Open Letter to Christine Gilbert on the Employment Tribunal case

Local resident Philip Grant, who has been following the Employment Tribunal case closely and engaged with council officers on the issue, has written the following Open Letter to Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council:

ONLY 2 DAYS LEFT TO NOMINATE ROSEMARIE CLARKE

Brent Council resorting to dirty tricks as embarrassment looms?

Guest blog by E.Tribunal

The prospect of seeing  Rosemarie Clarke being presented with the Brent Staff Achievement Award 2014 by her colleagues Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert  is one which has moved a large number of people to register their knowledge and appreciation of this strong and resolute lady by nominating her here LINK
 

It’s crucial that this momentum is kept up in the last 2 days before nominations close, however. So could I ask everyone who hasn’t already done so to nominate Rosemarie and for as many people as possible to urge others to nominate her before the deadline of October 16^th?

We need the maximum nomination for Rosemarie as we can expect some dirty tricks from Butt/Gilbert/Davani/Ledden  as they attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable popular result. Following the example of Jed Bush ( Bush’s  brother in Florida who fiddled the vote to make him president), they may claim that only either ‘Rosemarie’ with an ‘ie’ or with a ‘y’ should count.  Nonsense.  We know and they know who we’re nominating.  
  

They may claim that she resigned from Brent Council and is no longer eligible.  Nonsense.  As the Tribunal judge established, their bullying, victimisation and racial discrimination amounted to constructive dismissal, so their illegal treatment of Rosemarie forced her resignation. ( A point they inadvertently acknowledged by insisting on continuing their disciplinary even after forcing her resignation).

There are rumours that they have organised a counter-campaign by selecting their own nominee and getting people to vote for him/her  in order to outvote Rosemarie. This is always possible. It’s also possible, I suppose, that the nominee they’ve chosen to select is Ms Davani herself. Could it be (see Martin’s post today) that this is why it’s been announced that she is now actually on the Brent payroll, in order to make her eligible? 

Will they be able to find enough people to support their plan? Or is  Brent Council about to receive hundreds of nomination forms for Ms Davani with only a paw-mark where the nominator’s name should be?

                                                     

            

Will it be noticed that the majority of these votes come from the same addresses, addresses which do not tally with the official register of the names of dogs residing at that address and where the actual resident mutt  has no knowledge that their identity has been fraudulently used?

Will the police again  show no interest in getting involved in a blatant case of identity theft ?  

Whatever the truth, we can all be confident that Wembley Matters will get it to us first.

MEANWHILE,  PLEASE NOMINATE ROSEMARIE AND DO ALL YOU CAN TO CONVINCE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME

Did Senior Brent Council officers allow Cara Davani to continue her victimisation of council worker?

With Philip Grant's permission, I am re-posting comments which he has made on the Kilburn Times website, in response to Brent's decision to appeal against the employment tribunal judgement. LINK

Comments made by Philip Grant in response to the online Brent & Kilburn Times story about Brent’s appeal against the employment tribunal appeal decision:

1.  I agree that Brent Council should not be appealing against the Employment Tribunal judgement. An appeal can only be taken on points of law, and cannot overturn the tribunal’s findings of fact, unless no reasonable person could have made those findings on the basis of the evidence before them. The tribunal had very clear evidence, which it set out fully in the judgement, to show that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani, as a direct result of having made a formal complaint about being bullied by her, and that other senior officers in the Council did not do what they should have done to protect Rosemarie from that bullying and victimisation. 

Even if Brent was to win an appeal, on some legal technicality, against being found guilty of “racial discrimination” as an aggravating feature in its victimisation of a former employee (who for years had played a key part in raising Brent’s status as an “Investor in People”), that victimisation remains a proven fact. By appealing against the tribunal judgement, rather than taking Ms Davani’s actions of ‘victimisation, harassment or bullying extremely seriously’ as it claims it does with all such allegations in its statement, Brent Council is continuing its victimisation of Rosemarie Clarke. 

The Council thinks that its deep pockets will allow it to pay the fees of top barristers to present its appeal, and make no mistake, we are talking of fees and costs well into six figures here. But the money in those ‘deep pockets’ is your money and mine, from Council Tax and Income Tax, every pound of which is needed to provide services for people in Brent. It should certainly not be spent on trying to cover up the actions and protect the reputation of Brent’s Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani.

2. This may seem strange, coming from someone who has criticised Brent’s handling of the Rosemarie Clarke employment tribunal case, but it is possible that her victimisation by senior Brent Council officers was not a result of racial discrimination. If that is the case, why does the tribunal judgement, at para.313, say: ‘The tribunal finds that the claimant has suffered discrimination on the protected characteristic of race, victimisation and was constructively dismissed’?

