Monday 27 April 2015

Brent Equalities and HR Action Plan under Scrutiny on Thursday

An important meeting takes place on Thursday which I hope will not be over-shadowed by the General Election campaign.

At 7pm the Scrutiny Committee, meeting at the Civic Centre, will be considering the Action Plan LINK that has been formulated as a result of the Pavey Review in Equalities and HR Policies and Practice LINK .

The Pavey Review was commissioned following the Employment Tribunal case which found Brent Council and Cara Davani (Head of HR) guily of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.  Interim CEO Christine Gilbert was also named in the Judgment. However the Pavey Review did not set out to look at this particular case.

Brent Council rather than take any action over the personnel involved decided to go to appeal but a Judge ruled that such an appeal had 'no prospect of success'. LINK

The Report going before the Scrutiny Committee is in the name of Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani LINK 

The public and press can attend the meeting.




28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah, the 'Equalities Action Plan' from Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani, the Ant and Dec of racial discrimination and victimisation. Like attending a Safeguarding course run by Greville Janner and Gary Glitter.

Anonymous said...

Regular "Wembley Matters" readers will be aware of my interest in this subject, and may remember that I tried to present a Deputation to Scrutiny Committee nearly six months ago, asking it to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against the judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. My notice to make a Deputation was denied because the subject was not on the agenda, and it was not added to the agenda under "any other business" because of misleading advice (later proved to be incorrect) given by Brent's then Legal Director to the Chair of the committee.
(see: http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/wembley-matters-prints-deputation-on.html)

One of the members of Scrutiny Committee clearly remembered my interest in the case, and notified me several weeks ago that the item Martin has drawn attention to in this article would be on the agenda for their meeting on 30 April. I have therefore written to give notice that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the meeting on Thursday evening, on the subject of Cllr. Pavey's review and the Action Plan resulting from it. If any "WM" readers wish to be part of this Deputation, please let me know. If you don't already know my email address, please send your message via Martin (see address under Guest Blogs in the right hand column), which I am sure he will be happy to forward to me.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

That'd make a good banner on the night, Mike

Anonymous said...

Part 1 of comment:

Christine Gilbert’s report for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday seeks to restrict what the committee can say: ‘Members of the Scrutiny Committee’s views and comments are sought on the actions detailed in the draft plan in Appendix 1 to support the implementation of the review’s findings.’ In this comment, I will restrict myself to looking at a single point in that draft Action Plan, but an important one.

Section 2 of the Action Plan, ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’, has been prepared by Cara Davani (now Director of HR and Administration), who is “Leading” on this subject for the Corporate Management Team. This section of the plan contains one simple “objective”: ‘To ensure Brent’s Human Resources policies and procedures reflect best practice so managers are supported well in leading and managing their teams.’

While I would not argue with such a broad statement, I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which Ms Davani proposes should be used to measure whether this objective has been met. This reads: ‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

I think everyone would agree that Brent should reduce the number of occasions its employees, or former employees, feel so strongly that they have been wrongly treated by the Council that they are willing to endure the stress of taking their case to a tribunal in order to seek redress. The way to achieve that is to ensure that managers at all levels honour the core value set out at the start of Cllr. Pavey’s review: ‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect,’ and that they follow Brent’s equalities and HR policies in practice.

Cara Davani should have learned that lesson from the Rosemarie Clarke case, where it was her actions over a number of months, following a complaint by Rosemarie of “bullying and harassment” against the then interim Head of HR, which were the main reason for the finding of ‘victimisation’ against Brent Council and Ms Davani. Christine Gilbert should also have learned that lesson, because it was her failure to ensure that proper HR procedures were followed by Ms Davani and others, and her summary dismissal of Rosemarie’s “grievance” about this, totally ignoring those HR procedures herself, which gave rise to the finding of ‘constructive dismissal’.

Philip Grant

Anonymous said...

Part 2 of comment (I could never be a Twitter user - too many characters!)

However, it is the second part of the “success criteria” that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. It is unlikely that anyone would take a case to an Employment Tribunal if they had no grounds or evidence to support their claim. Taking cases to any contested Tribunal hearing (as I know from personal career experience) can be very costly in terms of both time and money. It is almost always best to seek some form of agreed settlement, being willing to concede points where your case is weakest in return for the other party being willing to do the same.

Apart from the cost implications, by setting the “success criteria” as successfully defending cases, there is a risk that this “target” will encourage Council staff involved in such cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. In the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee.

