickly, is advisable to manage ER risk and to prevent misinformation
from spreading. In particular, that POL is looking to work — including in conjunction with unions
- to redeploy colleagues and that no one will be dismissed purely on account of past roles, are
important messages to land quickly. If those messages can be supported by a joint statement
with the unions that would likely help the ER situation further.
External comms is more likely to be reactive and dependent upon the context in which we are
responding to any request for a position on this.
Next Steps
We should attempt to publish internal, employee-facing comms as soon as possible and
consider external comms, including jointly with the unions.
The first panel will meet on Monday 15 January. The purpose of that discussion will be to review
the ToR, review the Principles, key comms messages, give opinions on the direction of travel,
and establish a date for the first substantive panel discussion. Feedback of the views of the
panel will be given as a voiceover at GE on 17 January.
Strictly Confidential
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24 127 of 195
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0002
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Rol
Key dates:
jan I 22 Jan
12Feb I 19Feb 26Feb I March I April
Stagel
Agree TOR; agree
Principles; Review
rationale applied to a
colleague Discuss data
assessments with GE owners
Stage 2
Consider individual
Panel I I
Urgent Cases
colleagues should
carty on performing
their current roles or
whether an ER Consider Stage
process should be 2 for BAU
commenced to , .
exons Fane} I I INA
redeployment.
Post Panel :
Role availabilty for id Next steps
Redeployment ‘ —
EAP Support
~ Next steps
RU} {BAU
Post Panel:
- People Team will support redeployment discussions, in conjunction with IR and POL’s
Unions wherever relevant.
- People Team will bring back to the panel any cases where an instruction was given to
consider redeployment in principle but the relevant employee has resisted redeployment.
- OD work to continue. There should be joined up thinking with this work (although this
work absolutely isn’t driving OD).
Financial Impact
1. Costs related to redeployment of colleagues and back filling any positions left vacant.
Costs in relation to any processes that are commenced but where there are no suitable
alternative employment and no OD opportunities.
3. Financial impact of defending employment litigation and potentially losing that litigation.
Risk Assessment, Mitigations & Legal Implications
4. POL Legal HR/IR have worked with Norton Rose Fulbright who have produced a full Legal
Risk note, which has been attached to the two previous papers on this topic but, for the
sake of brevity, isn’t attached again.
Sr
Strictly Confidential
28 of 195 Monthly GE.
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0003
POL00448615
POL00448615
Next Steps & Timelines
6. As set out above.
Strictly Confidential
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0004
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
POL00448615
POL00448615
@
Appendix 1 —- Principles
As part of the decision making the Panel will take into consideration the following principles.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Any colleague accused of specific wrongdoing will be investigated separately to the past roles
process, in accordance with POL’s conduct code and having regard to our duties owed to them,
regardless of whether they are out of scope for this work.
No colleague would be dismissed based on the roles they have held in the past, but the business will
make all necessary and reasonable efforts, in collaboration with employees and union
representatives where relevant, to move the colleague to a suitable alternative role elsewhere
within the business.
If no alternative role is identified, the business will consider options such as looking to proactively
create a role.
Where no alternative role is possible in the short term, the business will keep the employee’s case
under review (to include regular check-ins with the employees, and by keeping a watching brief on
opportunities for redeployment) and the individual's line manager will be briefed on the potential
for any specific issues that could arise in that case, so that any risk can be mitigated.
Where an employee either:
a. Inarole that could give rise to material issues, and they reject suitable alternative employment
or
b. Fails to engage openly and in an appropriate manner in a redeployment process despite
concerns from the business as to the impact to the individual or business.
consideration may be given to commencing a formal process to [either] enforce a change in role [or
commence an appropriate employment process e.g. misconduct or SOSR].
Colleagues who work in DMB’s and Cash in transit / warehousing roles can be excluded from this
piece of work based on not being directly involved in the business support for Post Masters.
Post Office is comfortable, in principle, in offering opportunities that arise (should any become
available) via OD programmes to exit colleagues who happen to have problematic past roles from
the business, unless those colleagues are subject to conduct investigation.
