UAP/UPP - A Supervisor's guide

UAP and UPP - A supervisor's guide 

Initial Sickness Management

Reasonable adjustments

UAP

UPP

Initial Sickness Management

So, you have an officer off sick.  This is not uncommon for all of us as supervisors and in the majority of cases your officer will be off for a short period of a few days with a common illness, and will return, requiring a Return to Work interview be conducted and for you check if any further support or adjustments are required.  Most of us know and understand this basic process, although remember, if the officers sickness has hit the trigger point you will need to undertake a Managing Attendance Review.  This has replaced the old ARM and is a much less confrontational and emotive form and process. Consider a support plan.  Support plans should be practical and reasonable.  DO NOT WRITE “NOT TO BE SICK IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS”.  This was common practice but is not reasonable.  Nor are lifestyle demands such as telling them to go to the gym, get more vitamin C or, eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day.  How as a supervisor do you actually plan to monitor and enforce this?  Some more sensible options for support plans are;

• Continue to engage with treatment and advice afforded by your GP / Physiotherapist / counsellor etc
• Abide by restrictions and advice put forward by the forces Occupational Health department
• Raise any concerns or issues at the earliest opportunity with your line manager so that suitable support and adjustments can be put in place
• Dynamically risk assess any activities or situations to avoid further injury or aggravating or exacerbating the existing condition
• Report any future sickness in a timely manner and by the correct channels as per force policy (not texting you when you are on a day off) and obtain a sick note from your GP immediately if this goes beyond the self-certified period
• Maintain and respond to any contact from your line manager during any future period of sickness and engage in providing updates on your condition and discussing any adjustments or support which may aid a return to work

The more challenging scenario for you as a supervisor is when an officer’s sickness becomes prolonged and they are off for several weeks or months.  You, as their line manager, are now responsible for their welfare, responsible for maintaining meaningful contact with them, responsible for signposting them to any support services available through the police or federation and responsible for offering them whatever support or guidance they need to work towards a return to work.  Something strange happens to us at this point though, and, with other responsibilities and challenges at work, we too often stick that officer on the back burner.  This can mean we drop that officer the occasional text message or phone call to check up on them and let them know they are due a new sick note.  If the officer returns of their own accord after two or three weeks, this may not represent a terrible issue.  If that sickness starts to become much more prolonged however, this this is the point at which we, as supervisors, start to create problems for ourselves later down the line.  If the officers sickness becomes long and problematic, it will be incumbent upon us as supervisors to support that officer, and where may be necessary, challenge and resolve this.  If all we have done for several weeks and months is send the occasional text message and send in monthly GP’s notes, we have set ourselves up on shaky ground going forward.  This is the most common failing among us as supervisors and believe me, I say this from the perspective of someone who has fallen into that trap.

What we must do as supervisors is appreciate and understand that once one of our officers is off sick, we have those responsibilities for welfare, support, regular meaningful contact and to plan a path back into work.  As such, set yourself out on the correct path from the outset, and ensure you do, and log, the following;

• 28 days of continuous sickness is the point at which you must conduct a Managing Attendance Meeting. Ensure this is done and logged with HR.
• Make regular contact with the officer. If necessary, make an arrangement with the officer that you will call once a week at a time convenient to them.  Make that contact meaningful and discuss how they are, how their illness or recovery is progressing, what timescales are anticipated and what can you do to help or support them.
• Signpost them to sources of further support and assistance. This may include the chaplaincy team, counselling services, the wellbeing team, or a referral to one of the police treatment centres.
• Ensure you have requested an OHU referral so they can discuss the officers condition and make recommendations on their fitness to return to work, support that could be offered and what adjustments or ongoing support might be required as and when they return and what restrictions or limitations may be placed on them.
• Ensure Managing Attendance Meetings are conducted at relevant intervals. 28 Days for the first, and if at three months the officer has not returned, the meeting should be revisited and reviewed.  A return to work date should be set.
• Discuss that return to work. Do not leave the officer hanging about what they will be doing, where they will be working, what hours they will work or what support will be in place for them.  Discuss what a return will look like and what they need to aid that return and begin to think about drafting a recuperation plan to incorporate those restrictions and adjustments detailed by them and OHU.
• LOG AND RECORD ALL OF THE ABOVE WITH RELEVANT TIMES AND DATES.

