Jump to content

Maverick

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Maverick last won the day on September 7 2015

Maverick had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Hereford

Maverick's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

7

Reputation

  1. Bill Norman left Wirral but not before he threatened whistleblower Martin Moreton. (See link) http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/4860416.Wirral_Council_whistleblower_Martin_Morton___I_d_do_it_all_again__because_it_s_the_RIGHT_thing_to_do_/ He then moves to Herefordshire Council and does the same thing again, some people never learn... Bill Normans response to a complaint under the Whistleblowing Policy into the conduct of one of the Councils Senior Officers. Extract from email: Based on what you and I have discussed, the appropriate next step would be for me to arrange for the issues that you have raised to be independently investigated in accordance with the Whistleblowing or Grievance Policies. This investigation would determine if disciplinary action should be taken against any or all persons involved. The investigation would be completely impartial and would need to look at both sides and all parties involved. For example, it would look into the issues that were raised, and your motivation, as well as how these were handled. It would also look into the conduct of the management team, as well as yourself, and it may or may not recommend disciplinary action against any person. So if you're threatened by a Senior Officer and you blow the Whistle you will not be protected you'll be investigated! Motivation for bringing this to your attention would be 'don't like to be threatened' simples! Not sure Mr Norman likes Whistleblowers and protecting Senior Officers who threaten disabled people is becoming a pattern...
  2. Interesting read, not sure I believe it, the Council are not in the habit of granting key post holders voluntary redundancy. Doesn't make good business sense to allow a redundancy then have to pay an enhancement to someone to cover the post. http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=497&MId=5619&Ver=4
  3. The Monitoring Officer is a statutory appointment under the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989
  4. Opps sorry I meant the Monitoring Officer. I'm confused why the Council would allow the Councils Head Solicitor/ Monitoring Officer to leave via a redundancy package when the post can not be redundant. Isn't it a legal requirement to have a monitoring officer? Also early retirement will cost the Council a pretty penny, if Mr Norman wanted to leave why offer him an early retirement package?
  5. Finally! About time ... Redundant would suggest the Council have deleted the post of Council Soilictor/ Section 151 officer, I doubt that!
  6. Thanks Denise I will be contacting them in due course.
  7. The Amendment to the Act can be found on the link below. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/881/pdfs/uksi_20150881_en.pdf
  8. Wrong answer the Unison Rep was told categorically that a threat against a member of staff by a Senior Manager is not a Public Interest Disclosure and does not fall under the whistleblowing policy.
  9. In February 2014 a Unison Rep approaches Senior Managers with a number of long standing unaddressed issues from members which included health and safety and training for disabled staff. The Rep is employed by Herefordshire Council In response the Rep also disabled is asked to attend an Occupational Health (OH) referral to ascertain if the Rep is 'Capable of fulfilling the requirements of their role'. If there were capability issues regarding the TU Rep why weren't they being performance managed? Why is Senior Managers response to a complaint about Health and Safety and Training to send the Rep to OH, asking if they are capable of fulfilling the requirements of their role? The Rep refuses and lodges a grievance against the Senior Manager for victimisation, which is sent to the Director Geoff Hughes. Geoff Hughes hands the Grievance to the Senior Manager who is the subject of the complaint. When a Grievance is lodged against a Senior Manager why is the Senior Manager handed the Grievance in its entirety? Do employees who are not Senior Managers and subject of a grievance receive a full copy of a written Grievance against them? The Unison Branch Secretary refuses to represent the TU rep in the Grievance because Geoff Hughes and the Senior Manager are both in the Union. According to the Unison Representation Guide Book. In a grievance hearing, a member who is a manager whose decision gave rise to the grievance, cannot expect representation when they simply carry out their functions as a Manager. So why does the Branch Secretary refuse a request to represent his TU Rep? Unison ask the Rep to attend a meeting with the Branch Secretary and Unisons Area manager. Why is Unisons area Organiser called into this dispute? Why is the Grievance not handled locally and what's the real reason for the Branch Secretary's refusal to assist a TU Rep? The Branch Secretary makes his excuses and leaves the meeting. Was the Branch Secretary distancing himself from what the Rep was about to be told because he is an employee of the Council? He was the one told about the threat. Would a threat still have been issued if Geoff Hughes hadn't handed the Grievance to the Senior Manager but instead followed the correct procedure? Did the Senior Manager after being handed the Grievance issue a threat to Unison? The Area Manager informs the TU Rep that in response to the Grievance, the Branch Secretary has been told that if the Unison Rep doesn't drop the Grievance against the Senior