Strictly Confidential
130 of 195
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0005
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
POL00448615
POL00448615
@
Appendix 2 - Panel
Panel Member
Chairman
Simon Recaldin
Role and accountability
This role is to chair the panel and make a decision based on the evidence
presented to them with regards to the past roles of each individual case and
how they relate to the role that the colleague currently performs for the Post
Office.
Business Director-Deputy
This role is to make a decision based on the evidence presented to them with
Patrick Quinn
Chair regards to the past roles of each individual case and how they relate to the role
Neill O'Sullivan that the colleague currently performs for the Post Office. This role involves
acting as Deputy Chair in the absence of the Chairman.
People Lead This role is to decide based on the evidence presented to them with regards to
the past roles of each individual case and how they relate to the role that the
colleague currently performs for the Post Office.
Postmaster NED
Mark Eldridge
People Director
Julia Marwood
HR Legal
Laurence O'Neill
To provide a postmaster’s view to panel to support the decisions made with
regards to the past roles of each individual case and how they relate to the role
that the colleague currently performs for the Post Office.
Support for Panel
This role supports the panel to clarify past roles as required, support the
decision of the committee and to support the relevant line manager / business
lead to execute next steps.
To give to the panel advice on employment risk with relation to each case.
Line Manager
Various
To present to the panel each individual case outlining the colleague’s past.
roles, the outcome of the one-to-one meetings with the colleagues and give a
view of colleague’s current role and accountabilities undertaken within Post
Office and whether there is evidence that the colleague’s past roles could be
problematic.
Programme Manager
To prepare the Case Assessment for each individual case and take actions from
Madeleine De Matteis each panel
Secretariat To take minutes from the panel
Shabegh Singh Srai
Strictly Confidential
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24
131 of 195
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0006
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
@
Appendix 3 - ToR
@
TERMS OF REFERENCE
PAST ROLES PROJECT
Context
POL employs in its Remediation Unite team (RU Team) employees who have previously worked for POL in the auditing,
investigation, suspension, or termination of Postmasters connected to historic horizon shortfall cases. This risks
undermining the integrity of, or the public or postmaster confidence in, the work being done by RU. It also put
employees “at risk”. RU took a “conflicts paper” to GE on 7 July 2023 and a further paper on 8 November 2023 “past
roles paper” recommending work to identify RU employees with potentially problematic historical roles with a view
to redeploying them and extending this thinking into the wider business.
Aim
The aim of this project is to:
1. Review the past roles conducted by colleagues currently employed within the RU and Inquiry teams, to identify
any that could be (for want of a better word) potentially problematic. Examples of such roles might include roles
in the auditing, investigation, suspension or termination of Postmasters connected to historic horizon shortfall
cases. They might be “potentially problematic” because they pose a risk to integrity of independence of work being
done now, public or postmaster confidence in that work, they create conflict, or they place our employees at risk.
2. Identify where else in the business (other than RU) such roles might also pose a similar risk.
3. Identify the employees who have those potentially problematic backgrounds and who are working in roles in which
that creates an identified risk.
4. Mitigate the risks, including by internal and external comms, provided employee with appropriate support
{including EAP support), training and education, and exploring redeployment.
Scope:
To achieve the Aim the people team will produce MI and a report that details the past employment history of
colleagues currently employed in RU team and elsewhere in the business.
"Paying particular attention to:
Problematic past roles
"Roles that were involved in the auditing, investigation, suspension or termination of Postmaster’s
and POL employees.
"Problematic roles as identified between January 1999 and December 2017 (the period of
prosecution undertaken by Post Office Ltd).
* Reemployment of colleagues post 2017 who have potential problematic backgrounds between
January 1999 and December 2017.
= The information obtained during one-to-one meetings with their line managers to clarify the roles
and accountabilities of the colleagues’ previous roles.
Strictly Confidential
132 of 195 Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0007
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
@
The roles in the wider business in which particular risk could result.
* Performing an initial assessment of the roles currently undertaken within POL at large in respect of
which having worked in such a role could be thought to give rise to the identified risks.