As a supervisor, I cannot stress the importance of that record keeping enough.  Throughout the process of UAP and UPP I will mention again and again the need to log and record your actions, conversations and decision making.  Yes it feels like an administrative burden, but this may well protect YOU.  As fed reps, we see a lot of gaps and inconsistent documentation of these processes by supervisors.  Not only can progress through this process fail if there are gaps in that record keeping and disputes over who said or did what and when and supervisors can open themselves up to claims of bullying or be on the wrong end of fairness at work submissions.  Please do not get caught out through lack of documenting what you are doing.

At the end of the day, as the officers line manager, you have a balance to strike during this process.  Officers want to feel they are being supported and heard.  Do not just approach this as a tick box exercise.  Don’t turn into robot mode, you need to take a genuine interest in trying to support the officer, this is part of your role!  Officers will see straight through if you are doing this as a ticked box or if you actually want to find solutions to signpost them to just support them.  This is essential in them feeling confident and equipped to return to work as soon as they are fit.  You do however need to balance this against the needs of the organisation.  Our wages are paid by the tax payer and it is unfair on them and our colleagues when we are paying for someone to be at home and colleagues are picking up the extra workload.  You, as a manager, should know your staff and know when someone is genuinely struggling and when the time has come to take more robust supervisory action.

For full details on the welfare and support services available, see the Health and Care page on the Intranet, or ask Lincs Police Federation.

Reasonable Adjustments

I have touched upon the need to ensure an OHU referral is made during a period of long term sickness.  These should automatically become a consideration after 28 days of absence but the relevance of an OHU referral is not limited to this.  Nor is the advice they can afford limited to confirming if they are simply fit for duty or not.  OHU reports can detail and guide us as supervisors with regards reasonable adjustments which can be made in the workplace to both assist in a return to work for the officer, and if necessary, aid them long term in being able to remain in work and manage more complex or chronic health conditions.  OHU will be able to advise on the long term impacts of the officers health condition or where relevant, recognised disability, assess what they can and cannot safely do in the workplace, how suitable is their current role, and what adjustments could be considered and accommodated to aid them.

Do bear in mind at this point that we have a legal responsibility under the Equality Act of 2010, to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate recognised disabilities and create a suitable working environment for those colleagues.  Those key responsibilities under the Equality are;

1. Recognising Disabilities: Understand that disabilities include visible and non-visible impairments impacting daily activities, such as physical, mental health, or neurodivergent conditions.

2. Implementing Adjustments: Proactively remove workplace barriers, including;

• Modifying equipment or workstations.
• Offering flexible working patterns.
• Altering duties or providing alternative roles.
• Offering additional training or support.

3. Assessing Reasonableness: Adjustments should be practical, effective, proportionate, and considerate of operational needs and available resources.

4. Compliance and Documentation: Document decisions clearly to mitigate legal risks. Non-compliance can result in discrimination claims.

5. Ongoing Communication: Regularly review adjustments with employees to ensure effectiveness.

This is a legal requirement under the Equality Act, so where we get this wrong is not recognising and supporting the officers needs early, then further down the line is where employment tribunals come into play, this area is a common area we get wrong, so read up on it and come see us or HR if you have any concerns the Fed are there for you as supervisors too!

Once again, the key here is in the detail, and the important phrase to remember here is “Reasonable”.  The Equality Act places a duty on us to make reasonable, practicable, affordable adjustments to accommodate disabilities.  The act also recognises the limitations to what we can do, both financially and practically and in terms of safety.  Examples of unreasonable expectations or adjustments could include;

1. Compromising Safety: For example allowing an officer unable to safely handle firearms to continue in an armed role.

2. Excessive Cost: Is it reasonable to completely restructure or rebuild a police station rather than implementing simpler accessibility solutions.

