Saturday, November 03, 2007
Sack Simon Dale Now
Here is an extract from a tribunal decision regarding a community warden from Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council ( Whittaker v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council case number 2500117/06), who was unfairly dismissed by the council after an incident in Eston involving a bike being placed into some bushes by a community warden after a youth that had been riding around on it threw it in the direction of the community wardens.
The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that the warden was unfairly dismissed and that he should be reinstated.
THIS COUNCIL HAS REFUSED TO REINSTATE THIS INNOCENT MAN. But most damning of all is the tribunal report, part of which (the tribunals conclusion) I have copied word for word below.
CONCLUSIONS
10 "The evidence offered by the respondent in resistance of the claimants ( Community warden) application for reinstatement was given by Mr Simon Dale. Mr Dale unfortunately did NOT make a good impression on the tribunal.
Given that he was the only witness to be offered by the respondent (the council) and knowing the purpose of the hearing, either Mr Dale was reckless in not making appropriate and sufficient enquiries to enable him to deal with the issues before the tribunal, or he was being deliberately and intentionally evasive and unhelpful.
Mr Dale was unable to provide the Tribunal with essential information regarding the process of appointing Community Wardens. This is a process that HE AUTHORISED IN MARCH 2007 approximately a month before the tribunal hearing. Yet he was unable to give us any any definitive information on the process or the outcomes EVEN THOUGH HE MUST HAVE KNOWN (and certainly those advising him must have known) the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE of such information.
During the hearing Mr Dale clearly indicated that he did not agree with the Tribunals judgement and he made it clear that he would resist reinstating the claimant. Overall Mr Dales demeanour did not make a favourable impression. This was not helped by Mr Dale advancing opinions WHICH COMPLETELY LACKED COHERENCE BY REASON OF THEIR INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS. Thus it seems that on the same facts he would have complied with a decision of the councils own appeal Committee to reinstate the claimant, but clearly indicated that he would resist any such order from the Tribunal
Mr Dale maintained the claimants alleged guilt in respect of a series of matters which were not only in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the findings of the Tribunal, but were also INCONSISTENT with admissions in evidence on oath given by MR DALE HIMSELF. Viewed overall, M Dales performance as a witness was such that he WAS UTTERLY DISCREDITED AND THE TRIBUNAL BELIEVED VERY LITTLE OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.
11 What was quite apparent from the evidence was that there were some 10 posts of Community Wardens being advertised in March and interviews and appointments were made at some time at the end of March perhaps early April. We were not given the details of thos e appointments other than to know that they were all subject to criminal checks and taking up of references. Mr Dale conceded that this could take a month or more for these checks to be completed and it was a fact that applicants sometimes failed these checks and the offers of employment would be withdrawn. Although it was said that the appointment to these posts had to be accelerated because the council only gave approval at the beginning of March and they wanted people in post as soon as possible, there was on evidence of Mr Dale 10 posts to be filled. However, he did not hold a post back pending the hearing for the Tribunal In April because he said that he has received no instructions to do so. Who would give those instructions was not a matter that had been clarified. We do know that his superior officer in the Local Government hierarchy was the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. We know that he had discussed Mr Whittakers case with the Chief Executive and that they were both agreed that he, Mr Whittaker, had been guilty of gross misconduct. However, whether it was Mr Moore or some other person Mr Dale expected the instruction to come from, we were not told.
12 That decision could not have been Ms Langridge, the councils solicitor, because she had apparently been under the impression that there would be vacancies available at the tribunal hearing. Had she been informed Ms Langridge would have been under a duty to immediately inform the claimants representatives and the Tribunal of the change in position which she did not do so. The fact that the respondent did not tell Ms Langridge what it was doing can be the only explanation for the terms of Ms Langridge’s letter of March 13th confirming that vacancies for wardens currently existed and that there was no relevance in exploring matters relating to other vacancies. The only reasonable assumption to be drawn in these circumstances was that at the hearing in April such vacancies would be available for consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal were absolutely UNANIMOUS in regarding this as PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING. We were driven to the reluctant conclusion that the respondent (council) had DELIBERATELY set out to fill these vacancies before the Tribunal hearing in order to defeat a reinstatement order. Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the entire tenor of Mr Dales oral evidence to the tribunal. Equally, knowing the position it had knowingly created, the respondent made no proper attempt to deal with the issue of other potential vacancies. IT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO BEHAVE IN THIS MANNER"....
After reading that Tribunal conclusion there is just one thing to say. Sack the overpaid, incompetent, lying Simon Dale now before he drags our councils name down further.
This borough does not need to pay officers of his calibre. As council tax paying residents of this borough why should we pay him over £100,000 a year to lie and behave like he has and drag our council down into the shit like he has? Why should we pay him £100,000 a year plus, for him to be party in keeping an ordinary council employee out of as a job as a community warden when an employment tribunal had found him totally innocent and ordered that he be reinstated? If Dale had been an employee in the private sector and had brought the name of the company down at a tribunal as he has done in this instance, his feet wouldnt have touched the floor on the way out of the front door. Why do we have to tolerate such absolute mediocrity and lies being rewarded by being paid a huge salary that he does not deserve.
