Guest Blog by Philip Grant
Three weeks ago “Wembley Matters” carried a
guest blog from me about the lack of action taken by Brent Council against Cara
Davani and Christine Gilbert for their parts in the victimisation, racial
discrimination and constructive dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke. LINK This included a
letter which asked the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, two
important questions. The “Brent & Kilburn Times” published the same letter,
in a slightly edited form, on 12 February.
On 19 February our
local newspaper carried a letter from Cllr. Butt, saying that ‘Brent Council is
deeply committed to equality, diversity and fairness.’ It may even have been
written for him by Cara Davani, as it is very similar in tone to her reports on
Equality to this week’s General Purposes Committee, or Michael Pavey’s report
on his HR policies and practice review. It makes a point of saying ‘We already
have Investor in People Silver standard and are working out way to Gold’,
without mentioning that it was Rosemarie Clarke, when she was Brent’s Head of
Learning and Development, who actually achieved that IIP Silver Standard for
the Council. It is perhaps ironic that Brent might already have reached the IIP
Gold standard if Ms Clarke had not been constructively dismissed. However, Cllr.
Butt’s letter did not answer the two questions I had asked him.
My disappointment that Cllr. Butt had
side-stepped the real issue was eased when I saw that the “Democracy in Brent” webpage
for speaking at Council meetings said that:
‘The programme of council meetings for the remainder of 2014/15 at which deputations are permitted’ included the Full Council meeting on Monday 2 March 2015. As the deadline shown for giving written notice of a deputation for that meeting was midday on Friday 20 February, I sent off my written notice to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, Fiona Alderman, (and not to Fiona Ledden, whose defunct email address is still shown on Brent’s website as the place to send notices!) with an hour to spare. I heard nothing back from her, and wrote to query this when I saw on Tuesday that the agenda for the meeting on 2 March did not include an item for “Deputations”.
‘The programme of council meetings for the remainder of 2014/15 at which deputations are permitted’ included the Full Council meeting on Monday 2 March 2015. As the deadline shown for giving written notice of a deputation for that meeting was midday on Friday 20 February, I sent off my written notice to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, Fiona Alderman, (and not to Fiona Ledden, whose defunct email address is still shown on Brent’s website as the place to send notices!) with an hour to spare. I heard nothing back from her, and wrote to query this when I saw on Tuesday that the agenda for the meeting on 2 March did not include an item for “Deputations”.
Ms Alderman has replied to me, saying:
‘The
Council meeting in March is the budget setting meeting. Standing Order 34
explains at (b) that certain items on the council agenda do not form part of
the agenda items when the budget setting is considered. Deputations (Standing
Order 37 (i)) are excluded items. Therefore, no deputations will form part
of council business on 2nd March.’
I have
checked, and she is correct. It was the details on the Council website which
were “in error”, and this is not another case of senior officers (or members?)
wrongly preventing a Deputation from being presented to councillors. So, I am
setting out here the Deputation which I would have made to Full Council next
Monday, if I had been given the opportunity to do so. I will send copies of it
to Cllr. Butt, and to all the other Brent councillors. Perhaps we will
eventually get a full reply!
Two important questions for the Leader
of the Council to answer.
I am speaking
as an individual, but I know that the points I am raising are of concern to
many local residents, Council employees and a number of elected councillors as
well.
In September
2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgement against Brent Council and its HR
Director, Cara Davani, finding that its former Head of Learning and
Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had suffered racial discrimination,
victimisation and had been constructively dismissed. [Paragraphs 1-6 and 313 of
the judgement]
In respect of
Ms Clarke’s suspension in February 2013, for alleged gross misconduct, the
judgement says:
‘The tribunal find it to have been unreasonable
of the respondents [Brent and Ms Davani]
to suspend the claimant [Ms Clarke]
when they did, which suspension this tribunal finds was sufficient to breach
the implied term of trust and confidence; the factual matrix not supporting the
allegations, which factual matrix Ms Davani had been fully aware of.’ [Para.
271] and:
'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of
Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct
consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal
finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.' [Para. 302]
In respect of
Ms Davani stopping Ms Clarke's sick pay in June 2013, the judgement says:
'… the tribunal finds no procedural basis for
Ms Davani taking the action of stopping the claimant’s sick pay when she did,'
[Para.310] and:
'In the absence of Ms Davani being able to
give an explanation for taking such action when she did, the tribunal on a
balance of probabilities finds that this course of action was taken by Ms
Davani as a direct result of the antipathy the tribunal finds she had then had
against the claimant, following the claimant having done the protected act [the grievance complaint], which this
tribunal finds Ms Davani to have been incensed by.' [Para. 311]
The grievance
which Rosemarie Clarke raised in December 2012 was against Cara Davani, her line
manager, alleging bullying and harassment. Brent’s HR policies say that
‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Because she felt that her case
was not being dealt with fairly, Ms Clarke made a formal grievance complaint to
Brent’s interim Chief Executive in February 2013. The following extracts relate
to how Brent dealt with this.
After setting
out details from Brent’s HR procedures of what an employee should have been
entitled to expect in such a case, the Tribunal found that:
‘The
claimant was not afforded any of these.’ [Para. 175] and:
'The tribunal finds that, from the
correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's
grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance,
this was not in accordance with the first respondent's procedure and a breach
of contract.' [Para. 176]
Ms Clarke
appealed by email against this summary dismissal of her grievance, and the
Tribunal found:
‘The claimant chased up this email on 27
February, enquiring as to whether it had been received, Ms Gilbert responding
stating that, it would be responded to as soon as possible.’ [Para. 196] and:
‘The respondent has not responded further to
the claimant’s correspondence. They maintain however, that a response had been drafted
but not sent out, by mistake. The tribunal has not seen this correspondence.’
[Para. 197]
The
Employment Tribunal judgement gives clear findings of fact, supported by
detailed evidence, to show that Cara Davani victimised Ms Clarke over a number
of months, and that Christine Gilbert, when the problem was brought to her
attention, totally ignored Brent’s proper HR procedures. As a result of their
actions, Brent will have to pay out a very large amount in compensation,
damages and costs. Rosemarie Clarke had the courage to stand up to their
bullying and indifference, and has been proved right to have done so.
The press release last September which announced the Council’s decision
to appeal against this judgement says: ‘Brent Council takes all allegations of
racial discrimination, victimisation, harassment or bullying extremely
seriously.’ But the Council has done the complete opposite in this case, even
after its appeal was thrown out last December because there were no reasonable
grounds to support it.
No action appears to
have been taken against Brent’s Director of HR, or its interim Chief Executive,
for their actions in this case, despite them being senior officers who are
required to show high standards of conduct, promoting these ‘by leadership, and by example’, and by acting ‘in a way that secures
or preserves public confidence.’
In a letter sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt on 5 February, which was also
published on a local blog site, and in a slightly edited form in the “Brent
& Kilburn Times” on 12 February, I asked him two important questions. He
has not yet answered them, so I ask him again:
1. How can staff have
confidence in the Council’s latest round of job cuts, when it is being presided
over by two senior officers responsible for victimisation, racial
discrimination and failing to follow the Council’s HR procedures?
2. Why is Cllr. Butt still
“protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their
misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?
I hope that the Leader of the Council will
now give the Council, its staff and Brent residents his full answers to these
questions.
Philip Grant.
