Reliable source reports that Cara Davani has resigned her position on Brent Council

A reliable Brent Council source reports that Brent Human Resources staff were called into a meeting yesterday to be told that Cara Davani, head of Human Resources had resigned. I am still seeking offiicial confirmation from Brent Council that this is the case,

It was perhaps no coincidence that Carolyn Downs, the new Chief Executive Officer, whose appointment will be confirmed at the next Full Council, was in the Civic Centre yesterday.

Cara Davani has been on annual leave.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who wrote the report on Brent Human Resources is currently on holiday.

Pressure has been on the Council to take action since an Employment Tribunal found that Cara Davani and Brent Council had racially discrminated against Rosemarie Clarke, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. LINK

Fiona Ledden, also named in the case has already left Brent Council and Christine Gilbert will leave in the summer.

As recently as April 30th Cllr Muhammed Butt sat with Cara Davani at the Scrutiny Committee, in an apparent act of solidarity, when Philip Grant tried to speak to the Committee about the Employment Tribunal case. The Committee voted not to hear him. At one point Butt heckled Philip Grant. LINK

Except for Cllr Daly members of that Scrutiny Committee have now been replaced. 

A quick search of this blog will reveal Philip Grant's tireless attempt, backed by meticulous research, to persuade Brent Council of the need to take action on this issue.

If the news is confirmed Philip and Nan Tewari,  who first wrote about the case, deserve thanks as active citizens for standing up for truth and transparency in local government. 

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.

Another Deputation that Brent Council will not hear - important questions for Cllr Butt on senior officers and the Employment Tribunal case

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”.

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 2^nd 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.

Rosemarie Clarke’s missing votes: Cara Davani refuses to tell

Guest blog by Amir Tahir

On 22^nd December last I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council asking for the following:

1. The number of nominations/votes received by individual Brent Staff Achievement Award winners 2014                                                                                                                                                                          2. The number of nominations/votes received for Rosemarie Clarke for Brent Staff Achievement Awards 2014.

By return I received the following acknowledgement from Cara Davani:

‘Thank you for your information request. We (sic) will forward it to the relevant department who will contact you shortly.’

On 21^st January  I received the following from Brent Council HR department.

‘The requested information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act (FoIA).  The information is personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As it is information about individuals, we are
unable to give this to you; release of this information would constitute a breach of
Principle 1 of the DPA. Principle 1 states that personal data shall be processed
(used) fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be used unless at least one of
the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA is met; in this case none of those conditions
have (sic) been met.* This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under section 17 of
the FoIA.’  

                                                                    * I would welcome opinions on this. AT

Obviously, my request for the total number of Rosemarie’s votes was not made out of idle curiosity; we all know that the response to the ’Vote for Rosemarie’ idea was overwhelming with Civic Centre staff and members of the public expressing  their solidarity with Rosemarie and their admiration for the way she had conducted herself in the face of what a British court has adjudged was Cara Davani and Brent Council’s racial discrimination, victimisation  and constructive dismissal. The online vote she received was massive. Nor was it my intention in any way to detract from the achievements of the other worthy winners of Brent Staff Achievement  awards.

However, the Council leadership’s mean-spirited response to the avalanche of votes for Rosemarie seems to me a missed opportunity for Butt, Gilbert and Davani finally to concede that those voting for Rosemarie possibly had a point; that Civic Centre staff and the public generally support Rosemarie for principled and valid reasons; and that an employment tribunal judge’s opinion possibly carries a little more authority than that of a small cabal of mutually back-scratching and terminally compromised senior managers  and local politicians.          

Fiona Ledden has left Brent Council

I have had confirmation that Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council,  decided to take redundancy over Christmas and left the Council at the end of December 2014.

Ledden's post was recommended for deletion in the proposed restructuring of the senior management of Brent Council. A new post of Chief Legal Officer is proposed to be  ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Head of Human Resources, Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

Fiona Ledden was mentioned in the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal where Brent Council was the  first respondent and Cara Davani the second. The Judgment found that Rosemarie Clarke had been racially discrimination against, victimised and constructively dismissed.

Controversially Brent Council decided to appeal against the Judgment and last month a Judge at Employment Tribunal Appeals found that Brent Council had no grounds for appeal.

Deputy Leader of the Counci, Michael Pavey, has almost completed his internal review of Human Resources which has a remit limited to procedures and policies. It will be tabled at General Purposes Committee on January 29th.

Cara Davani continues in post.

This is an extract from the Employment Tribunal Judgment:

With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant,[Rosemarie 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. 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

Judge rules Brent Council Employment Tribunal Appeal has 'no reasonable prospect of success'

In a letter sent to Brent Council Legal Services on December 4th, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rules that all grounds of Brent Council's appeal against the Watford Tribunal have 'no reasonable prospect of success'.

The Watford Tribunal had found that Brent Council had discriminated against Rosemarie Clarke on grounds of race, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. Controversially the Council decided to appeal and take no action against the personnel involved.

On the Watford Tribunal Judgment, the Honourable Justice Lewis finds that Brent's Notice of Appeal 'discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the appeal':

This is a carefully reasoned and thorough analysis by the employment tribunal. The tribunal set out the relevant law, made its findings of fact and reached conclusions open to it on the evidence before it.

He finds no reasonable grounds for the appeal against the finding of victimisation. On the race issue and the finding that Rosemarie Clarke was treated differently to a white male he states:

...the tribunal found that there was a material difference, no adequate explanation of the differential treatment had been given and inferred that the reason for the differential treatment was race. The reasons are clear and disclose no error of law.

