UK: META (formerly Facebook) ACCUSED OF BREACHING WORKERS’ RIGHTS OVER DISMISSAL OF CLEANER WHO ORGANISED PROTESTS AT LONDON OFFICE

Amnesty International has accused Meta of breaching its own employment guidelines and commitments on labour rights and has called on the tech giant (formerly known as Facebook) to undertake an urgent investigation into the 2021 dismissal of a trade union representative who organised protests against poor working conditions in its offices. 

 

The call comes as Amnesty published a 23-page report - Meta, workers’ rights matter! The case of a trade union organiser dismissed after trying to improve working conditions for cleaners - which outlines the evidence in the case and the organisation’s concerns and recommendations.

 

Amnesty’s report comes ahead of an Employment Tribunal hearing next week (7 September) in which a former cleaner of Meta’s offices and trade union representative is seeking justice for his claim that he was targeted because of his trade union activities that led to his unfair dismissal.

 

Guillermo Camacho, a father of two from Bolivia, was a contracted cleaner and trade union representative who had cleaned Meta’s offices for almost seven years prior to his dismissal, with an unblemished record. In summer 2021, after cleaners denounced an increasingly excessive workload, he led and organised protests against the poor working conditions at Meta’s London office on Brock Street. Following the protests Camacho was first suspended from his job last August, and then dismissed entirely in October under the pretext of inadequate performance.

 

The protests were prompted by a reduction in the number of cleaners which in turn led to an excessive workload for the remaining workers at Meta’s offices, which had a major physical and psychological impact on them. In mid-2021, the number of cleaners at Meta’s worksite in London dropped from 24 to 20. Simultaneously, the size of the area to be cleaned increased from five floors to 14 floors, a near-threefold increase.

 

The cleaning of Meta’s buildings is undertaken by outsourced staff employed by the Churchill Group (Churchill), which in turn has a contract with Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) to which Meta outsources the management of its offices in London. Camacho has filed a complaint to the London Central Employment Tribunal against Churchill - as direct employer - for an award of compensation for unfair dismissal, detriment and victimisation due to trade union membership and/or activities.

 

In his capacity as the cleaners’ trade union representative with the Cleaners and Allied Independent Workers Union (CAIWU), Camacho helped organise protests outside Meta’s offices on Fridays denouncing the excessive workload and calling for fair working conditions. 

 

Just days after the second protest was organised in August 2021, he was suspended and put on “gardening leave” after Meta and JLL requested Camacho’s removal from Meta’s building. He believes his suspension was therefore a result of what is known as ‘third party pressure’ - when a customer or client exercises pressure for a worker to be dismissed.

An investigation was opened against Camacho to evaluate the adequacy of his work as a cleaners’ supervisor and it focused on Meta staff’s allegations regarding unfilled soap dispensers, substandard cleaning of some areas, and inadequate stocking of some items leading to property damage. In the course of the investigation, Camacho rebutted the allegations, and also challenged management over the inadequate staffing levels, which had caused difficulties in cleaning to the required standards. 

 

In September 2021, Camacho was informed that the investigation was closed, and no further disciplinary action would be required. However, despite this, the decision to remove him remained in force and Camacho was ultimately dismissed from his job at Meta’s offices.

Camacho’s dismissal has created a chilling effect on the ability and confidence of his fellow workers to collectively bargain for better working conditions. 

 

Catrinel Motoc, Amnesty’s Senior Campaigner, said:

We live in a society where all too often workers who dare to speak out against injustices in the workplace find themselves in the firing line.  

 

This is a David and Goliath story, where a huge, global behemoth of a company has simply washed its hands of any responsibility to the people who work on the frontlines of its offices.

 

Meta is very keen to distance itself from this unpleasant episode, but the buck must stop with them. You can outsource a cleaning account, but not the accountability for how cleaners are treated.

 

Meta should live up to the values it claims it wants to uphold and to the commitments it has made to respect workers’ right to organise. That must start with an urgent investigation into what happened in this case and a radical overhaul of its processes to ensure that its commitment to respect workers’ rights extends to both in-house and outsourced workers.

 

No worker should fear or face reprisals when speaking up and demanding better working conditions.

Alberto Durango, General Secretary of CAIWU, said:

Guillermo’s treatment is all too familiar to us. It’s a blatant and classic tactic to intimidate other workers by making a brutal example of a trade union leader. Third-party pressure disproportionately impacts precarious workers who are too often outsourced and allows the employer to hide behind their client as workers’ rights are eroded.

