I commented
on Martin’s 11 July blog about “Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion” LINK , that I
might need to write a guest blog for what I would like to say, as a “comment”
did not allow enough space. This is that guest blog:-
I was not at the
Council meeting on 11 July, but I have watched the debate on the “Webcast” page
of the Council’s website. The first thing it clarifies is that Brent Council
was misleading us when it stated in June 2015 that Cara Davani was leaving ‘to take a career break.’ From the
statements made in the debate by Cllr. McLennan, and particularly by Cllr.
Colwill, it now appears that Ms Davani was made redundant, and that, it is
claimed, the £157k she received was Brent’s “normal” redundancy pay-off of one
year’s salary plus a further three months in lieu of notice.
However, if this was a redundancy, it was not a “normal” one.
It was not the result of a staff restructuring, where her post had been done
away with, like the two senior management reorganisations she brought in during
her time in charge of Brent’s HR (with large redundancy pay-offs to the
Assistant Chief Executive and Legal Director, among others, at the end of 2014,
and to a whole raft of senior officers in March 2013). So (1) what was the reason for Cara Davani being made redundant, who
decided that she should be made redundant, and why then, in June 2015?
Had
she become too much of an embarrassment to Brent Council, or was it part of an
“exit strategy” she had worked out herself with her close associate and then
interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, before the newly appointed Chief
Executive, Carolyn Downs, took over?
Cllr. McLennan, in response to Cllr. Warren’s motion, argued
that Brent had to make this pay-off on the basis of external legal advice, and
that if it had not done so, Cara Davani could have claimed against the Council
for constructive dismissal. I welcome the news that Cllr. Warren has apparently
made an FoI request for this legal advice to be made public LINK . If that legal advice was only sought
around June 2015, it might have been correct, but only because Brent had failed
to take timely disciplinary action against Ms Davani, in September 2014, for
her misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case.
I have written a great deal about that case, and this article
would be far too long if I went into the details again now, but I will refer to
some earlier blogs, and provide links to them for anyone who wishes to follow
up the points I will make. On 21 September 2014 I wrote jointly to Christine
Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (then Brent’s Legal Director), referring to the
Tribunal’s judgement, and to comments made by “Wembley Matters” readers on
blogs about it LINK, before saying:
‘… I believe that the most important matter,
before you consider your own futures, is that you must insist on the immediate
resignation of Cara Davani (if she has not already left Brent's employment
permanently). Any thoughts of wasting further money (including my own Council Tax
payments) on an appeal in this matter should be dropped, as the Tribunal has
made the findings of fact which make this such a damning judgement of Brent's
actions against this employee, and no legal arguments can undo those findings.’
On the same day I wrote a similar email to Cllr. Muhammed
Butt, with copy to my Fryent Ward councillors, saying:
‘What should you do, on Monday morning if it has not already been done before? If Ms Davani
has not already resigned or been suspended, you should ensure that the Chief
Executive, or the person deputising for her if she is not available, speaks to
Ms Davani and insists on her immediate resignation, in the light of the
findings of the Tribunal about her actions. While this would treat her
misconduct more leniently than she has treated that alleged of others, it would
allow her to go immediately, but with payment from Brent for her period of
notice, and at least show that the Council is taking the judgement seriously.
If Ms Davani refuses to resign, formal misconduct proceedings (including her
suspension) would be required, with care being taken that the correct
procedures are properly carried out (unlike in Ms Clarke's case).’
As we now know, no disciplinary
action was taken then, and I believe there would have been no grounds on which Ms Davani could have
claimed “constructive dismissal” if it had been. So (2) why
was no disciplinary action taken against Cara Davani in September 2014, when
there was clear evidence and findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal
judgement to show gross misconduct by her, and who decided that no such action
should be taken?
In opposing the motion at Full
Council, Cllr. McLennan used Cllr. Pavey’s HR Review and press statements made
by the Council that it would not tolerate the sort of behaviour shown by the
Rosemarie Clarke case to support her views. Between November 2014 and September
2015 I made a number of attempts to get issues arising from this Employment
Tribunal case “on the agenda” at meetings of Scrutiny Committee and Full
Council, so that councillors could discuss them openly.
One example was a deputation that
I had asked to present to Scrutiny Committee in April 2015, when it was
considering the report on Cllr Pavey’s Review, and the draft action plan
arising from it. What I hoped to say, so that committee members could question
the interim Chief Executive and HR Director (who were present to speak on the
report) about it if they wished to, included the following:
·
that
the Review was set up to ensure that lessons were learned from the Rosemarie
Clarke case;
·
that
Cllr. Pavey could not consider that case, as his terms of reference would not
allow him to; and,
·
as a
result, the Review ignored an important lesson which should have been learned:
‘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.’
After referring to guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director, that
‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’, and evidence from the
Tribunal’s judgement of misconduct by Ms Davani and a total failure by
Christine Gilbert to follow Brent’s HR procedures when dismissing a grievance
raised by Ms Clarke, my deputation asked:
‘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 would not allow me to present that
deputation LINK . I think the presence of Cllr. Butt,
sitting beside Cara Davani opposite the committee members, may have intimidated
them into reaching that decision, but the official reason was advice from the
Chief Legal Officer that I should not be allowed to refer to the Rosemarie
Clarke case in speaking to the committee, as it ‘had not been fully concluded’.
Although that case was still not fully concluded, Cllr.
Muhammed Butt was allowed to issue a statement about it at the end of
July 2015. It claimed that he was giving the facts of the Rosemarie Clarke
judgement, because of ‘untruths’ that had been written about it, but I
responded to him LINK pointing out that HE was the person
trying to misrepresent the Tribunal’s findings. This was another example of him
seeking to “protect” Cara Davani, and I invited him to respond to these charges,
which he has always tried to ignore LINK . So I ask the Council Leader again (3) why was Cllr. Butt “protecting” Cara
Davani and Christine Gilbert when he had known about their misconduct in the
Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?
Although
we now know, a year later, that Brent paid Cara Davani £157,610, we still do
not know the answer to a second point which I tried to raise when rumours of a
pay-off emerged in June 2015 LINK . Cara Davani was a separately named
respondent in the Employment Tribunal case, and would have been personally
liable to pay some of the compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal
was due to award to Rosemarie Clarke. So my final question, to Brent Council,
is (4) whether the out-of-court settlement made
to settle Rosemarie Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim in September 2015
included any contribution from Ms Davani, or whether Brent Council paid the
full amount including any compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal
could have awarded against Ms Davani personally?
I will send a copy of this guest
blog to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and the Council’s Chief
Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will also copy it to the three councillors who
spoke in the debate on the motion at Full Council, the Deputy Leader, Margaret
McLennan, and the Leaders of the two Conservative groups, John Warren and Reg
Colwill. I hope that they will, together, realise that the questions I have
highlighted above do still need to be answered, openly and honestly, so that
Brent can finally put the Rosemarie Clarke case behind it, and that they, or
one of Cllr. Butt or Ms Downs on the Council’s behalf, will issue a public
statement answering those questions.
Philip Grant.
PDF 2 MB