[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Voronin v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 822(SW) (25 April 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2007/822(SW).html Cite as: [2006] EWCST 822(SW)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


[2006] EWCST 822(SW) (25 April 2007)

Michael Voronin

-v-

General Social Care Council

[2006] 822.SW

-Before-

Mr S Hunter (Chairman)

Ms M Tynan

Dr J Low

Hearing 30^th March 2007 in London

As the appellant had requested that the case be determined without an oral hearing this matter was dealt with on the basis of the written representation sent to the Tribunal by the parties.

The appeal

1. This is an appeal pursuant to Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 ("The Act") by the appellant against the decision of the respondent to refuse to register the appellant as a Social Worker on the register maintained for this purpose pursuant to Section 56 (1) of the Act.
2. Section 58 (1) provides that the General Social Care Council ("GSCC") must be satisfied that an applicant for registration is of good character and is physically and mentally fit to perform relevant work. This was not an issue in this case. However Section 58 does allow the GSCC to specify conditions that an applicant must meet for registration, which are set out in Section 58 (2) and (3). In this case the GSCC formed the view that the appellant could not comply with specified conditions as to qualifications, in particular the requirements of Section 64 (1) (b) which deals with qualifications gained outside England and which states as follows: -

"An applicant for registration as a Social Worker in the register maintained by the English Council satisfies the requirements of this section if -

(b) he has, elsewhere than in England, undergone training in relevant social work and either: -

(i) that training is recognised by the Council as being to a standard sufficient for such registration; or

(ii) it is not so recognized, but the applicant has undergone in England or elsewhere such additional training as the Council may require."

3. The appellant has not completed any social work training in England and relied on his external qualifications and training outside England.
4. Section 57 (1) of the Act provides that an application for registration must be made to the GSCC in accordance with the relevant rules, those rules being the GSCC (Registration) Rules 2005 ("the rules"). Rule 4 indicates that an application shall be made in writing and then goes on to set out the information that an applicant is required to provide in support of such an application. This includes at Rule 4 (1) (a) (vi) "such other information as the Council may reasonably require;…"

Where an applicant has obtained their qualifications and training abroad they are asked by the GSCC to complete a form in which they are asked general information about themselves ("Part 1") and also a further form in which they are asked to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience ("Part 2").

5. The standard which the GSCC applies when considering whether a qualification gained abroad is of sufficient standard to merit registration, is whether the applicant's training and experience is equivalent to the requirements of the UK qualification, the Diploma in Social Work. This is the qualification held by most social workers, although students in social work in the United Kingdom now follow a 3 year BA (Honours) degree course in social work. The six competences of the Diploma in Social Work were communicate and engage, promote and enable, access and plan, intervene and provide services, work in organisations and develop professional confidence.

In assessing whether an applicant has undergone training in social work elsewhere than in England which is equivalent to the requirements of the Diploma in Social Work, the GSCC relies upon its International Recognition Service ("IRS").

6. The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that he is a person who meets the requirements of Section 58 of the Act.

Facts

7. On 15^th September 2005 an application for registration was received from the appellant by the respondent for registration of the appellant as a social worker in England. There was then considerable communications between the parties relating to the information needed to be supplied by the appellant and it was not until 2^nd March 2006 that the respondent considered that it had had the appropriate information to consider the appellants application. At this point Part 2, of the application was forwarded to the IRS for its consideration. Again there was extensive correspondence between the parties in respect of the evidence provided by the applicant, so that it was not until May 2006 that the IRS was able to consider the application.
8. The qualifications submitted by the appellant to the GSCC included a Degree as an Associate in Arts (Liberal Arts) from Allan Hancock College, California which was conferred on 7^th August 1987 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology from West Oregon State College conferred on 12^th June 1993. The information from Allan Hancock College indicated that the appellant had completed courses in business, accountancy, history, philosophy, art, maths and sociology. In respect of sociology the course titles included, social problems and contemporary marriage and family. In the case of West Oregon State College the appellant had taken courses in a number of subjects including sociology subjects, social psychology, an introduction to child development and social deviant behaviour. In addition the appellant had also taken a number of sport related subjects.
9. The appellant's employment history was also considered. His application indicated he had been employed as a supervised recreational specialist in youth activities in 1986 with the Stewart Learning Centre in California and with the US Military Youth between 1988 and 1991 and as a Runaway Shelter Manager for young people between 1991 and 1993. The appellant had subsequently worked from 1995 onwards as a teacher in Physical Education and in English in the Netherlands.

The appellant had produced various certificates information from the United States Military relating to various courses that he had attended. In addition, he produced details of the time that he had spent working in a games/recreation situation in a military context, as well as documents in Dutch apparently relating to his work in educational settings.