3. Operational Disruption: Permanently removing night shifts or emergency response duties solely because an individual prefers daytime work.

4. Unnecessary Job Creation: This is a topical talking point. The fact is that as an organisation we CAN prioritise those with existing needs or disabilities for existing roles. Indeed, the Equality Act requires us to make all reasonable efforts to find such individuals a suitable role to perform.  However, we should not be creating an entirely new administrative position which never existed before and is without operational justification purely to accommodate a staff member.

5. Ignoring Essential Tasks: Allowing an officer to omit core policing duties indefinitely (e.g. attending emergency incidents), without exploring alternative roles.

Once again, this is about judgement, empathy and discretion as a supervisor.  Managers must balance inclusivity and practicality to meet obligations under the Equality Act 2010.  This is why seeking early advice and support from Occupational Health will be important.

Making an occupational health referral is driven by HR, and the reality is all you need to do as a supervisor is contact HR to advise you would like a OHU referral raising and they will do the rest.  What you will need to clarify are three things. 

1)  Why do you want the referral raising.  These will usually be due to either;

• Long term sickness over 28 Days
• Poor general sickness record
• An injury at work
• Where the officer has a specified medical condition or Disability which may impact their role or work
• Where in the most acute cases, consideration needs to be given as to whether an officer is permanently disabled from being able to perform the role of a police officer.

2)  You will need to detail what it is you actually want to know.  OHU will not know what information you require unless you tell them.  Do you want to know if the officer is fit for work, fit to perform their current role or fit for serving as a police officer long term?  Do you want to know what considerations or short-term adjustments should be made for a return to work and recuperation plan, or do you want to know and understand if any long term adjustments are required and what you can explore or put in place to aid them?

3)  Finally, HR and OHU will need to know if the officer is aware of and agrees to an OHU referral.  In addition, do they agree to OHU making enquiries about medical information and any subsequent reports being shared with you.  Agreement on this will aid in giving you the best possible advice and picture of their capabilities.  OHU advice can still be sought without the officers agreement to participate or allow access to medical information, but the advice you will receive will be significantly more limited without a more detailed medical picture and input from the officer.

If Adjustments and restrictions are required, ensure you keep your own supervisor and RMU updated so that adjustments and restrictions can be reflected on duties, and RMU can maintain relevant staffing levels.

UAP

Having managed an officers sickness for a prolonged period, you will approach a point as a supervisor where either the 3 month Managing Attendance Meeting Review is reached or the 6 month half pay point looms for that officer, and it is at this stage that you will likely receive an email from HR stating that as the officer has not returned to work, and you should move onto UAP stage 1.

So, the first and crucial question.  Do you have to follow that instruction from HR and instigate UAP at this point.  The very simple answer to that question is NO.

Moving to UAP stage 1 at this point may indeed be appropriate and justified.  It may also not be.  The point is, YOU are that officer’s supervisor and it is YOU who makes the decision to move into the UAP process.  HR advise you.  They cannot instruct or order you to commence that process.  I will caveat that by pointing out that this is not the case to infinity.  You need to justify why UAP is not appropriate or suitable at that point.  You cannot, where it is suitable and necessary, simply keep putting off or refusing to initiate UAP for months and years.  There will come a point where Senior Leadership or your own line manager can and will insist it is now the only option.  We can’t realistically have officers spending half their career outside of work because, whatever the reason, you don’t want to instigate UAP.  However, at this early stage of the process, the decision is for you to make and at this point ask yourself some basic questions.

• Have I done everything I practicably can to help and support this officer and help them back to work?
• Have I been in contact with sufficient regularity and logged that contact and the content of those conversations?
• Have I signposted that officer to other lines of support such as chaplaincy, counselling services or a police treatment centre?
• Have I arranged an up to date OHU referral to assess that officers fitness to return to work and what they can and cannot do should they return?
• Have I conducted and documented Managing Attendance Meetings with the officer at the correct points?
• Have I actually had a proper discussion with the officer about returning to work, what they feel they are capable of, what adjustments they require, hours they can do and where they can travel to? Have I drafted and discussed with them a recuperation plan off the back of this?