Our members who still work at Meta’s offices tell us they continue to live under the cloud of Guillermo’s dismissal and the implicit threat that they too could be dismissed for speaking out.

We need to see real change and that should start with an apology and compensation for Guillermo. Employers should have to justify the dismissal of their employee in a fair and transparent way and not supress the rights of workers to collectively bargain for fair working conditions.

Amnesty’s campaign

 

Amnesty is calling on Meta to take responsibility for how its personnel are treated and to

 

1.    Respect the right of its workers to speak out and bargain collectively for better conditions

2.    Apologise to Guillermo for his treatment and provide him with adequate compensation

 

Take action here: www.amnesty.org.uk/CleanUpFacebook

 

Protest outside Meta’s London office

Date/ Time: Friday 2 September at 5pm

Address: 10 Brock St, London NW1 3FG

What: Protest in solidarity with Guillermo Camacho. People will be outside Meta’s London office holding placards and chanting ‘Workers’ rights matter, Meta!’ 

 

The 23-page briefing, Meta, workers’ rights matter! The case of a trade union organiser dismissed after trying to improve working conditions for cleaners, which outlines the evidence in the case and Amnesty’s concerns and recommendations, is available on request.

 

 

GMB puts employers on notice after Uber victory

Great money? £5.03 an hour after costs and fees.

 From the GMB union

 Similar contracts masquerading as bogus self employment will all be reviewed says GMB

GMB, the union for professional drivers, has won their case against Uber as the London Employment Tribunal has determined that Uber has acted unlawfully by not providing drivers with basic workers’ rights. (see notes to editors for previous press releases)

GMB brought two test cases to the Central London Employment Tribunal on 20 July 2016 and it has decided that Uber drivers are entitled to receive holiday pay, a guaranteed minimum wage and an entitlement to breaks. The Tribunal decision will have major implications for over 30,000 drivers in London and across England and Wales and for workers in other occupations.

GMB found last year that a member working exclusively for Uber received just £5.03 per hour in August after costs and fees were taken into account, significantly below the national minimum wage of £7.20. Lawyers for the drivers also argued that Uber acts unlawfully by frequently deducting sums from drivers’ pay, often without informing the drivers in advance, including when customers make complaints.

Maria Ludkin, GMB Legal Director, said:

This is a monumental victory that will have a hugely positive impact on over 30,000 drivers in London and across England and Wales and for thousands more in other industries where bogus self-employment is rife.

Uber drivers and other directed workers do have legal rights at work. The question for them now is how those rights are enforced in practice. The clear answer is that the workforce must combine into the GMB union to force the company to recognise these rights and to negotiate fair terms and conditions for the drivers.

This loophole that has allowed unscrupulous employers to avoid employment rights, sick pay and minimum wage for their staff and costing the government millions in lost tax revenue will now be closed.

Uber drivers and thousands of others caught in the bogus self-employment trap will now enjoy the same rights as employees. This outcome will be good for passengers too. Properly rewarded drivers are the same side of the coin as drivers who are properly licensed and driving well maintained and insured vehicles.

GMB will be getting on with the business of campaigning and recruiting at Uber to ensure our members’ rights are respected.

GMB will give evidence to the new Taylor review on terms and conditions within the sectors of the economy offering precarious employment. We will make the case that average hours worked over the past 12 weeks should be deemed to be the contracted hours of work for those on zero hours as it already is for maximum hours of work under the Working Time Directive.

GMB puts employers on notice that we are reviewing similar contracts masquerading as bogus self employment, particularly prevalent in the so called ‘gig economy’. This is old fashioned exploitation under newfangled jargon, but the law will force you to pay GMB members what they are rightfully due.

 Nigel Mackay, Leigh Day employment lawyer, said:

We are delighted that the Employment Tribunal has found in favour of our clients.

This judgment acknowledges the central contribution that Uber’s drivers have made to Uber’s success by confirming that its drivers are not self-employed but that they work for Uber as part of the company’s business.

Uber drivers often work very long hours just to earn enough to cover their basic living costs. It is the work carried out by these drivers that has allowed Uber to become the multi-billion-dollar global corporation it is.

We are pleased that the employment tribunal has agreed with our arguments that drivers are entitled to the most basic workers’ rights, including to be paid the National Minimum Wage and to receive paid holiday, which were previously denied to them.

This is a ground-breaking decision. It will impact not just on the thousands of Uber drivers working in this country, but on all workers in the so-called gig economy whose employers wrongly classify them as self-employed and deny them the rights to which they are entitled.