Evidence showed that a senior white male employee, who had been suspended by Brent for alleged gross misconduct in 2012, had the disciplinary proceedings against him dropped after he resigned. Rosemarie, a black female employee, had resigned in April 2013 after being suspended by Brent at the end of February, but the Council carried on with the disciplinary proceedings, finding her guilty (in her absence, and after she had left their employment) of gross misconduct on 31 July 2013. As it had been proved to the tribunal that there was a distinction between the Brent’s treatment of the two comparable cases, it was then up to the Council to show a valid reason for the difference.

Brent could not show a valid reason for the difference. Brent gave ‘an account as to why disciplinary action was not pursued against Mr H after his resignation, being as to his professional relationship with [an] accountancy body, having implications on his ability to work in the future’. The tribunal said that ‘this does not account for the reason why action was continued against [Ms Clarke] so as to offer an explanation showing that race was not in issue, the continuation and conclusion of disciplinary action having similar employment consequences for both parties.’ In these circumstances, the tribunal found that Rosemarie ‘was less favourably treated because of her race …’ to be ‘… proved on the failure of [Brent Council] to show that race was not a consideration.’ (Paras. 249 and 250 of the judgement). 

Brent Council has been “found guilty” of racial discrimination in this case, and wants to clear its name. If race did not play a part in the decision to continue disciplinary action against Rosemarie Clarke after she had resigned, what was the reason for the decision, and who made it? Here is what the tribunal judgement says at para. 240:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant, following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’

The tribunal clearly found the evidence reported here scarcely credible, as any reasonable person would. Despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie “guilty” of gross misconduct. What was the “misconduct” which she had been suspended for? The letter to her on 26 February 2013, supposedly written by the Director of her department, but emailed to her by Cara Davani, said: ‘It has been alleged that you maybe liable for gross misconduct in respect of your failure to follow reasonable management instructions.’ The ‘instructions’ had been given by Ms Davani, who Ms Clarke had lodged a formal complaint against for bullying, and the tribunal found that they had not been ‘reasonable’.

So, what was the reason why Brent Council victimised Rosemarie Clarke? I don’t know Ms Clarke, and was not involved in any of what happened at the Council over this matter at the time, but based on the very detailed evidence set out in the Employment Tribunal judgement this is my opinion. 

·      The primary reason appears to be the personal animosity of Cara Davani, after Rosemarie Clarke had the courage to complain in December 2012 about the bullying and harassment she felt she was receiving from her line manager. 

·      Rather than protecting Rosemarie in this situation, as Brent’s HR procedures set out that they should, other Senior Officers at the Council (up to, and including, the Chief Executive) did not follow those procedures, and allowed Cara Davani to continue her victimisation.

·      When, in June 2013, Rosemarie made a claim against Brent Council to the Employment Tribunal, Ms Davani and the other officers involved (probably including Brent’s Senior Employment Lawyer, who, it appears, is also Ms Davani’s partner) were determined to do all they could to undermine that claim.

·      One way they saw of doing this was to carry on with the “gross misconduct” proceedings, even after Rosemarie had left Brent’s employment, so that they could claim that she would have been sacked, even if she had not resigned.

·      Alternatively, or in addition to this, the continuation of the disciplinary action was a result of Ms Davani’s personal wish to do as much damage as possible to Rosemarie’s future employment prospects, by ensuring that any “reference” she was given by Brent would say that she had been found guilty of gross misconduct during her employment with the Council.

If I am right, then Brent Council would do better to admit the real reason, and make clear that it was not guilty of racial discrimination by taking strong and appropriate action against the Senior Officers who were responsible for Rosemarie’s victimisation, and by ensuring that Rosemarie is properly compensated for the harm she has suffered at the hands of those Officers.

Racism findings-Complacent Brent goes for internal review by Pavey rather than independent inquiry

Despite calls by Brent Green Party, Brent Trades Union Council, Brent Againt Racism Campaign, Brent Labour Representation Committee and many individuals on this blog, Brent Council today decided to deal with the findings of racial discrimination,  victimisation and constructive dismissal against it with an internal review.

The review will be led by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Michael Pavey, not someone anyone could claim is independent on this issue. He is extremely close to  Labour Leader, Muhammed Butt.

Pavey will look for 'mprovements in 'policy and practice'.