It may be the case that during their sickness, supervision of the officer has changed, maybe more than once.  If you have only supervised the officer for a part of their absence, then ask or find out, did my predecessor do the above?

A final critical question should be, is UAP actually going to be detrimental to this officer?  This is an especially key question for those officers away from work with psychological illnesses such as severe stress and depression.  Entering UAP is a stressful process and will likely make the officer feel they are now in trouble for being ill, or that the suggestion is their illness is not real.  Is that the most practicable and sensible way to support an officer in overcoming stress and depression, or will we in fact take them backwards in their recovery?  We have pushed the idea in force that its ok not to be ok.  Nowhere on the posters for this have I seen it say, its ok not to be ok, but only for 6 months or we will UAP you!

If you can honestly answer these questions and conclude yes, you have undertaken all of those steps and actions and offered every chance of support you can, and no, the officers is not a position where UAP will actually make their conditions worse, then it is indeed the case that we have exhausted all other options, and UAP is suitable and necessary.  If the answer to many of these questions is no, you have not been in regular contact to discuss their illness and what you can do to help, you have not signposted them to relevant support, and no you have not had meaningful conversations about returning to work and what that will look like, then take a breath and a step back.  Before considering UAP, you need to have all your ducks in a row and start to undertake those actions and offer that support before moving to UAP.  Remember, UAP is the process in place for when all of these things have failed.  We can’t say they have failed, if we never did them!

Once the question of UAP begins to be raised by HR, it is common to hear phrases from HR advisors along the lines of “This is not a punitive process and is there to establish what support and help can be put in place to assist an officer back to work”.

This, frankly, is an odd interpretation of the process, and is unlikely to reassure your officer that they are not entering a disciplinary process.  In reality, they are entering a disciplinary process, the ultimate outcome of which can be dismissal.  The fact is that there is nothing which can be offered to that officer by way of support, advice or help with returning to work which could not have been offered or investigated long prior to this point by you.  Entering UAP stage 1 does not afford the job a sudden set of magical options and support mechanisms which did not exist before.  Rather, UAP should be a last resort when we have exhausted all of those offers of support and assistance with returning to work.  If you find yourself in that position where all that has been offered to the officer is the occasional text or watts app to check up on them, and chasing a sick note when needed, then can we honestly say we are at a point where we have exhausted all offers of support, assistance and guidance to encourage and help that officer to return?

If you have now reached the point where you believe UAP should be instigated, notify HR who have the knowledge and experience required to guide you and who will facilitate the necessary letters and formal notifications to the officer arranging an initial stage one meeting.  That stage one meeting will be led by you, but with a HR team member present to assist and guide you.  In essence, it will run very much like the old ARM meeting, whereby you will highlight and outline the reasons for concern about their attendance and point out where this falls short of force policy, and then explore what now can be done to get t that officer in getting back to work.  Ultimately, the likely outcome of that meeting will be an agreed date on which they must aim to return (alongside any adjustments, recuperation periods etc which have been agreed).  At this point the ball is very much in the officer’s court.  They either return on or before the specified date, or they fail to do so in which case HR will guide you forward again towards stage two of the process.  Commonly stage two will involve exploring the question of whether the officer is physically too ill to be able to return and whether Ill Health Retirement is an option which should be explored.  This would very much be led by HR and the officers Federation Rep.

It is worth noting that the UAP process has been reviewed and changed at the start of 2025.  The UAP process previously involved three stages, but this has now been reduced to two.  In effect those elements covered at the old stage two meeting will still be covered, but stage two and stage three have effectively been merged.  While a stage one meeting will be led by you as the line manager, a stage two meeting will be chaired by a panel, consisting of a senior officer of at least superintendent rank and a senior HR representative.  The panel can consider an extension of a written notice of improvement in exceptional circumstances, which would lead to in effect a second stage two meeting be scheduled to review this later, redeployment, or dismissal. 

