Autumn community skips in Brent. Details: What, When and Where

From Brent Council

Do you need to get rid of an old sofa, washing machine or mattress? Do you want to the opportunity freshen up and de-clutter your home?

With the community skips you can. You can get rid of your bulky waste for FREE and donate any reusable items to those who need them, which helps others and is great for the environment too!

The community skips are making a return from Thursday 1 September - Thursday 6 October and will be touring the borough, ready to take your bulky waste and then recycle it or give it a new home.

You can drop off up to five bulky items free of charge, as long as you can show proof of a Brent address.

Residents are also welcome to take away any items to reuse and repurpose.

Representatives from Veolia will join the council’s Neighbourhood Managers to help sort items and ensure they are recycled and reused wherever possible. 

Please check the location and date of your local community skip the day before you go, just in case there are any last minute changes and be aware that we cannot accept builders’ materials (such as rubble), garden waste (including soil), commercial waste, pianos or clinical and hazardous waste. 

 

Harlesden

Neighbourhood Manager: Ashley Cumberbatch

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Harlesden and Kensal Green	Harley Road, near the junction with Station Road, NW10	Sunday 11 September	2pm to 4pm
Roundwood	Franklyn Road, opposite number 8, NW10	Thursday 22 September	2pm to 4pm
Stonebridge	Woodheyes Road, opposite number 117, NW10	Saturday 24 September	2pm to 4pm

 

Kilburn

Neighbourhood Manager: Raakesh Shah

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Brondesbury Park	Chatsworth Road, near the junction with Mapesbury Road (Outside the Brondesbury Bowls Club), NW2	Thursday 8 September	6pm to 8pm
Queens Park	Harvist Road, near the junction with Chamberlayne Road, NW6	Saturday 17 September	10am to 12pm
Kilburn	Priory Park Road, near the junction with St Julian’s Road, NW6	Saturday 17 September	2pm to 4pm

 

Kingsbury and Kenton

Neighbourhood Manager: Shirley Holmes

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Welsh Harp	Townsend Lane, outside the allotments, NW9	Thursday 1 September	6pm to 8pm
Queensbury	Old Kenton Lane, NW9	Sunday 2 October	2pm to 4pm
Kingsbury	Grove Park Recreation Ground car park, NW9	Sunday 11 September	10am to 12pm
Kenton	Masonic Centre, Northwick Circle, HA3 0EL	Saturday 10 September	10am to 12pm
Barnhill	The Green, Lawns Court, The Avenue, HA9 9PN	Saturday 10 September	2pm to 4pm

 

Wembley North

Neighbourhood Manager: Mark O’Brien

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Sudbury	Sylvester Road, alongside the tennis courts, HA0	Sunday 4 September	10am to 12pm
Northwick Park	The Fairway, near the junction with Blockley Road, HA0	Sunday 4 September	2pm to 4pm
Wembley Hill	Outside 139 St Johns Road, HA9	Sunday 18 September	10am to 12pm
Preston	Windermere Avenue, outside the Church of the Annunciation, HA9	Sunday 18 September	2pm to 4pm

 

Wembley South

Neighbourhood Manager: Jon Ashby

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Wembley Central	Douglas Avenue, corner of Hillfield Avenue, HA0	Saturday 24 September	10am to 12pm
Alperton	Queensbury Road, outside Abbey Estate Community Building, HA0 1LZ	Sunday 25 September	10am to 12pm
Tokyngton	Monks Park, near to the junction with Harrow Road, HA9	Thursday 29 September	6pm to 8pm
Wembley Park	North End Road, outside Empire Court, HA9	Sunday 2 October	10am to 12pm

 

Willesden

Neighbourhood Manager: Phil Stagles

Ward	Location	Date	Time
Willesden Green	Chaplin Road, parking bays op 98 – near the junction with Villiers Road, NW2	Saturday 1 October	10am to 12pm
Dollis Hill	Vincent Gardens, near the bend, NW2	Saturday 1 October	2pm to 4pm
Cricklewood and Mapesbury	Cedar Road, parking bays outside number 36, near the junction with Ivy Road, NW2	Thursday 6 October	6pm to 8pm

 

UK: META (formerly Facebook) ACCUSED OF BREACHING WORKERS’ RIGHTS OVER DISMISSAL OF CLEANER WHO ORGANISED PROTESTS AT LONDON OFFICE

Amnesty International has accused Meta of breaching its own employment guidelines and commitments on labour rights and has called on the tech giant (formerly known as Facebook) to undertake an urgent investigation into the 2021 dismissal of a trade union representative who organised protests against poor working conditions in its offices. 

