Brent Council Race Equality Award condemned

Following yesterday's revelation that Brent Council was a finalist for a Race for Opportunity award the organisation has received messages from local people about the council's record in this area. Here are two of them:

I am not sure why Race for Opportunity is surprised that BAME representation is decreasing when RFO itself is actively contributing to this state of affairs.

Black staff in Brent are reeling from the shock, as am I, of hearing that RFO has shortlisted Brent Council as a finalist for its RFO Award.

One only has to enter "race discrimination Brent council" in a search engine box to find out how the council's director of HR (acting in cahoots with her friend the chief executive, in further cahoots with the council's employment solicitor, aka director of HR's business and personal partner) was found guilty by an employment tribunal of race discrimination and victimisation of a black manager.

One has only to read some of the Wembley Matters blog articles to find out how disgusted Brent residents are at the council's total failure to investigate this HR director's wrong-doing and initiate disciplinary proceedings. LIN

All of the miscreants in this disgraceful case are desperate to redeem themselves on their CVs for their future employment prospects (the HRD left at the end of June with a payoff, nearly a year after the tribunal exposed her unacceptable behaviour, her partner has followed her and the chief executive's contract will be up some time this month.

They will undoubtedly be thanking RFO profusely that they can now say that they steered the council to being shortlisted for the award. Absolute shame on Race for Opportunity, an organisation that I have hitherto admired.

Googling stuff is so easy to do these days, RFO - not always accurate I know, but such a good idea to avoid promoting the very people that would be anathema to the professed RFO values. Even "Private Eye" has run parts of this dsgraceful story, so it seems only RFO is in the dark.

I will be copy- posting this blog piece on the Wembley Matters blog.

Nan Tewari
former Branch Secretary, Brent Nalgo (now Unison)

I write in disbelief regarding the the nomination of Brent Council for an award from your organisation....it's not April Fools Day yet is it??  Your spokesman is reported as saying that Brent puts " race equality at the heart of their activity"....ouch!!!  Are you aware of the following facts? 

1. Brent was found guilty of racial discrimination in the case of Rosemarie Clarke.   

2. The judge stated that Brent was guilty of bullying, intimidation and constructive dismissal.  

3.The decision in the case was so damning that the judge said that " Brent had no reasonable prospect of success" on appeal. Yet still Brent wasted Council taxpayer monies on fruitless appeals. 

4.The compensation award against Brent is likely to be made in September - perhaps coinciding with your awards ceremony. The exemplary damages are likely to be significant, and the total award against Brent is suggested to be between £500k and £1m.  

5. Brent engaged in a farcical internal review - led by Council Deputy Leader -of its H.R.practices after the case, despite calls throughout Brent for an independent review.   

I would ask you to reflect on your nomination. I am copying this e-mail to interested community parties. 

 Cllr John Warren

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.

Brent Council workers gagged from speaking to councillors over employment discrimination issues

I am, as regular readers will know, a militant opponent of the Tory Party, but I was pleased that the Brondesbury Conservative group raised the issue of an independent investigation into the Brent Council Human Resources department at Full Council last week.

I would of course have much preferred it to be raised by principled members of the Labour group.

It is a call that has also been made by Brent Green Party, Brent Trade Union Council, and Brent Anti Racism Campaign.

I know through messages and phone calls to Wembley Matters that many Brent Council staff do not have confidence in Michael Pavey's internal investigation and that they do not feel they have an avenue for complaints that does not put them at risk of retribution.

Cllr John Warren at Full Council offered staff the opportunity to raise issues with him. He has since received a letter from Brent Council's Legal Department advising him that staff doing so would be in breach of the Brent Officers' Code of Conduct and could put them at risk of disciplinary action:

I am writing, as Deputy Monitoring Officer, following the Full Council meeting on Monday 8th December when you invited employees to contact you confidentially if they wanted to discuss any dissatisfaction they felt or discrimination which they had experienced in the course of their employment.

I am very concerned that encouraging staff to follow this course of action crosses the boundary between the respective roles of Members and Officers in relation to matters concerning the employment of staff.  As you may be aware the Protocol for Members and Officer Relations formed part of the agenda at Standards Committee on Tuesday evening.  The Protocol reminds both Members and Officers of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct which contains clear restrictions on employees raising matters relating to employment with Members.   By encouraging staff to contact you in the way suggested you are encouraging staff to breach the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct and could place employees at risk of disciplinary action.

I would request that you do not repeat the invitation to employees and, if you are approached by any employees, they are instead advised to raise any issues through the proper communication channels and reminded of the provisions of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct.

This is essentially a gag on any members of staff contacting any councillor to discuss their concerns. It would not be an issue if staff had confidence in the Council's internal procedures but this is clearly not the case.

It is even more important at a time when Cara Davani, who had a key role in the Council's actions that resulted in an Employment Tribunal finding of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal, is managing the process of the restructuring of the Council's senior management and will be handling redundancies arising from the forthcoming budget cuts. An appeal hearing dismissed Brent Coucil's grounds for appeal against the judgment.

An independent investigation is the only way to ensure that staff are heard and justice achieved.

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert on the Employment Tribunal case

Local resident Philip Grant, who has been following the Employment Tribunal case closely and engaged with council officers on the issue, has written the following Open Letter to Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council:

Anger mounts over Employment Tribunal findings against Brent Council

Cara Davani

Brent Council workers and residents have reacted angrily to the Employment Tribunal findings of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal against Brent Council and Cara Davani, Operational Director of Brent Human Resources.

Many commenting on this blog have called for sackings as a consequence of the findings. Others have raised the question of the cost of an appeal if Brent Council goes ahead with one and who should pay for it.  There is also the question of who decides on whether to mount an appeal - officers or the political leadership?

I have had to edit or delete some of the comments such are the strong feelings aroused by the case. I am at a conference today but will try and keep up with comments during the day.