The Dreams of Mo and the Race for Opportunity Awards

Guest blog by Nan Tewari
 

Brent acceptance speech for race equality award

I'd like to thank Business in the Community for organising the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015.

[I'm absolutely ecstatic at winning this award which will definitely be one in the eye for our detractors most notably Martin Francis and Philip Grant who have nothing better to do than ask questions and expect answers.]

Brent Council has taken action to create a workplace culture which puts race equality at the heart of our activity.........

[Hope you miserable lot at Watford Employment Tribunal are sitting up and taking notice of this vindication.]

…........and has demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring that ethnic minority talent has equal opportunity to progress at every level.

[Ethnic minorities in Brent have an unfortunate habit of getting sacked before they can progress up the ladder and if they manage to survive there are no senior jobs left to progress into anyway – it's nothing personal.]

I couldn't close without paying tribute to the outstanding team at Brent Council that made this award possible – Cara Davani, Christine Gilbert, Andrew Potts.

[Thank heavens The Cronies have gone.  The constant public reminders of race discrimination, victimisation, bullying, Oyster-card misuse, appointing staff without interviews, blah de blah de blah, were doing my head in.]

Expectant hush falls...............

…..........and the winner of the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015 in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action category is.................................

Teach First.

And so it came to pass that on October 6^th the Brent dream of Bringing Home the Race Equality Trophy lay in tatters.

It was Wembley Matters, intrepid organ beloved of people who expect the odd display of integrity and published by that award-winning cultivator of the phaseolus coccineus (runner-bean grower to you and me) Martin Francis, that broke the astonishing news on 1 July.  Brent Council under the guidance of its preceptress Cara Davani, former Director of HR, had nominated itself for an equality award. LINK

You would have thought that in the face of the Watford Employment Tribunal finding against Brent Council and its HR Director Cara Davani, of victimisation, race discrimination and unfair dismissal against a member of staff, the Council might have not have wanted to risk opening itself up to even further public opprobrium and ridicule but you'd have been wrong.

You may have been forgiven for thinking that the Council's best policy might possibly have encompassed maintaining a judicious low profile for a respectful period until the storm had passed but you'd have been under a misapprehension.

In fact, in its desperate thrashing about to rescue itself from the PR disaster-hood that had dogged the Davani dominion over the Council, the strategy of applying for the equality award emerged as a seemingly heaven-sent opportunity to rubbish the aspersions so unjustly cast upon the Council's and Davani's pristine reputations by the Watford ET and the local plebs.

Public outrage was expressed in no uncertain terms at the time the news broke here of the award entry.  There now appears to a most curious reluctance on the part of the Council to take to its intranet once again to announce the result of the awards dinner on October 6th.

And in other news, congratulations to Teach First who I trust will prove a deserving winner of the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015 in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action category.

'Misrepresentation' and the racial discrimination Judgment against Brent Council

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

Dear Councillor Butt,

Your statement (to members of the Council?) about the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case has been published on the "Wembley Matters" blog website, and I am writing to respond to some of the points you have made, as I suspect that I am one of the main sources of the alleged 'untruths' which you have referred to. You have said:

'Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.  The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement.'

I have written to you about this case on a number of occasions since May 2014 (when it was reported in a local newspaper), and on 21 September 2014 I wrote to you saying:

'I can understand you not wishing to comment on this matter publicly when you had an election to win, and when the Employment Tribunal proceedings were still in progress, but now that the judgement has been made, and is in the public domain, you as Leader of the Council need to be seen to be taking the right action to deal with it.'

Sadly, having done nothing about the case for more than ten months (other than assisting senior officers in an attempted cover-up of the facts), it is you who is now trying to misrepresent the Judgment. 

As you may not have it readily available, I will remind you of what I wrote to you on 28 September 2014, referring to comments I had made on the "Brent & Kilburn Times" website under an article reporting that Brent had announced it would appeal against the judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and giving advice on how the Council could, in practice, mitigate the finding of "racial discrimination" against it by not appealing, but by telling the truth instead:

‘Brent may have obtained 'independent legal advice', but who at Brent Council assessed that advice, and who are the 'we' who decided to appeal?

  

Presumably Fiona Ledden was involved, but her judgement on this is seriously compromised by the lack of credibility of the evidence she gave (on oath?) to the tribunal over who made the decision to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had left Brent's employment, which is at the heart of the racial discrimination finding against the Council. If Andy Potts, Brent's Senior Employment Lawyer, was involved, he appears to have a conflict of interest, as Ms Davani's partner in their private lives. The barrister or QC who gave the advice may have pointed out some weaknesses in the tribunal's judgement, but would also have a vested interest in the matter because of the large fees they could earn if Brent did appeal.