 

The call comes as Amnesty published a 23-page report - Meta, workers’ rights matter! The case of a trade union organiser dismissed after trying to improve working conditions for cleaners - which outlines the evidence in the case and the organisation’s concerns and recommendations.

 

Amnesty’s report comes ahead of an Employment Tribunal hearing next week (7 September) in which a former cleaner of Meta’s offices and trade union representative is seeking justice for his claim that he was targeted because of his trade union activities that led to his unfair dismissal.

 

Guillermo Camacho, a father of two from Bolivia, was a contracted cleaner and trade union representative who had cleaned Meta’s offices for almost seven years prior to his dismissal, with an unblemished record. In summer 2021, after cleaners denounced an increasingly excessive workload, he led and organised protests against the poor working conditions at Meta’s London office on Brock Street. Following the protests Camacho was first suspended from his job last August, and then dismissed entirely in October under the pretext of inadequate performance.

 

The protests were prompted by a reduction in the number of cleaners which in turn led to an excessive workload for the remaining workers at Meta’s offices, which had a major physical and psychological impact on them. In mid-2021, the number of cleaners at Meta’s worksite in London dropped from 24 to 20. Simultaneously, the size of the area to be cleaned increased from five floors to 14 floors, a near-threefold increase.

 

The cleaning of Meta’s buildings is undertaken by outsourced staff employed by the Churchill Group (Churchill), which in turn has a contract with Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) to which Meta outsources the management of its offices in London. Camacho has filed a complaint to the London Central Employment Tribunal against Churchill - as direct employer - for an award of compensation for unfair dismissal, detriment and victimisation due to trade union membership and/or activities.

 

In his capacity as the cleaners’ trade union representative with the Cleaners and Allied Independent Workers Union (CAIWU), Camacho helped organise protests outside Meta’s offices on Fridays denouncing the excessive workload and calling for fair working conditions. 

 

Just days after the second protest was organised in August 2021, he was suspended and put on “gardening leave” after Meta and JLL requested Camacho’s removal from Meta’s building. He believes his suspension was therefore a result of what is known as ‘third party pressure’ - when a customer or client exercises pressure for a worker to be dismissed.

An investigation was opened against Camacho to evaluate the adequacy of his work as a cleaners’ supervisor and it focused on Meta staff’s allegations regarding unfilled soap dispensers, substandard cleaning of some areas, and inadequate stocking of some items leading to property damage. In the course of the investigation, Camacho rebutted the allegations, and also challenged management over the inadequate staffing levels, which had caused difficulties in cleaning to the required standards. 

 

In September 2021, Camacho was informed that the investigation was closed, and no further disciplinary action would be required. However, despite this, the decision to remove him remained in force and Camacho was ultimately dismissed from his job at Meta’s offices.

Camacho’s dismissal has created a chilling effect on the ability and confidence of his fellow workers to collectively bargain for better working conditions. 

 

Catrinel Motoc, Amnesty’s Senior Campaigner, said:

We live in a society where all too often workers who dare to speak out against injustices in the workplace find themselves in the firing line.  

 

This is a David and Goliath story, where a huge, global behemoth of a company has simply washed its hands of any responsibility to the people who work on the frontlines of its offices.

 

Meta is very keen to distance itself from this unpleasant episode, but the buck must stop with them. You can outsource a cleaning account, but not the accountability for how cleaners are treated.

 

Meta should live up to the values it claims it wants to uphold and to the commitments it has made to respect workers’ right to organise. That must start with an urgent investigation into what happened in this case and a radical overhaul of its processes to ensure that its commitment to respect workers’ rights extends to both in-house and outsourced workers.

 

No worker should fear or face reprisals when speaking up and demanding better working conditions.

Alberto Durango, General Secretary of CAIWU, said:

Guillermo’s treatment is all too familiar to us. It’s a blatant and classic tactic to intimidate other workers by making a brutal example of a trade union leader. Third-party pressure disproportionately impacts precarious workers who are too often outsourced and allows the employer to hide behind their client as workers’ rights are eroded.

Our members who still work at Meta’s offices tell us they continue to live under the cloud of Guillermo’s dismissal and the implicit threat that they too could be dismissed for speaking out.

We need to see real change and that should start with an apology and compensation for Guillermo. Employers should have to justify the dismissal of their employee in a fair and transparent way and not supress the rights of workers to collectively bargain for fair working conditions.