Full details of the policy, the managing attendance procedure can be found under the Attendance Management Toolkit for Managers on the intranet.  If in doubt, please don’t try to navigate this alone in a state of confusion, but speak to someone at the Federation for help and guidance.

UPP

UPP is in many ways, from a process perspective, not dissimilar for you as a supervisor to the UAP process.  You need to ask yourself many of the same questions, but phrased around performance rather than purely sickness and attendance.  Becoming increasingly frustrated with an officers lack of competence, and poor attitude or behaviour, but limiting your simmering frustration to the occasional email or comment about what they didn’t do at a job and to chuntering to yourself and a select group of trusted others, is not going to be sufficient groundwork to then move onto UPP.  This would be very much the same as sending half a dozen text messages to check on a sick officer, and then going straight to UAP.

The above may seem obvious, but I have seen with my own eyes, officers, threatened with UPP for the quality of their work, and when I ask them where their development plan is to address their shortcomings, how many face to face conversations have been had with their Sgt where they have raised concerns about their performance, and specifically what that is, what support have they been offered to improve their file work / traffic knowledge / interviewing skills etc, and where on their PDR are the concerns detailed, the answer is that there have been no development plans, no support put in place, and all of their PDR Pause Points say they turn up to work on time and have shiny shoes!  You cannot ambush someone with UPP.  Much like UAP, it is the last resort when all other attempts at support and development have failed and the officer, despite the concerns being highlighted repeatedly, are not improving or engaging.  If you reach a point where UPP is appropriate, UPP should not come as a shock to that officer.

UPP is in many ways a more complex and involved process than UAP.  They key to UPP should you have any consideration to going through that process, is evidence.  The old policing adage that if it isn’t written down, it never happened, is never going to be more true than during the UPP process.  The bulk of your time and effort as part of UPP will not be the time spent within the UPP process itself, but in gathering the evidence over several months in order to reach a point of being able to enter that process.  This puts many off trying to even engage with the process, but it does not have to be that daunting if you are organised and simply take an approach of logging and recording everything relevant.

At this point, it is not going to help you or bring you any closer to a UPP, if you take the approach of shying away from difficult or challenging conversations.   Remember, you cannot ambush someone with the UPP process and it should not come as a total shock to an officer that it is being discussed.  You MUST in the preceding months have gripped the nettle, sat down face to face with the officer, and tell them you have concerns about their performance.  You need to identify and point out the specific concerns you have, with examples, and tell them that 1) they must improve, 2) What they need to do and how they should go about improving and 3) within what reasonable timescale.  Log this conversation, get the officer to agree it as an accurate record and if necessary, have another supervisor join you as a witness.  From this point on, and for possibly the next several months, your job as a supervisor is NOT to simply get an officer to UPP stage one.  Your job is to assist in supporting and developing that officer.  Don’t highlight your concerns and then leave them to it.  Just like UAP and ticking the boxes of what support and help you have offered to get an officer back to work, what help and support are you going to offer this officer to improve?  Consider;

• Development and support plans to detail the improvements needed and how the officer can achieve it with sensible goals which adhere to the SMART principle.
• Is there training available for the officers areas of weakness.  Have you raised this with L&D and submitted requests for training via the correct forms?
• Would a detachment help? If the officers interviewing and file work is poor, will a period in an investigative team help?  If they struggle with traffic process, can they spend time with RPU?
• Consider mentoring. Is there a trusted and experienced colleague or tutor constable on shift who can be crewed with the officer and asked to assist in bringing them up to speed with the areas of concern?
• Your input. This is a vital one.  Arrange to meet with the officer on a more regular basis to discuss progress, check workloads and investigations, provide feedback on ongoing areas of concern or recent incidents or investigations.  Continue to point out the areas of concern at these meetings but also offer support, and don’t forget again to log and detail the content of these meetings.
• Finally, and perhaps even more vital, welfare. As well as discussing concerns, have you investigated any welfare issues?  Is something going on inside or outside of work that is affecting their performance?  Do we also need to signpost them to welfare support services such as OHU or counselling?

