Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Another tribunal decision goes against the council. Another employee sacked unfairly. Another officer is damned. When will R+CBC be investigated?

Yesterday the story of record damages for an unfairly dismissed council worker hit the press.


This was the case of Community Warden Paul Whittaker, who was unfairly dismissed by the council and who also failed to be re-instated by them despite being told to do so, by the tribunal. This was the tribunal that saw Senior Officer Simon Dale, a public servant on over £100,000 pa, being basically called a liar by the tribunal and found to have brought our council into disrepute.

This was the officer who, had his friend and councillor Dave McCluckie, defend him in the press after his shocking behaviour.

This was the officer who attempted to dupe the council when he pleaded for his job to the Labour group in the council, by providing them with information taken from just 20 pages of over a 40 page employment tribunal report. For some reason, he somehow failed to produce to the assembled Labour Group, the pages which showed how disgracefully he had behaved?

This was the man who the council had insisted HAD been caught on CCTV, doing the things that the council had claimed he had done, to result in him being sacked. Things that strangely, the police themselves didnt see on that same CCTV footage?

It makes me laugh when these people who are attempting to defend Simon Dale, a man who isnt fit to hold his position in our council and be paid literally thousands of pounds of our money, now say that they are taking no further action basically because the cost of them appealing would be too great.

They weren't saying this when they kept on appealing against the tribunal decision which went in Pauline Scanlons favour did they? Another ordinary council employee who was unfairly dismissed by this council.

It doesn't make any sense? There they were having no case against Pauline Scanlon at all, losing every appeal they launched against the tribunals decision and wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money in the process, yet here they are apparantly claiming to have CCTV footage of Paul Whittaker doing the things that the council claim he was sacked for and damning him in the process and yet they are deciding to not take the case any further because they cannot justify spending the sums of money it would require to do so?

It doesn't make any sense because once again, they are not telling the truth.

If they had the evidence against Mr Whittaker and such great grounds for an appeal as Cllr Scott states, then they would have pursued him to the last. After all, they hounded Pauline Scanlon and they had no grounds at all!

But I suppose that they had to do that, they had no choice. Because if they had not appealled so many times, then the tribunal decsion which showed that the now ex- Chief Executive Colin Moore and the now ex- finance officer Ray Richardson, had been found by that tribunal of changing their evidence overnight, being deliberately disingenuous, bullying and intimidation and sharp practise would have stood and the council, who for some reason wanted to protect these two excuses for council officers, couldnt have had that whilst Moore and Richardson were still in the councils employment receiving massive payrises and giving themselves, under delegated authority, little perks like eight extra paid days holiday which was worth around £3000 in some cases and not brought before the council until AFTER they had taken the extra days holiday!.

Once again, individuals within our council, are trying to close ranks with each other in order to protect each other. They know that once again, they have been caught bang to rights and so it is better and far wiser to just make an excuse up for not proceeding any further and in turn let it all die down..

When Cllrs are protecting officers who have been found to have lied and who have been found to have brought the council into disrepute, then once again, you have to ask yourself why?

Heres the release which shows exactly what the solicitors representing Paul Whittaker said as opposed to the Gazette article which for some reason, stopped just before their damning condemnation of the council?


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?