Amnesty’s campaign

 

Amnesty is calling on Meta to take responsibility for how its personnel are treated and to

 

1.    Respect the right of its workers to speak out and bargain collectively for better conditions

2.    Apologise to Guillermo for his treatment and provide him with adequate compensation

 

Take action here: www.amnesty.org.uk/CleanUpFacebook

 

Protest outside Meta’s London office

Date/ Time: Friday 2 September at 5pm

Address: 10 Brock St, London NW1 3FG

What: Protest in solidarity with Guillermo Camacho. People will be outside Meta’s London office holding placards and chanting ‘Workers’ rights matter, Meta!’ 

 

The 23-page briefing, Meta, workers’ rights matter! The case of a trade union organiser dismissed after trying to improve working conditions for cleaners, which outlines the evidence in the case and Amnesty’s concerns and recommendations, is available on request.

 

 

LETTER: Kilburn Square Housing: Brent Labour vs Barnet Labour…

 The Kilburn Square Development (Photo: Brent Council)

Dear Editor,

  

Remember Alice through the Looking Glass…? Here’s an Open Question to the Brent Housing team, as they press on to an imminent Planning Application with a scheme the local community strongly believes is still too big…

 

PRE-ELECTION

https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/19937298.residents-lose-latest-fight-save-east-finchley-green-spaces/

• Conservative Barnet council wants to build houses on green space
• Labour opposition backs residents’ objections

 

POST-ELECTION 

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/east-finchley-green-space-saved-from-development-9241434

• Labour gains control
• The scheme is cut back to preserve the green space

 

IF BARNET LABOUR CAN DO THIS… WHY CAN’T BRENT LABOUR DROP BLOCK C-D ON KILBURN SQUARE? 

 

Feel free to comment on here!

 

Details of the scheme heading towards a Planning Application:  https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420412/kilburn-square-final-exhibition.pdf

 

For more background see https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/05/letter-brent-is-prioritisng-housing.html  . To join our campaign please email savekilburnsquare@gmail.com

 

Keith Anderson.

NW6 6QA

Tory audience at Wembley Arena Leadership Hustings greeted by critical demonstration

Green New Deal Rising

Brent Labour councillors (and Steven Bray)

                                                      Greens say #enoughisenough time to End Tory Rule

Self-employed demonstrate against the retrosprctive loan charge 

NEU, SWP, Stop Rwanda

The NHS - 38 degrees

The venue for the last Tory Leadership hustings was kept under wraps until the last minute so the demonstration to voice our feelings was very hastily organised.  Several groups did manage to turn up to voice their views to the Tory faithful as they queued to get into the Wembley Arena.

The Labour Group on Brent Council had their meeting at 6pm, the  same time as the demonstration, but came out of the Civic Centre, which is opposite the Arena, for a few minutes show of solidarity.

A senior policeman appeared to have decided I was organising things and came over to tell me that the boss of Quintain was okay about us demonstrating but would not be happy at us getting too close to the queueing Conservatives or at us shouting in their faces (we were at least 2 metres away).  He asked me to move 'your' group to 'stand with those ladies over there' (the women from Green New Deal Rising)!

Arena Square was surrounded by Heras fencing so we had to stand on Wembley Boulevard, the private property of Quintain Ltd. His comments were an incidental lesson in the politics of the privatisation of public space. Quintain were doing us a favour by 'allowing' us to demonstrate.

And Steve Bray was very patient with the police...

 

1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s final word on a potentially unlawful contract

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden, July 2022.

 

Two weeks ago, I shared with you an email I’d sent to Brent’s Legal Director, asking her to reconsider her view that the recent contract awarded for the Council’s proposed Morland Gardens redevelopment was lawful. This was in the light of information I’d obtained under an FoI request.

 

As I think it is important to give the Council a “right of reply” when important points are raised with them and made public, I will ask Martin to publish the full text of the email I received on 25 August. For completeness, I will also include the response I sent on 30 August, and divide the two with an illustration.

 

If you haven’t already done so, it will probably help to read my earlier guest post (see “link” above). The first email, from Brent, is not “light reading”, but it does give anyone who may be involved in similar disputes with the Council a flavour of what they might expect! Here it is:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email of 18 August that was received whilst I was on leave.

 

I have now had an opportunity of reviewing your email.

 

I note that you have helpfully highlighted key parts of your email on which you seek a response from me. 

 

You indicate:

 

I believe that Brent Council has failed to treat those “economic operators equally and without discrimination” as required by Regulation 18(1).