Pavey throws off his shackles to make frank presentation on HR to Scrutiny Committee

When Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council, stood to present the report on the progress of the recommendations made in his review of Brent Human Relations, there were none of the usual officers present at his elbow who normally support lead members at meetings. Noting this Pavey said that the report had been tabled without the final version being given to him for his approval.

He went on to say that  he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.

The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK)  that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,

He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case.  This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda.  He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely  to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'

Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings.  He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review.  The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff  in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.

Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained.  Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat  as a method would not work.  Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice'  but he would take back the wider issue to HR.

Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.

A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.

Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.

Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.

He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:

'Without question Brent is a fairer, more inclusive, more rewarding employer than when we lost the tribunal which triggered this work.'

Cara Davani with Council Leader Muhammed Butt

NOTE: It is work noting that Michael Pavey was not the only person who was affected by attempts to limit discussion of the Davani case. Philip Grant was particularly active in seeking answers to key questions and was not allowed to raise the issue at a previous Scrutiny Committee LINK

Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.

Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.

Brent Council settles Employment Tribunal compensation out of court

Ten minutes before the Employment Tribunal remedy hearing was due to start at Watford Tribunal on Wednesday  Brent Council settled with Rosemarie Clarke's legal team out of court.

Although details are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement an award would normally cover legal costs and loss of earnings.

This marks almost the last chapter in the saga with the main protagonists including Cara Davani, Andy Potts, Fiona Ledden and Christine Gilbert no longer employed by Brent Council.

Muhammed Butt, a stout defender of Cara Davani, remains in post and of course Philip Grant's two questions remain unanswered.

MORE BRENT COUNCIL SCANDAL! Now they ban opposition motion seeking the truth

On top of the denial of a deputation to Philip Grant (see posting below) Brent Council has now advised that a  motion for Monday's Council Meeting from the Brent Conservative Group should not be moved or accepted as drafted:

This is the message received by Cllr John Warren: 

Dear Councillor Warren

I have reviewed the Motion selected by the Brent Conservative Group.  My advice would be that it is not appropriate for individual, current employees or former employees of the Council to be named in this context in a Council motion and that the Motion should not be moved or accepted as drafted.

Kind regards,  

Fiona Alderman Chief Legal Officer Chief Operating Officer’s Department

Wembley Matters won't be silenced so here is the motion:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry

Truth or Cover Up? Brondesbury Park Conservatives table motion calling for independent inquiry into Clarke-Davani case

Brondesbury Park  Conservative ward councillors have tabled the following motion for the full Brent Council Meeting to be held on September 7th 2015:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry

PAY OFF FOB OFF: Christine Gilbert’s “answer” to the questions about a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 
Christine Gilbert promised me a reply by today to the two questions I had first put to her on 9 July, and repeated in my open letter to her a week later. 

I said that I would share her reply with “Wembley Matters” readers, and it came in an email to me at 5.55pm today:

‘Dear Mr Grant, 

Thank you for your various letters and emails to the Chief Executive in relation to Cara Davani, which have been passed to me for reply.

Ms Davani, then Director of HR and Administration, left the council at the end of June 2015.  The council is grateful for the significant contribution Cara made over the last three years.

The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.  

In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Yours sincerely 

Fiona Alderman

Chief Legal Officer

The heading to Ms Alderman’s email was “Recent correspondence”. I replied to it at 8.50pm today, under the heading “Re: Recent correspondence about possible "pay off" to Cara Davani, and your failure to reply to it”, as follows:-

‘Dear Ms Gilbert and Ms Alderman,

I am replying to Ms Alderman’s email to me today at 17:55, headed “Recent correspondence”. I am also writing this to Ms Gilbert, who my correspondence was addressed to, and who must accept the responsibility for answering the two questions which I raised, as Brent’s interim Chief Executive and its Head of Paid Service, and as the person who must know the answers to those questions.

The main statement in your email of 3 August is in exactly the same words as Ms Gilbert’s email to me of 8 July:

‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

You have not explained why you believe you 'cannot legally disclose', although that is not the main point here. The original reply in these words was to an email of 30 June in which I had made a formal request for information including details of amounts and arrangements in connection with Ms Davani’s departure from Brent Council. You are now using the same reply to my email request of 9 July, repeated in my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July. That request was specifically drafted so that Ms Gilbert did not have to disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure. That request has not been replied to, and I will set it out again here:

‘I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?   YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.’

After I first put these questions, Ms Gilbert replied on 10 July: ‘I have passed these to Ms Fiona Alderman, Chief Legal Officer, for her consideration. She will respond to you in due course.’ I now wonder whether her instruction to Ms Alderman was not ‘please reply to these questions on my behalf’, but ‘please find an excuse for not replying to these questions, and delay responding to the email for as long as possible’. 

