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.

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.

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:

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.