Complaints handling & investigation process

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS

 Regulation pursuant to Bye-law 11

1. At all times a member is expected to uphold the good standing and reputation of the profession of management and of the Institute and act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Institute's Code of Practice for Professional Managers, as re-issued from time to time.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

Regulation pursuant to Bye-law 11

1. Procedures for the investigation of complaints against members of the Institute and of the Institute of Consulting (IC) are administered by the Professional Standards Committee ("the PSC"), a Committee of the Board.
2. Investigation of complaints is undertaken by the Investigation Panel ("the Panel"), a sub-group of the PSC, comprising not less than ten members who comply with criteria established by the PSC from time to time and who are appointed by the PSC.  At least 4 members of the Panel are members of the IC.  The Chairman of the Panel is appointed by the PSC for a term of 2 years and is eligible for re-appointment for a further 2 year term, up to a maximum of 6 consecutive years.  Members of the PSC cannot also be members of the Panel.
3. Information that comes to the Institute’s or the IC's notice concerning allegedly unsatisfactory professional conduct by a member is referred to the Institute Secretary.  The complaint may relate to the individual’s membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both.  A complaint against a member may also be made by the Institute or by the IC alleging breach of the Code.  Such complaints are lodged on the respective Institute's behalf by the Institute Secretary.  
4. Cases involving false claims to membership are dealt with by the Institute Secretary without referral to the PSC.  In all other cases, the Institute Secretary ensures that a complaint is placed in writing, that it contains a sufficiently comprehensive outline of the matter and, as far as possible, cross-refers the complaint to a clause or clauses in the Institute’s Code of Practice for Professional Managers and the IC Code of Professional Conduct and Practice.  The Chairman of the PSC is then made aware that information has been received concerning the conduct of a member which may represent a breach of the Code.
5. After considering the information on the complaint, the Chairman of the PSC requests the Institute Secretary to refer the matter to the remaining members of the PSC.  PSC members are usually informed of a complaint within a maximum of 5 working days following its receipt.  At the same time as informing the PSC, the Institute Secretary informs the member who is the subject of the complaint that a complaint has been received and has been passed to the PSC.
6. If the member against whom the complaint has been made was the subject, in the past 3 years, of a previously investigated complaint, found not to be vexatious, and which proceeded to investigation, the Institute Secretary will instruct the PSC, the investigators and, if a hearing takes place, the members of the Hearing Panel, that no attention is to be paid to the earlier complaint against the member until such time as the outcome of any hearing into the member’s conduct on this occasion is determined.  Any complaints investigated which date back more than 3 years are considered ‘spent’.  
7. The options available to the PSC in considering the complaint are to (a) dismiss the complaint on the basis that it is vexatious or represents an abuse of process, (b) place the complaint on hold, on the basis that it is subject to pending civil or criminal action in the Court (in which case the complaint is reconsidered on completion of such action), or (c) refer the complaint for detailed investigation pursuant to sub-paragraph .8 below.  The PSC also takes a view at this stage as to whether the complaint may be resolved by mediation.  The complainant and the member are informed accordingly.
8. In considering the options set out in .7 and in deciding such advice as may be appropriate to issue as part of an investigation, the PSC should take account of (a) the extent of evidence already available and what more may need to be sought; (b) the timeliness and history of the complaint; (c) the possibility of the involvement of an employing organisation of either the complainant or member; (d) the involvement of other professional bodies; and (e) the key areas on which the investigation may best be focused.  Such legal advice as is considered necessary, to inform and assist these deliberations, will be available through the Institute Secretary.
9. In the event of a decision by the PSC to investigate further, the Institute Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman of the Investigation Panel, taking due note of any guidance issued by the PSC, refers the complaint to 2 members of the Investigation Panel for full investigation.  The communication to the members of the Panel also includes notification of any key issues or questions that the PSC wishes to see referred to the complainant and/or the member subject to complaint.   In the case of a complaint relating to a member of  the IC, the members of the Panel who undertake the investigation are members of the IC.  At the same time as the 2 members of the Investigation Panel are appointed, the Institute Secretary informs the complainant and the member subject to complaint that an investigation is to take place and outlines the procedure being followed. The Chairman of the Investigation Panel will keep in close contact with the appointed investigators and provide them with any further guidance as proves necessary, informing the Chairman of the PSC and the Institute Secretary accordingly.  
