Serious concerns over ‘excessive working hours’ of inspectors

The PFEW’s Inspecting Ranks Survey revealed that during a four-week period, 67 per cent of respondents reported working an extra 0-20 hours above 40 hours a week (or above their agreed part time hours), while 23 per cent work an extra 21-40 hours.

Just 30 per cent reported being paid for working over their agreed part-time hours, and only 54 per cent report that these hours count towards their pension.

A vast majority of respondents (93 per cent) feel members in inspecting ranks working full-time should be entitled to a rostered shift pattern within Police Regulations.

Since 1994, the inspecting ranks have worked under different police regulations from constables and sergeants following changes that were made under the 1994 PNB Agreement.

“The main difference this agreement brought about was that casual overtime was no longer paid to inspectors and chief inspectors,” the PFEW said. “It is important to remember a part of the agreement was that inspecting ranks should not be expected to work regular additional hours.

“However, since 1994 many inspectors and chief inspectors have been working excessive hours, which has affected their work-life balance and general wellbeing.”

PFEW acting national secretary John Partington said: “We have serious concerns the 1994 PNB agreement is now outdated for modern policing. Our own survey has shown the majority (93 per cent) believe the inspecting ranks should be entitled to a shift pattern like constables and sergeants.

“Almost a quarter work an extra 21-40 hours a month, with very few getting paid for their time. This is excessive and we are worried about the impact this is having on our members’ mental health and wellbeing as they face burnout.

“As a disincentive, overtime payments should be introduced to act as a balance between the 1994 PNB Agreement and as compensation for additional hours worked.

“We also believe the base pay of both ranks needs to increase given the demands and responsibility of these ranks in the current workplace.

“There are concerns over the gap between the inspector and chief inspector ranks and that there should be a clear gap between the two ranks. In addition, there should also be an increase in the gap between the ranks of sergeant and inspector.”

He added: “After 30 years since the introduction of the 1994 PNB agreement, it is disappointing this agreement has not been adequately reviewed.

“Given the length of time any work in this area could take, we are seeking an interim pensionable payment be made to the inspecting ranks. This would encourage both promotion into the ranks and assist with retention and experience within the ranks.”

The PFEW said the changes it is seeking have been brought to the attention of the Police Remuneration Review Body and it awaits to see if it makes any recommendations around inspecting rank regulations and an interim payment.

The issue of the outdated PNB 1994 agreement has also been raised at the Police Advisory Board.

Dyfed-Powys Police Federation chair Delme Rees agrees that the 1994 PNB Agreement is “antiquated” and needs to be reviewed.

He said he was concerned that the regulations for the inspecting ranks were outdated for modern policing and the findings from the survey of inspecting ranks “give weight to the need for a review of the agreement”.

Mr Rees said: “It’s 31 years since the PNB Agreement was introduced and a review is long overdue.

“Policing has changed massively since 1994, and the role of the inspecting ranks and the demands and responsibilities placed on them are a far cry from what they were.

“Inspectors and chief inspectors aren’t being paid for the hours they do, and the demands on their time are such that many will never recoup the hours they are owed.

“Because of the loss of overtime, there is very little benefit for the extra responsibility of a top-rated sergeant making the progression to inspector.

“The difference between the pay for a top-rated inspector and the chief inspector rank can also acts as a disincentive for the extra responsibility.”

Mr Rees added: “The agreement is antiquated and out of step with the real-life demands placed on inspectors and chief inspectors.

“The findings of the PFEW back that up, and it’s now time it was revisited and reviewed.”

Other findings in the survey include:

• 90 per cent of chief inspectors worked over their agreed part time hours compared to 87 per cent inspectors;
• Detectives are more likely to work 21-40 extra hours (28 per cent) above 40 hours per week (or above their agreed part-time hours) compared to non-detectives (20 per cent);
• 60 per cent of respondents are dissatisfied with their basic pay, with dissatisfaction higher among chief inspectors (70 per cent) than inspectors (57 per cent);
• 81 per cent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their allowances, with dissatisfaction highest in roles such as Road Policing (87 per cent) and Investigations (85 per cent).
• 80 per cent of respondents prefer a choice between financial compensation or a rest day in lieu for having to work on a rest day; only 16 per cent preferred financial compensation only;
• 85 per cent of respondents disagreed with the lack of additional payment for working on public holidays, with a higher proportion of disagreement among roles such as the Central Communications Unit (91 per cent) and custody (90 per cent); and
• 65 per cent of respondents disagreed with not receiving extra pay when required to work in another force area (ie, mutual aid), with highest disagreement seen in roles such as Operational Support (75 per cent) and Neighbourhood Policing (72 per cent).

The Inspecting Ranks Survey ran from August 5 to September 8 last year. A total of 4,306 responses were received, resulting in 4,170 workable responses after data cleansing.

This represents a 48 per cent response rate based on the total number of federated inspectors and chief inspectors from the police workforce statistics published by the Home Office.