Sack him now!
The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that the warden was unfairly dismissed and that he should be reinstated.
THIS COUNCIL HAS REFUSED TO REINSTATE THIS INNOCENT MAN. But most damning of all is the tribunal report, part of which (the tribunals conclusion) I have copied word for word below.
CONCLUSIONS
10 "The evidence offered by the respondent in resistance of the claimants ( Community warden) application for reinstatement was given by Mr Simon Dale. Mr Dale unfortunately did NOT make a good impression on the tribunal.
Given that he was the only witness to be offered by the respondent (the council) and knowing the purpose of the hearing, either Mr Dale was reckless in not making appropriate and sufficient enquiries to enable him to deal with the issues before the tribunal, or he was being deliberately and intentionally evasive and unhelpful.
Mr Dale was unable to provide the Tribunal with essential information regarding the process of appointing Community Wardens. This is a process that HE AUTHORISED IN MARCH 2007 approximately a month before the tribunal hearing. Yet he was unable to give us any any definitive information on the process or the outcomes EVEN THOUGH HE MUST HAVE KNOWN (and certainly those advising him must have known) the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE of such information.
During the hearing Mr Dale clearly indicated that he did not agree with the Tribunals judgement and he made it clear that he would resist reinstating the claimant. Overall Mr Dales demeanour did not make a favourable impression. This was not helped by Mr Dale advancing opinions WHICH COMPLETELY LACKED COHERENCE BY REASON OF THEIR INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS. Thus it seems that on the same facts he would have complied with a decision of the councils own appeal Committee to reinstate the claimant, but clearly indicated that he would resist any such order from the Tribunal
Mr Dale maintained the claimants alleged guilt in respect of a series of matters which were not only in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the findings of the Tribunal, but were also INCONSISTENT with admissions in evidence on oath given by MR DALE HIMSELF. Viewed overall, M Dales performance as a witness was such that he WAS UTTERLY DISCREDITED AND THE TRIBUNAL BELIEVED VERY LITTLE OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.
11 What was quite apparent from the evidence was that there were some 10 posts of Community Wardens being advertised in March and interviews and appointments were made at some time at the end of March perhaps early April. We were not given the details of thos e appointments other than to know that they were all subject to criminal checks and taking up of references. Mr Dale conceded that this could take a month or more for these checks to be completed and it was a fact that applicants sometimes failed these checks and the offers of employment would be withdrawn. Although it was said that the appointment to these posts had to be accelerated because the council only gave approval at the beginning of March and they wanted people in post as soon as possible, there was on evidence of Mr Dale 10 posts to be filled. However, he did not hold a post back pending the hearing for the Tribunal In April because he said that he has received no instructions to do so. Who would give those instructions was not a matter that had been clarified. We do know that his superior officer in the Local Government hierarchy was the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. We know that he had discussed Mr Whittakers case with the Chief Executive and that they were both agreed that he, Mr Whittaker, had been guilty of gross misconduct. However, whether it was Mr Moore or some other person Mr Dale expected the instruction to come from, we were not told.
12 That decision could not have been Ms Langridge, the councils solicitor, because she had apparently been under the impression that there would be vacancies available at the tribunal hearing. Had she been informed Ms Langridge would have been under a duty to immediately inform the claimants representatives and the Tribunal of the change in position which she did not do so. The fact that the respondent did not tell Ms Langridge what it was doing can be the only explanation for the terms of Ms Langridge’s letter of March 13th confirming that vacancies for wardens currently existed and that there was no relevance in exploring matters relating to other vacancies. The only reasonable assumption to be drawn in these circumstances was that at the hearing in April such vacancies would be available for consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal were absolutely UNANIMOUS in regarding this as PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING. We were driven to the reluctant conclusion that the respondent (council) had DELIBERATELY set out to fill these vacancies before the Tribunal hearing in order to defeat a reinstatement order. Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the entire tenor of Mr Dales oral evidence to the tribunal. Equally, knowing the position it had knowingly created, the respondent made no proper attempt to deal with the issue of other potential vacancies. IT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO BEHAVE IN THIS MANNER"....
After reading that Tribunal conclusion there is just one thing to say. Sack the overpaid, incompetent, lying Simon Dale now before he drags our councils name down further.
This borough does not need to pay officers of his calibre. As council tax paying residents of this borough why should we pay him over £100,000 a year to lie and behave like he has and drag our council down into the shit like he has? Why should we pay him £100,000 a year plus, for him to be party in keeping an ordinary council employee out of as a job as a community warden when an employment tribunal had found him totally innocent and ordered that he be reinstated? If Dale had been an employee in the private sector and had brought the name of the company down at a tribunal as he has done in this instance, his feet wouldnt have touched the floor on the way out of the front door. Why do we have to tolerate such absolute mediocrity and lies being rewarded by being paid a huge salary that he does not deserve.
Sack him now!
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 11:12 AM 