10. The investigation takes the form of a full assessment of the complaint.  Supporting and substantiated evidence is sought in writing or orally, as appropriate, from the complainant, the member subject to complaint or any other appropriate source.  If, during the course of that investigation, it becomes apparent that mediation is the most appropriate way forward, the complaint may, with the approval of the PSC, be referred to 2 further Panel members pursuant to sub-paragraph .11 below.  Following completion of an investigation, a report ("the Investigation Report") is compiled for the PSC on the basis of the evidence collected and in a format agreed by the PSC, recommending either that the complaint be referred to a disciplinary hearing, giving reasons, or that the complaint be dismissed.  The report is passed to the PSC once the Chairman of the Investigation Panel is satisfied that it meets the PSC’s requirements.  A copy of the Investigation Report is only provided to the parties in the event that a disciplinary hearing is convened.
11. Where the agreed action is mediation, the Institute Secretary consults with the Chairman of the Investigation Panel, as a result of which 2 Panel members are appointed to act as mediators ("Mediators").  In the case of a complaint relating to a member of the IC, the Mediators will be members of the IC.  The complainant and the member subject to complaint are requested by the Institute Secretary to attend an initial mediation meeting and are provided with an outline of the mediation process.  Each party is also required to submit a statement of case in advance of the meeting.  Thereafter mediation takes such form as the Mediators determine appropriate in order to facilitate agreement by the Parties.  Once the Parties, with the assistance of the Mediators, have reached agreement on the way ahead, a mediation report ("the Mediation Report") is drawn up by the Mediators and formally agreed by the complainant and the member subject to complaint. The Mediation Report is considered by the PSC within 10 days of receipt.  If the Mediation Report confirms that:
    1. agreement has been reached between the complainant and the member subject to complaint, the PSC, save in exceptional circumstances, declares that there is no case to answer and the Institute Secretary informs the complainant and the member subject to complaint accordingly;
    2. agreement has not been reached, the complaint is dealt with as provided for in sub-paragraph .10 above.
12. Within 10 days of receipt of the Investigation Report by the PSC, the Institute Secretary is instructed by the PSC to write to the member subject to complaint, to confirm either that the complaint has been dismissed or that the complaint will be the subject of a disciplinary hearing.  When a complaint is the subject of a disciplinary hearing, the Institute Secretary:
    1. with at least 28 days' notice, informs the member subject to complaint and the complainant of the date, time and place of the hearing, their rights under this Regulation and the procedure to be followed at the hearing;
    2. sends the member and complainant a copy of the Investigation Report;
    3. calls for confirmation within the next 14 days from the member subject to complaint and the complainant of their intention to appear at the hearing and, if so, whether only in person or accompanied by one other individual in each case;
    4. advises the member subject to complaint that the hearing will proceed, whether or not the member chooses to attend;
    5. requires the member subject to complaint to submit to the Chairman of the PSC and the Chairman of the Panel, in the case of a complaint made by the Institute or the IC, and to the Chairman of the PSC and the complainant in the case of a complaint made by another individual, not less than 14 days before the hearing a list of the documents on which the member intends to rely when presenting the case, together with copies of the documents;
    6. requires the complainant or the Chairman of the Panel (as appropriate) to submit to the Chairman of the PSC and the member subject to complaint not less than 14 days before the hearing a list of the documents upon which the complainant or the Chairman of the Panel (as appropriate) intends to rely when presenting the case, together with copies of the documents.
13. Four members of the PSC are invited to form a disciplinary hearing panel (“the Hearing Panel”) to consider a complaint.  In the case of a complaint involving a member of the IC, 2 members of the Hearing Panel shall be members of the IC.  One Panel member is appointed to chair the hearing.  Where the member subject to complaint has, within 3 years of the date of the hearing panel now convened, been the subject of a hearing panel under this Regulation, the Institute Secretary will endeavour to ensure that no hearing panel members for the new complaint have had any involvement in any earlier panel or investigation.  At the commencement of the hearing, the investigation report is presented.  Submissions are then heard from, if present, the member subject to complaint, the complainant in the case of a complaint made by another individual, or the Chairman of the Panel in the case of a complaint made by or on behalf of the Institute or of the IC.
14. The member subject to complaint and the complainant or the Chairman of the Panel (as appropriate) are entitled to:
    1. call witnesses, at the discretion of the Chairman of the Hearing Panel;
    2. appear in person at the hearing and to be accompanied by one other person at their own expense, but who will not be permitted to take any part in the proceedings other than to provide personal support and advice to the member;  
    3. bring forward evidence and cross-examine witnesses;
    4. nominate a person to attend and generally exercise their rights if unable to be present for any reason, with the proviso that an attendee who is legally qualified may not act as an advocate or in any other legal capacity.
