Corporate report
2. Disciplinary procedures: data table (CSV)
Updated 4 April 2016
Download CSV 7.46 KB
| 2. Disciplinary procedures |
|---|
| Data source: |
| Resource Management. |
| Time period and availability: |
| Latest data covers the period from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. |
| What does this tell us? |
| The data presented here shows the percentage of employees who have been subject to formal disciplinary procedures against their status in relation to each of the following protected characteristics: age; disability; ethnicity; and gender. For ease of comparison the tables include a column illustrating the appropriate headcount breakdown by age, taken from a table earlier in this report. |
| How will an improvement be shown? |
| Generally the similarity of this indicator in a protected and non-protected group will indicate equivalent amounts of disciplinary action. However, this will require a reasonably complete declaration rate and sufficiently large volumes to be definitive. |
| Table 2.1: Percentage of employees by age who were disciplined1,2 |
| Age |
| 16-24 |
| 25-29 |
| 30-34 |
| 35-39 |
| 40-44 |
| 45-49 |
| 50-54 |
| 55-59 |
| 60-64 |
| 65+ |
| Total |
| Source: Resource Management |
| Notes: |
| 1. * - Level of data too low for publication and percentages are rounded to 1 decimal place, given this totals may not sum due to rounding. |
| 2. Data period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The equivalent period is covered where previous years are given. |
| 3. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees disciplined who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 4. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees that have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 5. Percentages shown are the number of employees by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 6. Data from previous years not available for this group. |
| Table 2.2: Percentage of employees by indicated disability who were disciplined 1,2 |
| Disability |
| Disabled |
| Non-disabled |
| Total |
| Source: Resource Management |
| Notes: |
| 1. * - Level of data too low for publication and percentages are rounded to 1 decimal place, given this totals may not sum due to rounding. |
| 2. Data period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The equivalent period is covered where previous years are given. |
| 3. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees disciplined who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 4. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees that have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 5. Percentages shown are the number of employees by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 6. Data from previous years not available for this group. |
| Table 2.3: Percentage of employees by indicated ethnicity who were disciplined 1,2 |
| Ethnicity |
| Ethnic minority |
| White |
| Total |
| Source: Resource Management |
| Notes: |
| 1. * - Level of data too low for publication and percentages are rounded to 1 decimal place, given this totals may not sum due to rounding. |
| 2. Data period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The equivalent period is covered where previous years are given. |
| 3. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees disciplined who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 4. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees that have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 5. Percentages shown are the number of employees by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 6. Data from previous years not available for this group. |
| Table 2.4: Percentage of employees by gender who were disciplined1,2 |
| Gender |
| Female |
| Male |
| Total |
| Source: Resource Management |
| Notes: |
| 1. * - Level of data too low for publication and percentages are rounded to 1 decimal place, given this totals may not sum due to rounding. |
| 2. Data period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The equivalent period is covered where previous years are given. |
| 3. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees disciplined who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 4. Percentages shown are the number of employees disciplined by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees that have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 5. Percentages shown are the number of employees by protected characteristic, over the total number of employees who have chosen to indicate that protected characteristic. |
| 6. Data from previous years not available for this group. |