Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.
In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.
In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:
-->
“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014
I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many
people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and
at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their
concerns as well.
I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to
urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26
September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of
Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.
The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its
judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been
constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered
victimisation and racial discrimination.
Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal
advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be
an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:
1. Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment
after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late
2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had
been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than
apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is
continuing that victimisation.
2. As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as
the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order
to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to
tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary
proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council
employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their
actions.
3. Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is
likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the
actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a
wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and
their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of
interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power
and of the trust placed in them.
4. The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal
action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers,
rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council
Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.
I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director,
Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you
to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect.
Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall
perform’ include:
‘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.'
You can scrutinise the decision to appeal
against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that
you will agree to do so, as a matter
of urgency. Thank you.
Philip Grant,
3 November
2014
During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry,
and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has
become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and
not by councillors.
As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden
and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal
case it becomes even more important for the public to know which
officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost
implications are to Brent residents.
This
decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for
speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a
permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies
the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second
time.
Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.