The risks that could emerge
* For example: (i) Criticism of employees (say on social media); (ii) Undermining the integrity of the
work being performed (for example, giving rise to conflict or the perception of conflict); (iii)
Undermining postmaster of the public confidence in the work being performed by POL, or the
specific team.
Next Step Options
The below list of next steps is likely to form the most likely recommendations made by the People Team to the past
roles review panel. Neither the People Team or the review panel is limited to the contents of this option list and may
choose to direct next steps outside of, or in addition to, the options below.
* Convene a “Past Roles Panel” to:
* First: Review the rationale applied to the assessments, in particular:
= Whether the past problematic roles are correct and complete.
= Whether the role in the wider business in which particular risk could result are correct and
complete
= Whether the risks identified are correct and complete
=" Whether the Principles are agreed
[Approve any associated internal and external comms]
"Second: having established and approved the rationale, to consider in ual cases to decide
whether colleagues should carry on performing their current roles or whether an ER process should
be commenced to explore redeployment.
= All colleagues must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the consistent and fair
treatment of impacted individuals.
* Panel should direct that further clarity on the colleague’s past employment history and detail
of roles undertaken where there is some element of ambiguity about the risk.
= If the panel agrees the colleague’s past role gives rise to an identified risk, the panel should
decide on the correct approach, which could include:
EAP support.
* Training and education (for teams or individuals).
Redeployment into an alternative role.
"The panel should consider resolving individual cases through support, training and cultural
shift, and leaving colleagues in existing roles before recommending that redeployment should
be explored.
= In considering whether redeployment should be explored the panel shall have regard to
colleague expectations, adaptability clauses in employment contracts, and the availability of
suitable alternative employment.
=" The panel should also have regard to the operational impact of unsettling or displacing
colleagues in relevant parts of the business unit (single points of failure) and agree actions to
mitigate.
Strictly Confidential
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24 133 of 195
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0008
POL00448615
POL00448615
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
@
For the panel to sit and make effective decisions the minimum panel members that need to be present is Chair or
Deputy Chair, People Lead, Postmaster NED.
The supporting roles will need to be in attendance to present evidence and deliver the actions agreed by the panel.
10
Strictly Confidential
134 of 195 Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0009
Tab 6.8 Past Roles Review
POL00448615
POL00448615
@
Appendix 4 - Comms
Key themes for comms.
1.
The Mr Bates vs The Post Office ITV Drama has generated a lot of focus, including on the fact that
POL continues to employ individuals who were involved to some extent in historic suspension,
investigation and prosecution of postmasters. Colleagues who have performed such roles in the past
have themselves raised concerns, particularly about how that could be perceived by postmasters or
colleagues, or portrayed in the media.
As some colleagues are already aware, there is work ongoing to identify roles of particular concern —
for example, where colleagues have worked in such roles in the past and are today working in roles
which are postmaster-facing or are [to some extent/materially] involved in matters affecting
postmasters - and to explore whether individual roles create a risk and, if so, the appropriate way to
manage that risk.
In carrying out this work we are acutely aware of the duties we owe to our colleagues, and the views
of our trade unions. We also recognise that, in the vast majority of cases, employees who have
performed such roles in the past will have carried out their duties according to instructions given to
them by the business at the time, and in the belief that Horizon was robust.
Therefore, careful consideration will be given to these cases and [all efforts should be made to
safeguard employment/employment will be protected]. It is anticipated that, in some cases, it will
be agreed that redeployment from current roles should be considered in discussion with the
employees and their trade unions, where appropriate [and where suitable alternative employment is
available].
In the meantime, POL reminds colleagues that it has a conflicts policy and that no employee should
be working on matters now where any past role performed by them would generate a conflict or
compromise their views or the work they are doing to support postmasters in any way. If colleagues
are at all concerned that they are working in a role that puts them at risk in any way, they should
raise their concerns with their line manager and appropriate support will be provided.
1 These are themes for internal communications. External comms will be adapted accordingly in current context/any responses or
QBA, for example.
11
Strictly Confidential
Monthly GE/ SEG Meeting-17/01/24 135 of 195
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-0000014_0010