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:
Showing posts with label racial discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial discrimination. Show all posts
Saturday 6 December 2014
Sunday 2 November 2014
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
Labels:
Aslam Choudry,
Brent Council,
Christine Gilbert,
Corporate Management Team,
Employment Tribunal,
Fiona Ledden,
Michael Pavey,
Muhammed Butt,
Philip GRant,
racial discrimination,
Rosemarie Clarke
Tuesday 7 October 2014
‘And the Brent Staff Achievement Award 2014 goes to ….ROSEMARIE CLARKE!’
Leader of Council, CEO and Head of
HR celebrate popular public verdict.
Guest Blog by ‘E.Tribunal’
Nice idea?
Here’s how to achieve it. Every year London Borough of Brent asks for
nominations from the public for staff members who have ‘gone the extra mile’
and deserve recognition for outstanding achievement. The nomination form is
here http://brent.gov.uk/your-council/staff-awards-2014/nomination-form/
I’ve just
filled one in as follows:
NAME: ROSEMARIE CLARK
DEPT: HR ADDRESS EMPLOYEE IS BASED AT: CIVIC CENTRE
REASONS FOR NOMINATION: ROSEMARIE
HAS BEEN AN EXAMPLE TO HER COLLEAGUES AND TO THE PEOPLE OF BRENT IN HER BRAVE
FIGHT TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE IN THE FACE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION , VICTIMISATION
AND WORKPLACE BULLYING (I don’t have copyright on any of these words so please
help yourself).
I then
filled in my name, address and email address. Given the climate of intimidation
which exists, some people may find that part problematic. However, everyone has
friends and relations who will have heard of Rosemarie’s experiences (or will
be happy to learn of them now) and that knowledge will qualify them to vote and
will validate their votes in turn. WM
readers will need no reminding that knowledge is power and modern technology
presents us with infinite ways of both spreading the knowledge of Brent
employees’ achievements and, at the same time, spreading the means by which
people can vote on that knowledge.
One other point: some may wonder whether
Rosemarie Clarke, who is actually no longer a Brent employee, qualifies for nomination; it would hardly
reflect well on Brent Council, though, if this were to be raised as an
objection given that the recent Watford Employment Tribunal’s verdict made clear
that the responsibility for Rosemarie’s constructive dismissal was entirely
that of Cara Davani, Christine Gilbert
and the rest of their friends on Brent Council, precisely the people who
will most loudly be celebrating the presentation of these awards. Attempting to
block nominations would only draw more attention to the Employment Tribunal’s
findings. Spread the word!
CLOSING DATE
FOR NOMINATIONS IS OCTOBER 17: DON’T
DELAY, VOTE TODAY
Labels:
Brent Council,
bullying,
Clarke,
Employment Tribunal,
racial discrimination,
Rosemarie,
Rosemary,
Staff Awards,
victimisation
Thursday 25 September 2014
Brent TUC and ex-Labour councillor join call for independent investigation into Brent Council following racism judgment
Brent Trades Union Council (Brent TUC) has followed Brent Green Party in calling for an independent investigation into Brent Council and their Corporate Management Team:
This is the resolution passed at their meeting yesterday:
This is the resolution passed at their meeting yesterday:
DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO BRENT COUNCIL AND THEIR CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TEAMBrent Trades Union Council considers that the Employment Tribunal judgement that Brent Council has been guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal brings shame on the Council, especially in a borough that rightly prides itself on its diversity.
In addition former Labour councillor and member of the Labour Representation Committee, Graham Durham has written to all the current Labour councillors:We call for the dismissal of Cara Davani, whose position is now clearly untenable, using the Council’s disciplinary procedures.In the light of the tribunal findings, we call for an investigation headed by an independent expert in race relations acceptable to both Councillors and Council Unions of:1. The extent of racism and discriminatory practices within the Council;2. The working culture of the Human Resources department;
3. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution;4. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal payroll;
5. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments;
6. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis.
I trust you have read of the finding of race discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal against Brent Council.I recommend that you find time to read the full report of the case ( Employment Tribunal Case Number 3302741/2013.)I am sure you will agree that this is a shocking indictment of an individual senior manager but also of the apparent culture which was allowed to flourish in Brent Council management. It is a disgrace to all of us in Brent and especially to the Labour Party which was in control of the Council throughout the period referred.I am sure that you will want to ensure appropriate disciplinary action commences promptly. Perhaps more importantly I hope you will support the demand of Brent Trades Council that an independent enquiry is established headed by an independent expert in diversity practice and with membership agreed by Council trade unions and the Council members. The enquiry should cover diversity policy, management behaviour and culture and the rights of staff to be protected from victimisation.Many of you will know that Brent Council once had an international reputation for challenging racism and promoting equalities. In the 1980’s the Tory press attacked the Labour Council ,of which I was proud to be a member, for our determination to challenge decades of racist behaviour. Journalists from The Sun and other papers harassed us but we stood firm. Our stand then led to a proud history of record numbers of black councillors and MPs in Brent and for Brent having a reputation as the equality Council.This proud reputation is now in tatters. It will be important for us to debate in the party how the Council leadership allowed this to occur.I urge you to take immediate action to try to restore our reputation
Labels:
Brent Trades Council,
Brent TUC,
Cara Davani,
constructtve dismissal,
Corporate Mangement Team. Graham Durham,
councillor,
Employment Tribunal,
Labour,
racial discrimination,
victimisation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)