At the same time, ignoring the depth of feeling aroused in the Brent Council workforce over this issue the Council has decided to appeal against the judgment, telling the Kilburn Times LINK

Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there ppeal to be legal errors in the Tribunal's reasoning, in particular on the direct race disrmination and victimsation aspects of the judgement.

This does not mean we are complacent. We accept there are impoertant lessons to be learned from this case.

Sorry, this does mean you are complacent and that you have learned nothing from what was revealed about the workings of the Human Resources department in the Tribunal papers and the lies and mismanagement of the Corporate Management Team itself.

Following rumours yesterday that a Labour councillor was resigning over the Tribunal case and the Council's position on it, there was a resignation today - but only 'personal reasons' were stated.

Cllr Keith Perrin (Northwick Park) lead member for Environment resigned from the Cabinet today but will stay on as a ward councillor.

Time for Brent Council employees to make a stand against racism and bullying and come forward with their cases

The Brent Unison representative wrote to Christine Gilbert, Brent Council Acting Chief Executive, regarding the treatment of Rosemary Clarke saying “I am deeply concerned regarding the way Rosemary Clarke is being treated, the lack of adherence to procedures and the breach of confidentiality.”

She called Clarke's treatment by Cara Davani, Head of Human Resources, 'unprecedented and unnecessary'.

Clarke recently won her case with a judment that she has suffered racial discrmination, victimisation and  constructive dismissal.

I understand that today another ex-employee of Brent Council has had a positive outcome at the Watford Employment Tribunal.  Marion Hofmann's cause was championed by Francis Henry LINK who resigned as chair of Brent Sustainability Forum over Hofmann's treatment. Hofmann is white.

He wrote:

I and others are appalled how Brent Council and your senior officers have treated one of our colleagues who has contributed so much to public engagement and the promotion of environmental issues.

It would seem that as an organisation Brent Council and some of your officers in Environmental Services will do everything possible to get rid of good and trusted officers who understand how to work with local people and who are truly committed to the cause.

I am so disgusted by the conduct of Brent Council and the conduct of your senior officers that I am resigning as Chair of Brent Sustainability Forum and ceasing my involvement with anything involving your Council.

You and the whole Council should be ashamed in the way you treat your valued members of staff who have the trust and respect of the local community.

I do not know the details of the Judgment but will publish as soon as I do.

This is beginning to look like a pattern, rather than a one-off, which is what of course many people commenting on Wembley Matters have claimed.

 'Unprecedented' may not be quite correct as Cara Davani had a run-in with Unisonn when she was at Tower Hamlets Council. This is what Personnel Today wrote in May 2006 LINK

The HR director at Tower Hamlets has fired a parting shot at one of the east London council’s trade unions after leaving for a new job.

Cara Davani, who left last week after three years in the role, accused Unison – which represents more than 2,200 staff at the authority -of being obstructive and afraid of change.

“I’ve watched [union reps] say no to something before they even know what I’m proposing,” she said. “I find that very hard to deal with.

Relationships have been mixed and there have been changes and restructuring they’ve found difficult to stomach.”

Davani said the council had “excellent” relations with the GMB, its other trade union, but that Unison was more “militant”.

Earlier this month, Unison members went on strike over changes to the council’s sickness absence procedures.

The union accused management of “bullying” staff by introducing a call centre that sick staff must notify when they are absent. But Davani said the union only objected after a decision was made to outsource the role to specialist firm FirstAssist.

John McLoughlin, Unison branch chairman, hit back, claiming it had been “very difficult” working with Davani. “The corporate management team have their own agenda to see change through rather than any genuine consultation,” he said.

Either Brent Council did not check on Carani's background and were therefore negligent, or did and were quite happy with her approach. Both options are worrying.

Following the Brent TUC motion reported below and the success (and courage) of Rosemary Clarke and Marion Hoffman it is time for the many anonymous contributers of comments on this blog to come forward and put their cases to their union. That is what unions are for after all. Comments may let off steam, but they do not effect the change that is needed at Brent Council or win compensation for those experiencing injustice.

Action through the unions can do that.  While complaints remain anonymous they can be ignored by both union officials, who want to avoid confrontation with management, and Brent Council itself. They can legitimately claim that they cannot follow up such complaints as they do not know the person complaining and no documented evidence, or less legitimately, that all the comments on Wembley Matters could have been made by just a handful of people.

I am aware that because of the alleged bullying and victimisation, people have been reluctant to come forward. In the new atmosphere generated by the Employment Tribunal judgments, and by Brent TUC's demand for an independent investigation, people should have the confidence to make a stand.

Together we stand - divided we fall.

Don't let the bullies win.