On constructive dismissal although he found an incorrect reference to the Council pursuing the claimant during a period of sickness Judge Lewis finds that was not the basis of the finding ands states that the tribunal was entitled to reach the additional conclusion that there was a cumulative course of events amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Technically the respondents could seek leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal Judge Lewis's decision but this would involve more expenditure of council taxpayers' money when the Council is implementing massive cuts to services.

The Remedies Direction hearing, when the amount of compensation is decided, is scheduled for December 22nd, 2014.

Meanwhile Cara Davani and the Human Resources Department, named in the original Judgment, are engaged in the restructuring of the senior management team of the Council and will be implementing cuts in staffing, including 40% reduction in central staffing, as a consequence of the 2015-17 budget.

It is difficult to see how staff can have confidence that this will be done fairly in the light of the above.

The Council has refused an independent investigation into the working practises of the Human Resources Department and the Corporate Management Team and instead set up an narrow internal investigation by Deputy leader Cllr Michael Pavey.

I have recently been contacted by ex-council employees who think that their testimony should be heard although some are subject to so-called 'gagging clauses'. 

Brondesbury Conservatives have joined others including Brent Green Party, Brent Trades Council and Brent Against Racism Campaign in calling for an independent inquiry.

They have tabled the following motion for Full Council on Monday stating:

This Council notes the loss of a recent high profile Industrial Tribunal case involving a Brent staff member.

This Council agrees the following:

1.To regret appealing this Tribunal decision.

2. To terminate with immediate effect the Cllr. Pavey- led inquiry into issues resulting from this case.

3. To recognise the importance of transparency and the need to improve morale amongst Brent staff by holding an independent inquiry.....details to be agreed by Council party leaders.

4.To reinforce our support for the Brent staff code of conduct,notably" provide a working environment that is free from any form of discrimination,unfair treatment,bullying or harassment"

5.To note the irony of Brent holding an anti- bullying week between 17 and 21 November.

Will the Pavey review of HR win the confidence of staff?

In this week's Kilburn Times,  Brent Green  Party candidates for the forthcoming general election reiterate the Party's call for an independent inquiry into Brent Council, This would not only cover the human resources issues, including working conditions,  but also the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive and  the restructing of the senior managment team. We felt that an independent investigation was the only way to gain the confidemnce of staff and wanted to involve residents, associations,  voluntary organisations, teneants; groups and trade unions.

Philip Grant in this Guest Blog gives his personal assessment of the  more limited internal review being conducted by Michael Pavey:

-->

Councillor Pavey’s Review of Brent’s HR and Equalities practices and procedures

Anyone who has been following the story of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case will be aware that when Brent Council announced on 26 September that they would be appealing against the judgement, they also said there would be a review. The Council said that its Deputy Leader, Cllr. Michael Pavey, would ‘take stock of our [Employment] policies and practice’, ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. 

I did wonder at the time whether this was just a PR smokescreen, to draw attention away from Brent’s unfair and unreasonable decision to appeal. However, I have recently exchanged some emails with Cllr. Pavey which leave me a little more optimistic, and (with his permission) I would like to share some of the correspondence with you.

Brent Council guilty of unfair dismissal in another Employment Tribunal case

Brent Council, still  facing unprecedented anger over the Cavani racial discrimination, victimisation and  constructive dismissal case involving  Rosemarie Clarke has lost another Employment Tribunal case.

Marion Hofmann has won her case against Brent Council for unfair dismissal.

The Judgment ordered that Marion was to get all rights and pay as if she had never been dismissed on 18th February 2013 and as if she had been in continuous employment. This include contractural and pension rights.

She is to be re-engaged in the role of Sustainability Officer (Communities) from 30th December 2014.

The papers were signed on October 31st and the Council has two weeks to let the court know if it is going to appeal.

Her dismissal caused anger amongst Brent environmentalists  and led to Francis Henry resigning from the post of Chair of Brent Sustainability Forum, a post he had held for 6 years. LINK

In a letter to the Kilburn Times today, Paul Lorber, former leader of Brent Liberal Democrats, claims that Brent is going to abolish the environment department and delete the post of strategic director of environmental services.  This comes just two weeks after Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt appointed George Crane lead member of the environment, after the resignation of Cllr Keith Perrin.

Ongoing speculation about the reason for Perrin's resignation will now centre on the abolition of the department.

Wembley Matters prints the Deputation on racism case that Brent Council banned

Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.

In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:

-->

“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014

I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their concerns as well.

I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26 September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.

The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:

1.   Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late 2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is continuing that victimisation.

2.   As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their actions.

3.   Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power and of the trust placed in them.

4.   The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers, rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.

I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director, Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect. Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ include:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

You can scrutinise the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that you will agree to do so, as a matter of urgency. Thank you.

Philip Grant,

3 November 2014

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.

Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)

This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.

-->

Most readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination at its hands. 

Given these findings, and the strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers, up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council issued a statement, saying among other things:

‘Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and victimisation aspects of the judgement.’

I wrote straight away to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council, was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on that point.

I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial discrimination finding:

‘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. 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 also recorded that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty” of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the consequences of their actions. 

I have not received any reply from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’

The Council statement on 26 September had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this, from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling, as it is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, in November.

Although two members of Brent’s Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away, Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.

Cllr.Choudry replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments, and:

‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors - Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response: 

"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’

As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:

‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:

1.     I believe that the advice you have been given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.

2.     Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal against it.’

Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet, and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution, that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its terms of reference at Part 5) are:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday. 

I will attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr. Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.

Philip Grant