The reason Brent gave for this in its evidence to the Tribunal did not stand close examination (the Council said it had a duty to possible future employers to do so, but could produce no evidence for such a duty, or explain why that “duty” did not apply in the case of a named white employee in the same situation, when it was claimed to apply to Rosemarie, who was black). On top of this, Ms Davani and two other Brent witnesses, said that they and the Council did not know who had made the decision to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, which totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Surely Ms Davani should have learned from this that evidence to a Tribunal must be the truth. The “success criteria” she is proposing suggests that she might be willing to settle for a more convincing lie instead, if that will mean the Council would win a case. I hope that Scrutiny Committee will ensure that this particular part of the Action Plan is amended to something which not only respects the rights of employees and former employees, but also the values of justice.

Philip Grant

Anonymous said...

Them's the people you're dealing with, Philip.
They live in a different moral universe. They'd like to convince us that their attitudes and behaviour are normal and inevitable. Don't let them. They're shysters and they're the fag-end of Thatcher/Blair. Their time has passed. Send them packing.

Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

These people have deliberately ignored important safeguarding issues in relation to vulnerable children and young people as well as staff. It is well documented.if the councillors have any sense they would hold these people to account. No wonder residents don't want to vote for them again.

Alison Hopkins said...

Anyone know how much Rosemarie Clark's well deserved compensation is?

Anonymous said...

Has it been decided?

Alison Hopkins said...

Good question, I thought it had, but can't recall what the deferred date was.

Anonymous said...

I checked the position with Nan when I heard that the HR review would be going to Scrutiny Committee. Apparently Rosemarie's "remedy hearing" is now not expected to take place until September 2015, a year after the original judgement in her favour.

Brent (and Cara Davani as an individual?) will have to pay out not just compensation, but aggravated damages, possibly other awards for the hurt Rosemarie has suffered, interest on the various payments and Rosemarie's legal costs. Brent will have had to make a "provision" for this liability in its accounts to 31 March 2015, and I have heard (second hand) a rumour that they have set aside at least £1million, although I do not know how accurate that is. If you have any friends on Scrutiny Committee, you might suggest that they should ask Christine Gilbert, on Thursday evening, the amount of the provision set aside by Brent as at 31 March 2015 to meet all of the compensation, damages and costs arising from the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and the amount of Brent's own legal costs incurred on this case.

The other thing that Rosemarie deserves is an apology from Brent Council for the ill-treatment she suffered at the hands of some of its senior officers. I wrote to Cllr. Butt straight after Brent's appeal was thrown out in early December, to suggest that he take the opportunity of the Full Council meeting a couple of days later to make a public apology and have it put on record. He did not apologise to her then, and has not replied to my email.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

UPDATE:-

I have received a reply from Thomas Cattermole, Head of Executive and Member Services, acknowledging my notice to speak as a Deputation at Scrutiny Committee on Thursday evening. As well as reminding me that I will be allowed up to five minutes to speak, he has included the following paragraph:

'I would take this opportunity to remind you that Deputations should not relate to legal proceedings, and that the Chair can choose to halt any Deputation that may stray, however inadvertently, into comments which could be considered defamatory.'

I have replied to point out that as Cllr. Pavey's review was set up to ensure that Brent learned lessons from the Rosemarie Clarke case, it would be difficult for Scrutiny Committee to consider his review and the Action Plan without the matter "relating" to that case, but that as the judgement is final, I believe I can refer to that case where it is relevant to points arising from the matter on the agenda.

I have also said that I do not consider that findings of fact, made by the Tribunal in that case on clear evidence, where they are relevant to the matters before the committee, should be treated as 'comments which could be considered defamatory'. I trust that the Chair of Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, and Fiona Alderman (Chief Legal Officer), to whom Mr Cattermole copied his email to me, and I copied my reply, will agree.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

Must be nice to be in a job where you are of such value to the community you serve that you can cost them up to a million to cover your little personality problems; insult, abuse and harass your own colleagues in a manner which shows the policies you proclaim as a 'Leader' to be complete hypocrisy; drag your employers and the area you work for into public ridicule in the national press; use public transport perks you're not entitled to; benefit from a network of cronies who all seem to have worked for the same one or two employers; become a festering sore to your protector on Brent Council such that he has no choice but to continue to compromise himself, his deputy and the lobby-fodder councillors who, through misplaced loyalty, stupidity or feebleness keep their mouth zipped; be despised by the people who have to work with you in Brent Council; do all these things and still pick up a decent wad of cash at the end of the month with apparent total job security.
Mike Hine

Nan. said...

The harassment of Rosemarie Clarke is ongoing.