 

This statement relates to the process operated by Council Officers in the direct section of a preferred contractor under Schedule 1 of the Network Homes Framework Agreement.  Paragraph 3.1 reads that:

 

‘Direct selection may be used where the Client or any Additional Client considers that it will demonstrate best value for a Project. Subject to paragraph 3.2, the Client or any Additional Client will make a decision on who to directly appoint for a Project based on a best value assessment using a combination of the Contractor’s tender submissions for the Framework and where relevant the Contractor’s:

3.1.1    knowledge and experience of, or relationship to, the site of a Project;

3.1.2    capacity (quantity of work currently instructed) under the Framework;

3.1.3    previous performance under the Framework; and/or

3.1.4    resources available for the particular Project.’

 

It is clear that under the Network Homes Contractors Framework, “Additional Clients” must carry out an assessment using a combination of the Contractor’s tender submission for the Framework and where relevant the various matters detailed in 3.1.1 – 3.1.4.  Officer’s approach to the best value assessment is contained in the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document, particularly in paragraphs 2.3 – 2.6 and paragraph 2.9.  There is no requirement under the direct award procedure to contact bidders directly in carrying out such assessment.

 

Hill Partnerships Ltd. detailed knowledge of the Morland Gardens site was considered significant and as detailed in paragraph 2.6 of the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document:

 

“It is felt this is a key element of the best value justification as the supplier knows the site and the requirements of the project and would need little time to provide a compliant tender for a call-off from the Network Homes Contractor Framework Lot 3….”

 

 You further state:

 

I also believe that the answer to question 6 of my FoI request, about Brent Council’s contacts with Hill Partnerships Ltd over a possible contract award under the NHCF, shows that there is a clear breach of Regulation 18(3).

 

As you indicate, Regulation 18(3) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) states:

‘For that purpose, competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.’

 

I do not consider that Officers selection of the Network Homes Contractors Framework was in breach of Regulation 18(3) of the PCR 2015.  By its very nature, the use of any framework will unduly favour those economic operators on the framework but the use of frameworks is provided for in the PCR 2015.  Indeed the PCR 2015 permits the use of single supplier frameworks.  The selection of a framework of itself is therefore not unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.

 

From the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document it would appear that Officers followed the direct award process as provided for in paragraph 3.1 of Schedule 1 of the Network Homes Contractors Framework and as such it is not considered that this process unduly favoured or disadvantaging certain economic operators.

 

You state:

 

The procurement process, which Cabinet approved on 20 June, was designed “with the intention of unduly favouring” one particular economic operator, Hill Partnerships Ltd.

 

Cabinet on 20th June 2022 approved the following recommendations:

 

2.1       Approve the inviting of a tender using a direct award process under the Network Homes Contractor Framework agreement on the basis of the pre-tender considerations set out in paragraph 3.6 of the report.

2.2       Delegate authority to award the contract for the Morland Gardens Redevelopment Design and Build contract following the successful outcome of the tender exercise to the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform.

 

For the reasons detailed above, the selection of the Network Homes Contractor Framework agreement of itself is not considered to be unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators contrary to Regulation 18(3).

 

Further it was indicated to Cabinet in the report that a contractor would be selected to tender based on a best value assessment.  Cabinet in making its decision did not therefore know which organisation would be identified for direct award.

 

In view of the above, I do not consider that there has been an unlawful contract awarded for the Morland Gardens project.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra Norman

 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit and Investigations’

 

Regulation 18, Public Contracts Regulations 2015. (From the Government website)

 

This was my response to Debra Norman’s email of 25 August:

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 25 August. Your response was not unexpected, as I know that you will always seek to defend Brent Council and its staff.

 

I will not prolong this correspondence unnecessarily. You have set out your position, and we will have to agree to disagree.

 

It is quite clear from the evidence (especially the answer to question 6 of my FoI request) that when Council Officers realised, at the end of May 2022, that they would not be able to award the Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd under the Notting Hill Genesis Framework, they were looking for a way to award the contract, to that contractor, as quickly as possible by another means.

 

The Network Homes Contractor Framework provided the means, as it allowed for the direct award of contracts, and Hill Partnerships Ltd were one of the approved contractors under its Lot 3. The Direct Award Evaluation Process was carried out, as required under the Framework, but in such a way (because of the timeframe constraints imposed) that there was only one possible outcome.

 

That is why I still consider that the procurement process, approved by Cabinet on 20 June, was designed “with the intention of unduly favouring” Hill Partnerships Ltd, so that it breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Question 6 and Brent’s response, from my Freedom of Information Act request.

 

You can make up your own minds as to whether or not Brent Council’s 1 Morland Gardens contract was awarded unlawfully!

Philip Grant.