 

As I have said in the second of my comments attached, any appeal against the tribunal's decision can only be made on points of law (or 'legal errors', as your statement puts it) - the facts have been found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, and that evidence supports their findings that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised, by Ms Davani and by Brent as her employer. Once Ms Clarke had established, on good evidence, that she had been treated differently from Clive Heaphy, the legal onus was on Brent to show why the difference in treatment was a valid one, and Brent completely failed to do that. That was why, in the circumstances, the tribunal was correct, in law, to find that racial discrimination was a factor in the victimisation and constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke.

 

You will see, from my second comment that I don't believe that racial discrimination was the main reason (if a reason at all) for the victimisation. On the evidence, Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani because she had the courage to complain that she was being bullied by Ms Davani, and rather than giving her the proper protection required by its procedures, Brent allowed Ms Davani to play an increasingly vicious role against Ms Clarke. It is possible that Ms Davani genuinely thought that Ms Clarke was "playing the system" (there is no evidence on this), but even if she did, as Brent's top HR Officer she should have followed the rules, and not allowed her anger at Ms Clarke to override her professional responsibilities.

 

The problem for Brent got worse after Ms Clarke made her claim to the Employment Tribunal. It was decided to fight her claim by carrying on with disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke, in the hope that by finding her guilty of gross misconduct they could claim that if she had not resigned, she would have been dismissed anyway. That tactic backfired, especially after Brent could not (or would not) admit who had made that decision. I referred to para. 240 of the judgement in my email of 21 September, and have included the full text of it in my second comment attached. If Fiona Ledden did not make the decision herself, as she stated in her oral evidence, she would have known who it was made by. I suspect that it was probably made by either Cara Davani or Andy Potts, but Ms Ledden would have known that if she disclosed that to the tribunal the judgement would inevitably have gone against Brent Council. 

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

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

I hope you will find this email constructive and helpful. Once again, I am trying to help Brent, and help you, to do the right thing. My interference may be annoying, but if you are genuine about the need to 'allow residents to hold the Council to account' (see my email of 9 September, to which I am still awaiting your reply), you and your colleagues do need to consider the views of independent minds in the local community, especially when they put forward potentially sensible alternatives to the "in house" advice you have received.’  

I suspect that the reason you have issued your statement now may be connected with my efforts to establish whether the rumours of a "pay off" by Brent to Cara Davani, on her leaving the Council at the end of June, are true: and in the growing interest among Brent councillors to establish the justification for any such "pay off", if the interim Chief Executive or Chief Legal Officer have to confirm that there was some form of "pay off". I am copying this email to your Cabinet colleagues, and will forward a copy to my Ward councillors and to members of Brent's Scrutiny Committee, for their information. 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Philip Grant's letter to councillors on this issue LINK

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.’

Brent's Muhammed Butt to be London Councils Equalities Lead despite racial discrimination finding

Despite the Employment Tribunal finding that Brent Council racially discriminated against an employee, victimised her and construcitvely dismissed her, Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council was appointed Equalities Lead by London Councils at their AGM yesterday.

No action has been taken against the CMT members named in the Employment Tribunal case.

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'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.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'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 [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. 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. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment 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.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend 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.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.

 

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.

Pavey Review won't lance Brent's boil but points to future improvements

 

The Pavey Review which was published last week has this key sentence:

0. It is important to note that the review was not a review of our HR department. It is about the role each person has to play in making Brent Council the best possible place to work. There are clear recommendations in relation to employment policies and practice, and these require the action of the entire organisation and crucially managers at all levels.
   

This limitation is why Brent Green Party and others called for an independent investigation into Brent Council, not only in the racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal that an Employment Tribunal found against first respondent Brent Council and second respondent Cara Davani, but into the previous working connections of senior staff. The latest example of the latter is the appointment of Lorraine Langham as Brent's Chief Operating Officer who like Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani previously worked for both Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council. LINK

In any other organisation disciplinary action would have been taken against a manager found guilty of such conduct. Muhammed Butt, when challenged by members of staff on the issue at Brent Connects said the council had to follow 'due process' and make an Appeal.

Some Councillors suggested to me that disciplinary action could only take place when the Appeal process had been exhausted. A Judge found that the Council had no grounds for an Appeal but still no action was taken. Two legitimate opportunities to lance the boil missed.