With this final one it is important to take seriously how others on shift treat, or behave around, this officer.  Nothing will undermine UPP more than a suggestion of bullying or isolation for that officer.  We know it can be a source of deep frustration if colleagues feel they are carrying a team member or they are not contributing.  There could be a degree of simmering resentment among colleagues and it may be necessary for you, as the supervisor, to speak to other members of the shift and make it clear that derogatory comments about the officer, excluding them, refusing to crew with them and refusing to help them are both not acceptable, but will undermine the support you are trying to put in place to improve their performance and resolve the issue.  Do NOT get drawn into shift “banter” about the officer and discuss their performance or your frustrations behind their back.

Everything that takes place above should be documented and retained (securely and privately) in a file relating to the process.  In addition, record and retain other evidence relevant to their performance, such as:

• Pause Points and PDR’s. These should detail the concerns you have with performance and should detail that they have been discussed with the officer who is aware of the concerns and the support measures in place or being considered.  As time progresses, these Pause Points should reflect any progress, or lack of progress.
• Example incidents and investigations. Those examples of jobs which you have concerns about or feel the officer has handled badly should be logged.  Don’t print out OEL’s and incidents.  Logging Niche and CAD numbers with a summary of the incident and the concerns will suffice.
• Testimony from other colleagues. Do you have emails from colleagues in other departments highlighting concerns about statements or handovers?  Have other officers on the shift approached you with concerns?  Log, date and retain these.

Throughout the process you should also be updating your line manager and HR about the concerns identified and any development plans and support being put in place.  They may have further advice and suggestions you might consider.  Record and log these correspondence also.  Do not at this point forget your local Federation Representatives.  We are not just here to represent officers in trouble.  You pay your subscriptions.  You are as entitled to fed guidance and advice during this process as the officer under scrutiny, so ask for some guidance and sense checking from a Fed Rep.  Please don’t try to battle through these processes on your own, and then complain you only get a diary every December from the Fed!

Just as with UAP, UPP becomes relevant, proportionate and appropriate if we reach a point where we have offered that officer all the time. support, developmental help and opportunity we can, and, having had it made clear what their shortcomings are and where they are failing to improve, we reach a point where we have exhausted all the support possible.  At this point HR will be able to offer you guidance and assistance in progressing with the UPP process.  Remember though, its about having all your ducks in a row.  Make sure you have a file of evidence containing;

• Details and content of face to face meetings with time and dates recorded and details of any witness to the meeting.
• PDR’s completed and up to date with the current concerns, progress and support put in place detailed.
• Copies of support / development plans and details of how or why they have been failed
• Details of training / development / detachment opportunities afforded
• Details of correspondence from colleagues from other departments, other shifts, colleagues on shift or an assigned mentor raising concerns or observations about performance
• Details of welfare support offered or provided
• Copies or correspondence and advice from HR or supervision.
• Examples of incidents, investigations or situations where poor performance or concerns have been demonstrated.

Finally, be objective.  It is not a good look if the entire process appears to be driven by a dislike or targeting of the officer.  Keep your observations and records professional.  Keep your conversations or comments to colleagues professional.  Demonstrate that you have made every effort to help the officer in meeting the standards required.  And if there are examples of improvement or effort made by the officer, albeit not sufficient for the targets or expectations set, detail it.  Think along the lines of disclosure.  If there is evidence of someone being positive about the officer, include it, because if you don’t, they are sure to turn up with it!

At this point again, notify HR and your supervisor of your intentions and HR will guide you through the process.  Much like UAP, that stage one meeting will involve you detailing to the officer the shortcomings and concerns you have as well as the support you have instigated, and the likely outcome of that meeting will be written notice of improvement.  What will be imperative after that point is to continue as before documenting everything.  Are the goals set being met.  If so why and how and what examples have you logged.  At this point the officer will either show the necessary improvement, or HR will guide you onto the next steps of the process.