10. The appellant had been asked as part of his application for registration, to produce a personal statement which amongst other matters was required to indicate how he met the core competencies of the Diploma in Social Work. In his personal statement the applicant gave more information about his work experience in America. In the conclusion to his statement the appellant included the following comments: -

"Since I have completed my Bachelors Degree in Sociology in 1993, I have taught and worked at various institutions I have had the opportunity to coach, guide and counsel youths from all social cultural backgrounds. My reason for wanting to work as a social worker, will allow me to continue helping the young and it will give me the opportunity to continue sharing my talents in helping others to achieve their goals.! My understanding of modern day issues in different social environments continue to allow me to effectively introduce programmes that adequately assist students!"

11. The IRS completed the investigation in June 2006, its findings being as follows: -

"……..the applicant has not studied a professional qualification in social work accredited by the Council in Social Work Education in America. He has not provided evidence that he is (or has been) licensed as a social worker in the USA."

It also found that his qualifications did not include social welfare, law or social work specific subjects. Neither was there any supervised assessed practice in a social work setting.

" The applicant has over 20 years of experience in working with young people; however this is an entirely different professional activity than that of a social worker."

The final recommendation of IRS was that a letter should be written to the applicant: -

"….refusing his application for inclusion on the social care register in England, recommending that he undertakes full social work training in the UK before re-applying."

12. The IRS assessors' recommendations were reviewed by the manager of the IRS Diane Smith, who provided a written statement in these proceedings dated the 16^th March 2007. At paragraph 23 of that written statement she stated that she had reviewed the assessor's opinion and assessed the appellant's application and was satisfied that the application had been considered in accordance with the European Communities Recognition of Professional Qualifications Second General System Directive 92-51-EEC and that she agreed with the assessors' conclusions. At paragraph 24 of her statement Diana Smith stated as follows: -

"My view of the appellant's qualifications and experience remains the same. He has not obtained a professional social work qualification and his subsequent work experience is not sufficiently related to the professional activities of a social worker to make up the shortfall of training in theories, methods, policy, critical and reflective analysis, law, policy and the whole knowledge base of social work."

13. On 7^th June 2006 the respondent wrote to the appellant indicating that they were considering refusing his application for registration. On 2^nd August 2006 the respondent wrote to the appellant confirming that his application had been refused on the basis that the appellant had not met the qualification criteria set out in Section 64 (1) (b) of the Act. The respondent made reference to the IRS report and stated that if the appellant was able to successfully complete social work training in the UK it would be possible for him to re-apply for registration, on the basis that he had completed the required training under Section 58 of the Act.
14. In his appeal to this Tribunal the appellant included in his reasons for appeal the following statement: -

"There is a major contradiction between the GSCC's decision making and specific European directives recognising professional training; a member state must recognise training and other professional qualifications in the field of social work or any other related field!"

In its response to the appeal the respondent set out the history of the application and submitted that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence with his application to demonstrate to the GSCC that, in all the circumstances his training was equivalent to the Diploma in Social Work and that in those circumstances the GSCC had been right to refuse his application for registration. Further that the GSCC's assessment of the appellant's qualifications and training had applied the relevant EU directives on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The respondent then went on to state: -

"The fact remains that the appellant has not produced evidence that he either trained or practiced as a social worker either in the USA or in Europe. Accordingly the mutual recognition of qualifications does not assist his case."

Tribunal's Conclusions

15. The appellant holds a Bachelor of Science in Sociology awarded by Western Oregon State College USA in 1993, that degree being to a British Batchelor standard. The validity of that qualification is not in issue. What however is in issue is whether the appellant has a professional qualification in social work. Whilst we accept that a number of the subjects studied by the appellant whilst he was at Western Oregon may be helpful in understanding the theoretical basis of sociology, which in itself may be a good platform from which to undertake social work training, the award does not cover the competencies set out in the Diploma in Social Work. In particular the degree did not include social welfare, law or social work specific subjects and neither does it appear that there was any supervised assessed practice in a social work setting.

The appellant also has a qualification from Hancock College, again in the USA but we are also of the view that this does not cover the Diploma in Social Work competencies.

16. As far as the appellant's training and employment is concerned there is no doubt that the appellant has been involved in a number of youth activities and teaching situations, some of which have involved being in a social welfare setting, but he has not undertaken any professional social work training or practiced as a social worker. It is also apparent that the appellant has attended many courses relating to youth activities as confirmed by the documents supplied, but again we reach the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of the appellant having done any training applying the necessary knowledge which would be equivalent to the level of the Diploma in Social Work. Such training and course participation is not the same in our view as being assessed in a social work setting. It may well be that the appellant's qualifications and experience are such for him to be involved in youth work in this country. but he does not for the reasons set out above meet the requirements for registration as a social worker.
17. We are aware from the documentation submitted to the Tribunal that the appellant has expressed concern about the way in which his application for registration has been dealt with by the respondent. It is not the role of this Tribunal to act as a complaints body in relation to the application process but rather to determine according to the law, whether the appellant is entitled to be registered as a social worker under the terms of the Care Standards Act.
18. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.

Order

The appeal is dismissed.

Dated: 25 April 2007

Mr Stewart Hunter (Chairman)

Ms Michelle Tynan

Dr Jill Low