Manager they will look for all the information they can find to threaten their employment and even if there is nothing to find they will make it up! How would Herefordshire Council find evidence about an employee to threaten their employment? Start searching through their emails, as a TU Rep the systems would contain emails from Union members. Would they invoke Ripa and start following the Rep and record their movements? If there's nothing to find what sort of fabricated evidence would they create? How far would they go? It would need to be gross misconduct to threaten employment. Would Herefordshire Council really fabricate gross misconduct charges? The TU Rep agrees under protest but only when told that Unison will insist that any threat against its TU Rep is withdrawn stating Unison will not tolerate a TU Rep being threatened. Why does a Unison Area Organiser persuade a member of staff who is a TU Rep to drop a legitimate complaint against a Senior Manager? If a threat of this nature is made against a TU Rep and Unison back down are they really serving the best interests of their members and would a threat of this nature be a threat against the Union as a whole? A meeting is held with a Senior Manager from the Council but there is no mention of the threat which surprises the TU Rep. During the meeting, Unisons Area Manager advises Herefordshire Council that 'Unison' will be lodging an ET1 with Acas to safeguard the TU Reps position in case the issues remain unresolved. Why is there no request to withdraw the threat against the TU Rep? Why did the Area Organiser inform the Senior Manager at that meeting that Unison would be lodging the complaint with Acas? The TU rep lodges the Complaint with Acas. The actions discussed at the meeting are confirmed via email. Why did the Area Organiser not question the list of Actions from the meeting when he received them? They clearly state 'Unison' will be lodging a complaint through Acas. Was it all part of some elaborate plan? UNISON then distance themselves from the complaint and deny any knowledge of the threat against the rep. They ignore requests, to participate in a tribunal. Why did Unison inform Senior Managers they would be lodging a complaint with Acas for the Victimisation of a TU Rep and then deny knowledge of the threat? Did Senior Managers make the threat or not? A complaint is lodged with Unison and copied to Dave Prentice and Lucia McKeever. Unison attack the Rep and find no case to answer. Unison do not ask the TU rep for any information or speak with them prior to finding no case to answer. Why do Dave Prentice and Lucia McKeever appear to be sanctioning this appalling behaviour by their inaction? Why did investigating officers fail to speak to the Rep before completing the investigation? The TU Rep informs Unison the meeting was taped and asks why the investigation was completed without asking for any evidence or asking any questions. The email responses from the investigating officers are aggressive and accusatory. Why did investigating officers not speak to the TU Rep prior to making a decision on the complaint? More importantly why were they attacking the Rep in email correspondence? The TU rep then made a complaint to Members Services about the inappropriate way the complaint is investigated. Members Service refuse to investigate until they receive copies of the tapes. Why won't members services investigate why the original officers failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation? The complaint to members services is about a failure to investigate the original complaint, are copies of tapes necessary to ascertain why the investigation into the original complaint wasn't completed appropriately? Are they back tracking here and missing the point? Members services request copies of the tapes. The Rep explains they are part of Tribunal proceedings and can not be disclosed until after the hearing. The complaint to members service is about the conduct of the investigating officers why do they need evidence of the original complaint before they can ascertain if those officers acted inappropriately when investigating the original complaint? Members services refuse to investigate the two officers responsible for the haphazard investigation. Why are Members Services condoning the unprofessional behaviour of their officers? TU rep requests refund of Union fees because Unison not only failed to appropriately represent the member but they also perpetuated and frustrated the entire situation. Remunaration of the Tribunal Fee is also requested since it was Unison who stated they would be lodging the complaint. If the TU Rep was refused appropriate representation for which their monthly subscription should cover why are Unison ignoring requests to return those monthly fees and the cost for lodging the ET1? Request ignored. Why are Unison behaving as if they are paid by the employer? Case closed! Should Herefordshire Council investigate the behaviour of its officers and find out if one or more of its officers was threatening an employee to abandon their employment rights? Is the behaviour of Council Senior Officers of Public interest? The Public fund their wages, would they condone this type of behaviour from Senior Managers in positions of power? If their Officers are innocent wouldn't they want an investigation to show that? Finally what response or actions would the public expect from Herefordshire Councils Senior officers who knew about the threat? For example Bill Norman, Council Leader Anthony Johnson or the Chief Executive Alistair Neil? How difficult it is to speak with Jesse Norman your local MP? What part do Herefordshire Council play in this saga?
×
×
  • Create New...