Brent breached an instruction given by the Tribunal judge that Rosemarie's medical records should only be viewed by the Council's Interim Employment Solicitor (Raphael Prais, and the Barrister handling the Council's case, by allowing someone in the legal department to open the records and then deposit them in an in-tray on open view, despite clear marking of the envelope to say "Confidential to Raphael Prais only".

Rosemarie has had people parked outside her house for several days. Of course it is entirely possible that this could have been Martin Francis' crack team of investigative journos..........

Excellent work by Philip Grant as ever, with incisive commentary by Mike Hine, much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Mike. The sooner the national press get hold of this story the better. Honourable people would have stepped down in such circumstances but this incestous clique of cronies cannot operate alone, which is probably why they are going into business breeding!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a FOI request should be made about other tribunal payouts and settlements Brent have had to make to staff since Christine Gilbert and Cara Divani came on the scene?

It's likely that our ill-informed elected councillors and local residents would be shocked by the result.

If properly scrutinised our councillors may finally acknowledge how weak they have become.

They may also acknowledge more serious failures, such as:-

Failures to implement and honour basic equality principles and employment practices - including failures to thoroughly investigate, respectfully listen and treat all staff with dignity and respect.

By recognising this, the Councillors may also acknowledge their own failures of letting go of the reins and placing too much trust in an unprofessional clique who are gifted at misleading people that they are highly qualified, indispensable, knowledgable VIPs.

It is this that has resulted in our elected councillors becoming ill-informed and has brought the council into disgraceful disrepute and local residents pay the price.

Anonymous said...

Some good points, thank you, Anonymous at 09:32.

Eight councillors will have the opportunity to scrutinise this matter properly tomorrow evening, IF I am allowed to present the Deputation I wish to put to them. You will see from the "update" to my comment of 27 April at 19:22 above that Brent has accepted that I can present a Deputation to Scrutiny Committee, but that Thomas Cattermole (Head of Executive and Member Services) appears to be trying to restrict what I can say in that Deputation. I have not yet heard back from Brent over the points I put to him in my reply.

I hope that the members of Scrutiny Committee will support my right to give a different view from that of Council Officers on two matters arising from Cllr. Pavey's review and the Action Plan which has been drawn up as a result of it. Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani are supposed to be attending the meeting, so they will be able to respond to my Deputation, and to answer any questions raised by committee members, before those members decide what views and comments they may wish to make on the Action Plan. Surely, that is what scrutiny in an "open and transparent" Council should be about.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

Is Brent not becoming a bit of a dictatorship? Hmmm

Anonymous said...

A bit like Hitler heading up some inter-racial committee, a bit strong but talk about the bully giving lessons on anti-bullying.

Anonymous said...

We shall see on Thursday evening! Any well behaved "supporters" will be welcome at the meeting.

Philip.

Anonymous said...

'Supporters', Philip. Is it an open meeting?

Martin Francis said...

The meeting is open to press and public as stated on the Agenda sheet.

Anonymous said...

'Rosemarie has had people parked outside her house for several days'. One of the advantages of your case being public news is that institutions like the police respond a little more speedily than they otherwise would. I would hope that Rosemarie would have recorded and reported any suspicious behaviour. There are lots of people watching this case.
Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

THE ATTEMPTED COVER-UP CONTINUES:-

The heading above sums up my reaction to an email sent to me at 12.15 today by Fiona Alderman, Brent's Chief Legal Officer. I will set out the full text of it below, but basically it is telling me that if I am allowed to speak as a Deputation at this evening's Scrutiny Committee meeting, I will not be allowed to mention the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. I do not accept that view, and will continue to seek to persuade Brent Council, and councillors, that Scrutiny Committee should be allowed to hear what I have to say.

Philip Grant.

Text of the email:-

Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for your email of 28 April sent to my colleague, Thomas Cattermole.

All Council committees have broad powers to manage or regulate their own proceedings. Unless there are statutory or constitutional rules to the contrary – which, for very obvious reasons, there are not in respect of defamatory comments - committees can run meetings as they consider appropriate within the broad framework set out in the Council’s constitution.

This means that, ultimately, committees decide who they wish to hear from and the kind of representations which are relevant and acceptable, or not as the case maybe. It is not the purpose of the Constitution to make provision for all possible scenarios nor would it be feasible to do so. As well as being a matter of law, as you say, this is also a matter of logic.

Despite the distinction you draw, the proceedings you refer to are still extant as they will not be fully concluded until there is a ruling on all aspects of the case and all legal rights have been exercised. In any event, the main point is that the subject matter of the report which will be considered by the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting this evening is not concerned with any individual case or complaint. It is clearly not the intention of the item to discuss individual cases nor would it be appropriate to do so.

