A whiff of accountability for unacceptable behaviour?

Earlier this week Health Service Journal reported that “a trust chief people officer, who was heavily criticised in an employment tribunal ruling, has resigned from her role.” https://tinyurl.com/4bb3utku

HSJ wrote:

"Nicola Price joined Mid Cheshire FT in January 2024 as chief people officer, the same role at the Countess of Chester FT. At the time of the tribunal’s verdict, Mid Cheshire said it had been informed of the judgment and that it “undertakes fit and proper reviews of every board member”.

"According to a tribunal ruling in February, Ms Price was a key member of a coordinated campaign to unfairly force out the Countess’ former CEO Susan Gilby. According to the judgment, they dubbed it “Project Countess” and it was “designed to protect the [chair Ian Haythornwaite] and manoeuvre [Dr Gilby] out of the trust”. It was instigated by Mr Haythornwaite, who resigned as chair of the Countess after the tribunal verdict. The tribunal judgment also said Ms Price was an “inaccurate historian and did not give credible evidence

"Sources said the trust and Care Quality Commission had received concerns about whether, in light of the judgment, Ms Price was a “fit and proper person” to be on an NHS board. NHS organisations are required to regularly review this. A spokesperson for the CQC, which oversees trusts’ application of the FPP test, said: “We have received a referral under the fit and proper persons requirement which we are following up on. We are currently awaiting additional information from the trust and are unable to disclose further details at this time.”

"Asked whether Ms Price had resigned following fit and proper persons (FPP) complaints and queries, a Mid Cheshire spokesperson said: “Together, [the trust] and Ms Price have considered the matter. Ms Price has concluded that the interests of all parties will be best served by her resigning from her role as chief people officer and leaving the trust’s employment.”

Accountability

Accountability is the means by which individuals, leaders, and organisations justify and take responsibility for their activities.

In the NHS the Care Quality Commission has a Fit and Proper Persons Framework which is supposed to insert accountability into the standards of competence, character and behaviour of NHS Board members.

The Employment Tribunal which upheld all Dr Susan Gilby’s claims was a damning document which described a conspiracy by the Trust Chair, two Non Executive Directors and the Chief People Officer to drive a perfectly competent CEO out of her job for no good reason whatsoever.

The Tribunal findings were published on March 12th 2025.  I wrote a summary of the acts and omissions of the Chief People Officer, Nicola Price entirely drawn from the Tribunal findings asking NHS HR leaders: what would you have done when Susan Gilby was being victimised? https://tinyurl.com/8k47rntf

I then waited to see if the Mid Cheshire NHS FT Board would take action to hold Nicola Price to account.  I heard nothing

I waited for NHS England to take action in respect of the four directors named as conspirators by the Tribunal. I heard nothing.

So, a month later I reported all four directors as not being Fit and Proper Persons to the CQC. There should have been no need for an individual to take this step.

The CQC does the right thing

With a sense of urgency that I would never have expected from his predecessor, CQC CEO Sir Julian Hartley ensured investigations began at pace. As a result, the Trust and Nicola Price have done the decent thing and she has now resigned. It is unclear what would have happened if there hadn’t been formal complaints and there hadn’t been a new regime at the CQC. Let’s see what happens to the co-conspirators.

The CIPD

At the same time as reporting these four directors to the CQC, I also reported Nicola Price to the CIPD, the professional body and regulator for the “people profession”. Again, I had waited to see if anyone else concerned about the apparent serious breach of the CIPD Code of Conduct and Ethics might have made a referral. As far as I know it didn’t occur to anyone else. So, I reported to the CIPD that a registrant appeared to be in serious breach of their Code of Conduct and Ethics.

I have heard nothing yet. Whether the CIPD takes appropriate action will be a test of whether their regulatory framework is effective or not. The following statement doesn’t give me great confidence

“During our last financial year, from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, we received 119* complaint enquiries. Of these, 20 cases were eligible for investigation (at the close of our year, 5 investigations were concluded and 15 were ongoing ). None of the cases were escalated to a full conduct hearing.” https://www.cipd.org/uk/membership/professional-standards/code-of-conduct/cases/

But I am an optimist. It is in the interest of the people profession that registrants are held accountable if standards are flagrantly breached. I am not in favour of sanctions when there are alternatives but it is in the interests of the people profession that standards set are adhered to when a breach of them costs a good CEO their career.

The CQC have acted prompt and appropriately. I await the CIPD response, I hope, in the near future, to learn whether sanctions are judged appropriate and if not, why not. I am sure many CIPD members share my interest, as do those whose livelihood and careers depend on ethical people management.