The whole point of this correspondence, from my point of view, has been to highlight the serious concerns which many people have expressed over rumours of a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani, and to seek to resolve those concerns by either getting confirmation that the rumours are unfounded, or by getting those responsible for deciding on such a “pay off” to explain their reasons for agreeing it. That is what Brent’s Constitution, and the principles of conduct in public life, expect of you as senior Council officers in delivering openness and accountability. Instead you seem determined to prevaricate, and not to resolve those serious concerns, which I know that a number of elected councillors share. 

I would ask you to read again my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July 2015, and the question which I included in the letter which I had published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”:

‘What are senior officers at Brent Council trying to hide from us, and why?’

I acknowledge that Ms Alderman did refer to my second question in her email to me today, saying: 

‘In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.’

I accept that the remedies hearing has yet been finalised, but that does not mean that the question I asked cannot be answered now. If Brent has not agreed ‘to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council,’ then the answer to that question should be “yes”. If the Employment Tribunal, based on all the evidence that it heard and read, and the findings of fact that it made from that evidence, decides that any compensation, damages or costs should be awarded against Ms Davani personally, as distinct from the award(s) that it will decide to make against Brent Council (on the basis of its judgement of September 2014), then Brent Council should accept the Tribunal’s decision, and its Chief Executive should commit the Council to do so. 

It might be argued that Brent Council should pay all of the compensation, damages and costs awarded to Ms Clarke, as Ms Davani, though a separately named respondent in the case, was acting as an employee of Brent Council. I dealt with this point in my first email raising concerns over this matter, of 12 June 2015 to my Fryent Ward councillors and copied to the Chief Executive, explaining why, if any award were made against Ms Davani personally, Brent should not pick up the bill:

‘At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent's Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council's HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent's most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.’

I would only add that, in these circumstances, any payment by Brent of any awards made against Ms Davani personally would be a misuse of Council funds.

I look forward to receiving from Christine Gilbert her honest answers to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions above by the end of this week.

I am copying this email to the councillors to whom our previous correspondence on this matter was copied, and will also make it openly available, in the public interest.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.’

Brent Equalities Committee: Michael Pavey responds to Philip Grant's Open Letter

Last week, Martin published as a “guest blog” an open letter which I had sent to the members of Brent Council’s new Equalities Committee, ahead of their meeting on 13 July. LINK  

The day after their meeting, the chair of that committee, Cllr. Michael Pavey, wrote to me in reply to my open letter. With his permission, I am setting out the main text of his reply, so that “Wembley Matters” readers can consider the points he has made, as part of a balanced discussion:-

‘The Committee met for the first time last night and as part of our discussions on the implementation of my Review, we decided to remove the "success criteria" relating to successfully defended ETs. We opted to remove the clause entirely, rather than to replace it. This was a unanimous decision. 

Your suggestion that the Council withdraw from the Race for Opportunity awards was not raised. 

My understanding is that this particular award relates to the collection of equalities data. Whatever your view of the Council's current performance, the Committee will only be able to drive up standards by referring to reliable and challenging data. 

The Council Equalities Team have put a tremendous amount of work into improving internal data collection and analysis. I have no problem with this work being recognised through nomination for an award. 

I don't feel that objecting to Council Officers receiving legitimate praise for their hard work is the right way to address ongoing grievances about an Employment Tribunal. The Officers who put in the hard work to collect this data had nothing at all to do with that Tribunal. 

I think it would be far more constructive for us to acknowledge the good work of those particular Officers and focus on using this data to improve the Council's performance on Equalities issues, as per my Review. The new Committee has an important role to play in this and we made an encouraging start last night, challenging Officers in a constructive but robust way.’ 

I believe I am on record as saying this before, but it is worth repeating, that I welcome Michael Pavey’s openness in actually replying to serious points put to him (unlike his colleague, the Leader of the Council). We do not agree on everything, but I have confirmed to Cllr. Pavey that I know there are many officers at the Council who do an excellent job (even though they have been let down by some very senior ones!). My open letter was not all criticism, but in reply to Cllr. Pavey’s response above, I have reminded him that its key message was that the Equalites Committee (and Brent Council generally) needs to acknowledge and deal with the “negatives”, as well as celebrating the “positives”.

Philip Grant

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert over rumoured “pay off” to Cara Davani, 16 July 2015

Guest blog by Philip Grant. Christine Gilbert is the current Chief Executive of Brent Council who is due to leave after the summer.