I would reaffirm therefore that if the Scrutiny Committee resolve to receive your deputation, which is entirely a matter for the Committee, you will not be able to refer to individual cases.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Alderman
Chief Legal Officer

Anonymous said...

Would that be Thomas Cattermole, son of Isabel Cattermole, head of Education, Social Care and Wellbeing at Tower Hamlets?

Anonymous said...

I don't know if Thomas Cattermole is Isobel Cattermole's son, but Isobel will certainly have known Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani when they worked at Tower Hamlets Council.

An online article by The Bristol Post on 27 August 2013, headed "New director of children's services", says:

'BRISTOL City Council has appointed a new director of children's services.

Isobel Cattermole has replaced Annie Hudson, who had been in the role for more than ten years and has become chief executive of the National College of Social Work.

Ms Cattermole, the new interim strategic director for children, young people and skills, joins after spending 16 years with Tower Hamlets Council in East London. She was most recently the authority's director of education, social care and wellbeing.

Ms Cattermole has a background in education, adult and children's services, and strategic management of local-government services.'

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

FOR THE RECORD, this is the full text of the email which I sent to Cllr. Choudry and the seven other councillors on Brent's Scrutiny Committee (with copies to Ms Alderman and Mr Cattermole) at 14:49 on 30 April, in response to Fiona Alderman's email to me above:-

Dear Members of Scrutiny Committee,

I am writing to you direct, to seek your help over a problem which has arisen in connection with this evening's meeting.

I have given notice that I wish to present a Deputation to your committee on item 9, Cllr. Pavey's Review of Equalities and HR Policies and Practices and the Action Plan arising from this, and it has been accepted by Thomas Cattermole that I will be allowed to speak for up to five minutes. However, first he, and now Fiona Alderman (see her email to me of 12.15pm today, below) are seeking to restrict what I can say in a way which I consider to be totally unreasonable.

Ms Alderman makes clear that it is up to your committee whether they will hear my (or any other) Deputation, and that is in accordance with Brent's Standing Order 69(a) which says:

'... the first 20 minutes of every Council committee or sub-committee meeting (or such shorter time as is required) shall be allocated to receive deputations under this rule which shall be permitted where the following are met:
(i) the committee or sub-committee has voted by a simple majority to receive such deputation;
(ii) the subject of the deputation is one which is on the agenda of the meeting concerned; and
(iii) notice of the deputation has been given to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his or her representative at least 24 hours before the start of the relevant meeting.'

The problem over my proposed Deputation is that it does refer of necessity, to the Employment Tribunal case of Ms RC CLarke v. 1) London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. This is the case which Cllr. Pavey's review was set up to learn lessons from, and one of the two points I wish to make in my Deputation to you is that the Action Plan, on which your views and comments are to be invited under item 9, does not take into account one of the lessons which should have been learned from that case. The other point I wish to make in my Deputation relates to one of the "success criteria" set out in the draft Action Plan. In order to explain the reasoning behind both of the points I wish to make to you, I will need to quote briefly from "findings of fact" made in the Employment Tribunal judgement.

Ms Alderman says that I should not be allowed to refer to this case as:
'... the proceedings you refer to are still extant as they will not be fully concluded until there is a ruling on all aspects of the case and all legal rights have been exercised.'
However, although the "remedy" side of the case may still be open, my only proposed references to the case are to findings in the judgment, which is final as it is no longer under appeal, so that my Deputation to you could have no effect on the matters in that case which have still to be resolved.

[NOTE: In view of its length, I will have to complete the text of the email in another comment.]

Anonymous said...

CONTINUED [this is the rest of the text of my email to Scrutiny Committee members]:-

Although this 'individual case' is not referred to in the report to Scrutiny Committee by Christine Gilbert, it was she who announced on 26 September 2014 that Cllr. Pavey's review was being set up to ensure that lessons were learned from this case, so that case is directly relevant to the matters you are being asked to consider this evening, especially as my second point relates to a reference to Employment Tribunals in the draft Action Plan.

I feel strongly that the proposed restrictions on what I can include in my Deputation to your meeting this evening will deny you the chance to hear and consider points which are very relevant to the subject matter of the report before you, and give a different perspective from that being presented to you by Council Officers. Those Officers will have the opportunity to answer my points, and any questions you may wish to put to them, before you decide whether what I have said should influence any views or comments the Committee may wish to make. Surely that is what Scrutiny Committee is for?

I hope that Scrutiny Committee will vote to receive my Deputation this evening, as I believe that Brent Council needs to be seen to be dealing with the very real concerns raised in this matter. Thank you.

I look forward to meeting you this evening. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.