Some have claimed that disciplinary action in itself would amount to victimisation or even a 'witch hunt',  or would be to succomb to political pressure. This is  a red herring. The Council owes a duty of care towards its employees and this includes ensuring that they are treated fairly in their day to day employment regardless of race, gender etc. Brent Council should have confidence that their own disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand such pressures.

Now the Council is in the position of having someone in charge of HR who has been found guilty of the above offences but is nevertheless in charge of recruitment and redundancies policies. Long term mprovements in processes and procedures does not address immediate issue.

Michael Pavey has done a thorough job within his limited remit, consulting widely with staff and apparently winning their confidence. One glaring ommission is consulting with the staff who have left the Council and examining any gagging clauses that were imposed. They, after all, are possible victims of poor employment and practice.

However, given the comments I have received on this blog regarding working conditions at Brent Council (many unpublished so as not to reveal identity or due to gagging clauses) as well as emails and telephone calls, soemtimes distraught,  the following comment seems emollient:

This review finds that Brent is generally a happy and inclusive place to work. But there is plenty we can do better.

Although Cllr Pavey recognises that Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) statistics in Brent are better than some other London local authorities, he says they are far from satisfactory.  What is missing from his report is the connection between those statistics and the operation of the HR department (Proportion of BAME employees in Brent is 62%, Female employees 65%):

Both show higher proportions in the lower grade and I assume that BAME and Female would be higher still at tScale 3 to P2, and lower at the Hay grade.

Im terms of HR practice the reasons for leaving are also important and for both BAME and Females dismissals are higher (second column)

These are perhaps some of the most important recommendations:

-->

Finding: Generally, feedback from staff themselves suggests that practice is good; however, improvements can and should be made to employee management practice to achieve a more collaborative and inclusive culture. 


Engagement with staff suggests inconsistent application of policies and procedures, including as regards flexible working. There has clearly been great progress in implementing good management practice, but the Council should also seek to ensure that internal communication explain expected practice, underpinned by a clear explication of staff and manager competencies and behaviours.

·      At present, there are few reported incidents of bullying and harassment. The Council has an emphasis on informal resolution: according to the LGA this represents good practice. Consideration should be given to ensuring consistency, support and follow up within the informal resolution framework. 


·      The Council lacks a systematic Council-wide approach to learning from HR and legal processes when complaints are raised; whilst this is not uncommon, we have an opportunity to make improvements. In addition, this may give rise to inconsistent management responses. Thus, though HR takes the lead, individual managers are responsible for learning from ETs and grievances, and reviews take place with HR and within departments. Improvements should be made in terms of cross-organisational learning, peer review and Council-wide improvements. 


·      The Code of Conduct does not at present adequately articulate the behaviours and practice expected of managers and staff. Such behaviours should be clearly articulated, communicated and reflected in: 


·      recruitment and selection processes


·      ongoing team and line management

·      
appraisal processes

·      learning development processes and interventions.

Addressing this presents an opportunity to emphasise the significant priority the Council attaches to valuing diversity.

·      Evaluation of practice and understanding of staff experience should be regular and Council-wide. 


·      Internal communications should be strengthened to become a two-way flow of information. It is critical for senior management to be able to communicate values and good practice to the wider workforce. But it is equally important that communications enables the wider workforce to articulate their experiences to senior management. In two staff focus groups, more than half had not seen a copy of their service or team plan and participants suggested that improvements could be made to internal communications, including the ability for greater staff engagement and management visibility, for example through senior managers attending team meetings. This is increasingly important given the scale and pace of change. Managers themselves need to be supported to communicate effectively, but must also play the key role in staff engagement. Given the current and future constraints on funding, it is important that central advice and strategy is complemented by good practice within departments. 


The Full Report can be found  HERE

Pavey internal review into Brent Human Resources to be published later this month.

The internal review by Cllr Michael Pavey into possible improvements in policy and practice in he Council's Human Resources department will go before the General Purposes Committee on Thursday January 29th.

It should be available on the Council's website a week before the Committe meeting.

The review is much narrower than the independent inquiry requested by many Brent organisations including Brent Green Party, Brent Trades Union Council, Brent Againt Racism Campaign, Brent Labour Representation Committee and many individuals that would have looked at a wider range of issues.

Since the internal review was set up an Employment Tribunal Appeal judge has found that the Council had no grounds for appeal against the findings of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

The officers concerned are still in post.

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.