Dear Ms Gilbert,

Further to our recent email correspondence, to which I have still to receive a satisfactory reply, either from you or on your behalf, I regret that I have had to resort to sending a letter to the editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, which was published today, and to writing this open letter to you, which I will be copying to all elected members of Brent Council, and making available to anyone who wishes to publish it.

In case you have not seen the letter in our local newspaper, here is a copy of it:-

This is a matter of genuine public concern. You may feel that it is “none of my business”, but it is my business if money which I have contributed to through my Council Tax, and which should be used for providing local services, is being secretly paid to a former senior officer. Cara Davani left the Council at the end of June 2015, but should have resigned in September 2014 when the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case were made public. When she did not resign, it was your responsibility as interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service to take the appropriate action, which any other person on those facts would have seen as using the Council’s disciplinary procedures against her for the gross misconduct which the Tribunal had highlighted.

As a first step in dealing with this mess, which you have allowed to develop through trying to “sweep it under the carpet”, I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you a week ago:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?   YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.

You know the answers to these questions, and I think it is unfair of you to have passed the matter to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer to respond to on your behalf (which she has not yet done).

As I said to you last week, if the honest answers to both of these questions is "yes", then that will be the end of the matter, and it is difficult to understand why you have delayed saying so.

If the answer to one or both of these questions is “no”, then I believe that you have a duty to disclose, particularly to elected councillors, what financial arrangements (other than her basic salary payment to 30 June 2015) have been made or agreed in Brent Council’s name for Ms Davani’s benefit, who made or agreed those arrangements, and what is considered to be the justification for them. You have tried to put off my enquiries about this matter by saying that the Council cannot ‘legally disclose’ any details, and when I hoped to raise this matter at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday evening it was claimed (at short notice by the Head of Executive and Member Services) that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for me to raise this subject at the meeting, because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which “provisions” has still not been disclosed). Whatever the legal excuses, it is surely in the public interest that councillors, staff and residents can be assured that any payments were properly and fairly due.

The way that this matter has been handled by you and other senior officers gives the impression of a “cover-up”, even if the rumours of a “pay off” to Ms Davani prove to have been false. What is needed, on this and any similar issues, is transparency and accountability. I realise that you only have a short time left as Brent’s interim Chief Executive, but please act promptly to resolve this matter on a reasonable basis, so that you do not leave the borough even further in disrepute. Thank you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant

Philip Grant: Open letter to Brent Council on Equalities

Guest blog by Philip Grant. The Equalities Committee agenda and papers can be found HERE

 

Open Letter to Equalities Committee, 9 July 2015

Dear Councillors Pavey, Harrison, Kansagra, Tatler and Thomas,

Congratulations on the first meeting of this new committee next Monday, and my best wishes for its efforts to help improve equalities and HR management at Brent Council. I will not be able to attend that meeting in person, so have not asked to speak as a Deputation at it, but there are points which I would like to make in respect of both main items on your agenda. I will set these out below in this open letter, and hope that you will be able to find time to read my views, and take them into account in your discussions.

Item 5 – Equalities and HR review: action plan

Cllr. Pavey is aware of my views on this matter, but I need to set them out for other committee members, and by way of introduction to my second point below. I had hoped to make this point to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015, but was not allowed to present my Deputation there.

The point relates to Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of equalities-hr-review-app2].  This was prepared by Cara Davani, until recently Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’.  

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposed. This reads:
  

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’ 

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give.  

You may consider that such a concern is far-fetched, but in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case (which Cllr. Pavey’s review was set up to learn the lessons from), a key factor
in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment in that case it says: 

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], 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.’ 

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence. It is quite likely that one or more of those witnesses was willing to commit perjury in order to cover up who had made the decision, and why it was made, in an attempt to conceal from the Tribunal facts that would have added to the evidence in support of Ms Clarke’s claim.

I do not believe that this was an isolated case of fabricated or false evidence being used by Brent Council in Employment Tribunal cases. I have heard, from someone close to the former Brent Libraries employee involved, although I do not know the full facts or have evidence 

to support the accusation, that false evidence was given at a Tribunal where Brent was “successful” in defending a claim against it for unfair dismissal. In another case (see my P.S. at the end of this letter for details), Brent had to concede a claim against it for unfair dismissal when it realised that its false evidence would not stand up to close examination by the Tribunal.

I would strongly suggest that the “success criteria” I referred to above should be deleted from the Action Plan. “Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would suggest that the “criteria” should be:  

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:  ‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’