15. On the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Panel deliberates in private and decides whether the alleged misconduct has been proven.  If proven, the hearing panel is entitled at this stage to take into account any misconduct which resulted in a sanction from a hearing panel held within the previous 3 years.  The Hearing Panel then agrees on a sanction to be imposed, which will be one, or a combination of more than one, of the sanctions set out below:
    1. impose a written warning;
    2. seek a written undertaking from the member as to future conduct, within a stated period of time not exceeding 28 days;
    3. require the member to undertake, and pay the costs of, appropriate training on specific and validated courses within a specific period of time and to complete the said training programme to the satisfaction of the Institute or of the IC;
    4. suspend the member from membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both, for a specific period, not exceeding 12 months;
    5. invite the member to resign from the Institute or from the IC, or both, within a stated period of time not exceeding 28 days;
    6. recommend to the Board the removal of the member from membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both, as appropriate.
16. The decision of the Hearing Panel, together with reasons, is confirmed in writing to the PSC, the member subject to the complaint and the complainant or the Chairman of the Panel (as appropriate) by the Institute Secretary.  The member may appeal on the basis that (a) the sanction(s) is/are an incorrect reflection of the weight of evidence in the case, (b) the sanction(s) is/are disproportionate to the breach of the Code or (c) a procedural error has had a material effect on the outcome.  To exercise this right of appeal, the member must make a request in writing to the Institute Secretary within 21 days of receipt of the decision of the Hearing Panel.
17. If the member fails to comply with the sanction(s) imposed by the Hearing Panel as set out in sub-paragraph .15 above, the Hearing Panel may impose some other sanction and, in the case of a failure to comply with the sanctions imposed pursuant to sub-paragraphs .15.2 and .15.5, the PSC shall recommend to the Board the removal of the member from membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both.
18. If the member subject to complaint lodges an appeal, the President of the Institute, or a nominated representative, is requested by the PSC to appoint a Chairman and 3 other members to form an Appeal Committee, none of whom must have had any prior involvement in considering the complaint in question.  In the case of a complaint involving a member of the IC, at least 2 members of the Appeal Committee shall be members of the IC.
19. The member who has submitted the appeal ("the appellant") is informed of the establishment of the Appeal Committee, the names of its members and the date of its meeting at least 21 days’ beforehand.  At this stage, the Institute Secretary will take note of any advice from the hearing panel concerning evidence not presented to it but which, in its opinion, may be germane to an appeal, and will endeavour to obtain such evidence.  Any further evidence obtained in this way will be submitted to the appellant and to the Appeal Committee. 
20. The quorum at meetings of the Appeal Committee is 3 members, and a decision on the case is taken on the basis of a majority vote.  In the event of an equality of votes, the Chairman of the Committee has a second or casting vote.
21. The appellant has the right to attend the meeting of the Appeal Committee in person and to be accompanied to the meeting by one other person (who is not allowed to be present in a legal capacity), to provide support and advice, at the appellant's expense.  If unable to attend the meeting for any reason, the appellant may:
    1. make a written submission to the Appeal Committee;
    2. nominate a person to attend and generally exercise rights on the appellant's behalf, with the proviso that an attendee who is legally qualified may not act as an advocate or in any other legal capacity.
22. The Appeal Committee considers the appeal in the light of:
    1. the evidence presented at the hearing;
    2. any representations made at the hearing;
    3. any representations which the appellant may make to the Appeal Committee
    4. thereby considering whether the Hearing improperly took account of some matter, or failed to take into account a relevant matter, or whether its decision was perverse.  This principle does not prevent the Appeal Committee from looking at any new evidence or proceeding by way of a full hearing, if in its absolute and sole discretion it considers it essential so to do. 
23. On the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Appeal Committee deliberates in private.  The outcome of the appeal is reported in writing to the PSC.
24. In a case where the agreed sanction is exclusion from membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both, where:
    1. the member has not lodged an appeal within the 21 day deadline;
    2. the member has failed to comply with a sanction within the stated deadline and the PSC has therefore recommended the removal of the member from membership;
    3. an Appeal Committee has upheld the recommendation of the Hearing Panel; 
    4. the Board is asked to pass a formal resolution to exclude the member from membership of the Institute or of the IC, or both, as appropriate.
25. The member is informed of the outcome of the Appeal Committee and of any Board resolution.  There is no further right of appeal.
26. The Institute Secretary has full authority to ensure that the decisions of the PSC, the Hearing Panel, the Appeal Committee and the Board are implemented in full.
27. The PSC, the Hearing Panel and any Appeal Committee may call upon legal or other appropriate advisers to become involved in any stage of their proceedings.
28. The PSC, the Hearing Panel and any Appeal Committee have discretion to regulate their own proceedings as they see fit save as otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation.