Saturday 1 August 2015

'Misrepresentation' and the racial discrimination Judgment against Brent Council

Guest blog by Philip Grant. This is Philip's response to Muhammed Butt's statement  LINK on the Davani issue.


Dear Councillor Butt,

Your statement (to members of the Council?) about the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case has been published on the "Wembley Matters" blog website, and I am writing to respond to some of the points you have made, as I suspect that I am one of the main sources of the alleged 'untruths' which you have referred to. You have said:
'Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.  The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement.'
I have written to you about this case on a number of occasions since May 2014 (when it was reported in a local newspaper), and on 21 September 2014 I wrote to you saying:
'I can understand you not wishing to comment on this matter publicly when you had an election to win, and when the Employment Tribunal proceedings were still in progress, but now that the judgement has been made, and is in the public domain, you as Leader of the Council need to be seen to be taking the right action to deal with it.'
Sadly, having done nothing about the case for more than ten months (other than assisting senior officers in an attempted cover-up of the facts), it is you who is now trying to misrepresent the Judgment. 

As you may not have it readily available, I will remind you of what I wrote to you on 28 September 2014, referring to comments I had made on the "Brent & Kilburn Times" website under an article reporting that Brent had announced it would appeal against the judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and giving advice on how the Council could, in practice, mitigate the finding of "racial discrimination" against it by not appealing, but by telling the truth instead:
‘Brent may have obtained 'independent legal advice', but who at Brent Council assessed that advice, and who are the 'we' who decided to appeal?
  
Presumably Fiona Ledden was involved, but her judgement on this is seriously compromised by the lack of credibility of the evidence she gave (on oath?) to the tribunal over who made the decision to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had left Brent's employment, which is at the heart of the racial discrimination finding against the Council. If Andy Potts, Brent's Senior Employment Lawyer, was involved, he appears to have a conflict of interest, as Ms Davani's partner in their private lives. The barrister or QC who gave the advice may have pointed out some weaknesses in the tribunal's judgement, but would also have a vested interest in the matter because of the large fees they could earn if Brent did appeal.
 
As I have said in the second of my comments attached, any appeal against the tribunal's decision can only be made on points of law (or 'legal errors', as your statement puts it) - the facts have been found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, and that evidence supports their findings that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised, by Ms Davani and by Brent as her employer. Once Ms Clarke had established, on good evidence, that she had been treated differently from Clive Heaphy, the legal onus was on Brent to show why the difference in treatment was a valid one, and Brent completely failed to do that. That was why, in the circumstances, the tribunal was correct, in law, to find that racial discrimination was a factor in the victimisation and constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke.
 
You will see, from my second comment that I don't believe that racial discrimination was the main reason (if a reason at all) for the victimisation. On the evidence, Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani because she had the courage to complain that she was being bullied by Ms Davani, and rather than giving her the proper protection required by its procedures, Brent allowed Ms Davani to play an increasingly vicious role against Ms Clarke. It is possible that Ms Davani genuinely thought that Ms Clarke was "playing the system" (there is no evidence on this), but even if she did, as Brent's top HR Officer she should have followed the rules, and not allowed her anger at Ms Clarke to override her professional responsibilities.
 
The problem for Brent got worse after Ms Clarke made her claim to the Employment Tribunal. It was decided to fight her claim by carrying on with disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke, in the hope that by finding her guilty of gross misconduct they could claim that if she had not resigned, she would have been dismissed anyway. That tactic backfired, especially after Brent could not (or would not) admit who had made that decision. I referred to para. 240 of the judgement in my email of 21 September, and have included the full text of it in my second comment attached. If Fiona Ledden did not make the decision herself, as she stated in her oral evidence, she would have known who it was made by. I suspect that it was probably made by either Cara Davani or Andy Potts, but Ms Ledden would have known that if she disclosed that to the tribunal the judgement would inevitably have gone against Brent Council. 

You have announced that Brent will appeal, but hopefully that appeal has not been submitted to the High Court yet. There is a way of "clearing Brent's name" over the racial discrimination issue without wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of funds the Council cannot afford, and which it should be spending instead on meeting the needs of local people, rather than in trying to protect Cara Davani. The way is by giving the true reason for the victimisation, and I will explain how this could be achieved. 

... The "U turn" over the appeal can be achieved by either you, or Cllr. Pavey under his review, finding that on further examination of the facts, the real reason why Rosemarie Clarke was victimised was because of the personal actions of Ms Davani, and that no racial discrimination was involved at all. The finding of racial discrimination was a 'legal technicality', resulting from errors made in preparing Brent's case for the tribunal, and this and procedural errors by other senior council officers in dealing with Ms Clarke's complaints of bullying and harassment against her by Ms Davani will be dealt with as part of Cllr. Pavey's review. As part of the announcement that Brent will not now be appealing against the tribunal's decision, you will, of course, need to be able to say that Ms Davani has resigned with immediate effect (or that she has been suspended while her alleged misconduct in this case is dealt with) and that Brent Council will ensure that Rosemarie Clarke will receive full compensation as soon as possible.

I hope you will find this email constructive and helpful. Once again, I am trying to help Brent, and help you, to do the right thing. My interference may be annoying, but if you are genuine about the need to 'allow residents to hold the Council to account' (see my email of 9 September, to which I am still awaiting your reply), you and your colleagues do need to consider the views of independent minds in the local community, especially when they put forward potentially sensible alternatives to the "in house" advice you have received.’  
I suspect that the reason you have issued your statement now may be connected with my efforts to establish whether the rumours of a "pay off" by Brent to Cara Davani, on her leaving the Council at the end of June, are true: and in the growing interest among Brent councillors to establish the justification for any such "pay off", if the interim Chief Executive or Chief Legal Officer have to confirm that there was some form of "pay off". I am copying this email to your Cabinet colleagues, and will forward a copy to my Ward councillors and to members of Brent's Scrutiny Committee, for their information. 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Philip Grant's letter to councillors on this issue LINK

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can someone please forward the tribunal findings to Butt and tell him to read it for himself

Anonymous said...

Regarding disclosures of pay-offs. I thought that changes to the audit regulations created new legal requirement for local authorities to provide detailed senior pay information in their annual public accounts and that Councils would be required to set out full details for senior posts covering salary, bonuses, pensions, perks and compensation pay-offs. More questions need to be asked as to why excuses are being made, especially as the legal information we have heard so far (including at RC's Tribunal) appears to be tainted and loaded with conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

Philip, this is just the sort of 'drawing a line under it and moving on' that Butt/Gilbert/Davani's response deserves. Excellent.

Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

Well done, Phillip! I think you should consider standing as a local councillor in your ward. The borough needs more people like you to scrutinise wrong doings within the council.

Anonymous said...

I would like to record my thanks to whoever at the Council passed on to Martin the text of Cllr.Butt's statement in Brent's weekly "Members' Information Bulletin". Without that act of public spirited transparency, I would never have known that, although not named, I was being accused of telling 'untruths' and of 'misrepresenting the judgement' in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

By sharing the MISinformation which the Leader was putting out to councillors, that person has given me a "right of reply", for which I am grateful. Thank you.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

I didn't realise that was where 'Butt's' emission was emitted. Well done that person.
Unfortunately the Leader and his/her chums will now spend as much energy trying to identify and stitch up the 'traitor' as they spent trying to defend each other for their own dodgy deeds.

Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

I would vote for Phillip Grant over my current cowardly ward councillors...his determination, and attention to detail is admirable...Also a Brent Council employee what I dislike is 'the corrosive affect of untruths on the morale of our workforce and our ability to move forward as an organisation.' which is rubbish...the only corrosive affect comes from the diabolical behaviour of person and persons 'in charge' not fit for office...end of

Nan. said...

I too didn't realise that the Cllr B statement had been issued in the Members Weekly Misinformation Bulletin. With all the concern he had expressed for staff morale, I assumed it must have been put out on the council intranet.

Members (councillors) are notorious for not reading their papers so it is doubtful that any of them have bothered with the detail of the Tribunal judgement. Cllr Butt therefore had the best means of pulling the wool over his blindfold flock by means of a statement that continues the trend of perjured statements made by Ledden and Davani to the Tribunal.

Intereting how Newby and Ledden are now being made the scapegoats while Gilbert and Davani foxes are attempting to outrun the witch hunters.

I assume the Labour sheep are giving some thought as to who should be their next shepherd and tthat some wily officer (no prizes for guessing who?) advised Cllr B that this statement would be a good way of putting himself in the lead!

Anonymous said...

Fantasy Council Team: Phillip Grant, Martin Francis and Mike Hine.

Anonymous said...

In your dreams!

Much as I am grateful for your good wishes and support, it is unlikely that I would be elected as an Independent (I am not, and am never likely to become a member of any political party), and I would not be a good ward councillor. I like to be able to concentrate on particular issues which take my interest, and could not cope with having to apply the same degree of concentration and effort to a wide range of problems which constituents might ask me to help on. I'm sorry to disappoint you on this!

Philip.

Anonymous said...

I'm out too. Though I'd take Davani's job. I'd do it without any salary. I'm not greedy. I'd be happy just to take the dodgy perks and the payoff package.

Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

I would like to see Rosmarie Clarke take over as HR director :)

Nan. said...


A real fantasy would be to imagine that we are blessed with councillors who are actually able to concentrate on particular issues which DO NOT take their interest, and who COULD cope with having to apply the same degree of concentration and effort to a wide range of problems which constituents ask me to help on................just saying............

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see lay reps from every ward in the community sit in and have a vote on all important panels.

Anonymous said...

I sent an email to all 63 of Brent's elected councillors on 4 August, asking them to judge for themselves whether it was me or Cllr.Butt who was "misrepresenting the judgement" in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

Martin has added a link to the pdf version of my email at the foot of the blog article above, for anyone who is interested to read what I wrote.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

I sent an email to all 63 Brent councillors on 4 August, setting out the facts in extracts from the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal's findings, so that they could judge for themselves who was "misrepresenting that judgement". I hope that they can be bothered to read it (4 councillors - 3 Labour and 1 Conservative - have already responded to me after doing so), and act on it.

Martin has added a copy of the text of that email at the foot of my blog article above, so that anyone can click on the link and read it if they wish to. As this is "in the public domain", as part of my own commitment to openness and transparency, anyone who wishes to can "copy and paste" all or part of it, and use it for any lawful not-for-profit purpose, although I would ask them to acknowledge me as the author of it (other than the judgement extracts themselves!). Thank you.

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Phillip, but please be mindful the majority of Councillors will obey Butt's whip and won't do anything to upset the Crony cart!

Anonymous said...

I recognise the problem that you have highlighted, Anonymous at 22:17, and the solution to it is in the hands of councillors themselves.

Whether Brent has made a "pay off" to Cara Davani, and if so what is the justification for it, is NOT a party political issue. It is all about the possible misuse of Council funds, and whether Brent's proper HR policies have been followed in this case.

It has only become "politicised" because of Cllr. Butt's attempts to sweep the matter under the carpet, and Cllr. Warren's challenges to Cllr. Butt's actions (in his role as true Leader of the Opposition on Brent Council).

If our elected councillors would only deal with the real issue, and not be distracted from it by "party political games", then some credit and credibility could be restored to those who look after the borough's affairs in our name. As I wrote (privately) to one of the councillors who has been in touch with me about this case, he/she should help to ensure that Christine Gilbert answers the two questions that I put to her:
'to demonstrate that you are on the side of honesty, openness and transparency, and not part of the "cover-up".'

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

Re the last line: if she had had a proven record of being 'on the side of honesty, openness and transparency' she'd have ruled herself out of ever getting the jobs she's had. Doing a natty line in cover-ups is a first order skill for these people and loyalty to the self-sustaining system trumps loyalty to principles and people every time.
Be fair: if she failed to come to the aid of Butt and Davani when called upon, why would the next Butt/employer she applies to for a 6 figure salary position ever take her on? It's Alfred Doolittle in reverse: morals? She can't afford them guv'nor.

Mike Hine