The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 293 Ipswich Fire Station Disposal of Surplus Fire Equipment

For more Suffuck Fire Service tales take your pick from:
Sunrise County Masons (blogomonster), http://www.blogomonster.com/blog/sunrise_county_masons
Swift to serve (my blogvoice) http://swifttoserve.myblogvoice.com/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Msn spaces) http://spaces.msn.com/members/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Blogspot) http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Msn groups) http://groups.msn.com/TheSuffolkHydeAffair
Suffolk Fire Bandits (egoweblog) http://bertblythburgh.egoweblog.com/
Suffolk Fire Society http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/
The Suffolk Fire tree http://thesuffolkfiretree.blogster.com/
Beccles Fire Station (bloghi)http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com/
The Suffolk Fire Experience (Blogspot) http://thesuffolkfireexperience.blogspot.com/
Suffolk Crucial Crew (newblog) http://users.newblog.com/bert_blythburgh/
Suffolk Firefighter (Blog UK) http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk
Bungay Fire Station (ebloggy) http://bungayfirestation.ebloggy.com/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/



Tuesday 20th July 1999
SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 4SS

HEARING DAY!
A full Report coming to this site soon

SWIFT TO SERVE
Brigade motto

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 292 FBU report on CPD payments

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out Beccles Fire Station "SubO X”
http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/



SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE


ACFO Technical
Brigade Headquarters
Ipswich
Extension: 8939

To: Sub Officer A. D. Wigglesworth

Cc: File

Date: 16 July 1999

FBU Representation, Mr. M. Hyde – Summary hearing 20 July 1999

Further to your enquiry of the Personnel Department regarding overtime payment for the hearing next week, I am writing to set out my understanding of your entitlement.

You will be a duty on behalf of the Fire Brigades’ Union, not the brigade. I have checked the documentation, and can confirm that, unlike the accused himself and the witnesses, you have not been ordered to attend the hearing. My view is that you have been chosen by Mr. Hyde to attend in an official capacity as a fire Brigades’ Union accused friend. Correspondence between us makes it clear that you have accepted his request.

This being so, I can see no reason to view this duty as in any way different to other Union duties you might perform. I am happy to grant you paid leave of absence from your workplace for the perfomance of these duties, but there is no obligation on the part of the fire authority to make any extra payment or time off in lieu arrangements for those periods outside the normal working day. General Order AA19 (paragraphs 4.2.1, 4.2.2 (ii) and 4.2.3) seems to be quite clear on the issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, the hearing scheduled for next Tuesday can, and will, go ahead in your absence should you decide you are not prepared to represent Mr. Hyde. I would strongly urge you, however, to consider your position, and that of Mr. Hyde, very carefully. I will not allow this affair to be further frustrated over this issue, not least because it is in the best interests of Mr. Hyde himself that it is resolved without further delay.


K. E. Seager
ACFO (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 291 Merseyside Firefighter Strike Latest News

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out Beccles Fire Station "SubO X”
http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/



Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Fire safety Department, Normanston Drive, Lowestoft
Facsimile Transmission Covering Letter

To: NAME Sub Officer A.D. Wigglesworth
COMPANY Training. Normanshurst
FAX NO. 01----/7053469

FROM: NAME ACFO Seager
DATE 16-7-99
FAX NO. 01473 588998

Instructions

Please see attached memorandum which addresses your queries to Jo Campbell about time off in lieu for hearing next week.

Please raise further queries with me. Not with personnel.

Thanks
K Seager ACFO

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 290 Cleveland Firefighter Strike Dates August 2006

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out The Suffolk Fire Society at http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/


For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: StnO Rolfe
From: Ff Wigglesworth
Station: 055
Date: 15th July 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to represent Firefighter M Hyde at his discipline case beginning 20th July 1999. This is to be staged at Ipswich.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

Granted KWR StnO

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 289 Teeside Fire Strike Latest News

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Fire Station 999” http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft Fire Station
P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA
GDS/SIS/DISC
DO G Smith
(01473) 588861
15th July 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

I acknowledge receipt on 14th July 1999 of a further bundle of documents sent to me in the internal mail. As before, I have secured this second bundle of documents in my office.

As you were not prepared to discuss with me on the telephone, on the 12th July, how long you are anticipating your contributions at the hearing are likely to take, I would take this opportunity to remind you that at present only one day (20th July 1999) has been allocated. For your information, I do not anticipate my own examination of the Brigade’s witnesses to be lengthy.

Your own documents copied to me now exceed two hundred. Obviously I cannot predict whether you will be submitting all of these documents and will leave it to you to consider the length of time you may need at the hearing.



Yours sincerely



G D Smith
Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 288 Hertfordshire Firefighter Strike FBU Media Briefing

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”
http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/


12th July 1999

During the morning Sub Officer received a telephone call at Lowestoft Fire Station. The caller was Divisional Officer Graham Smith who wanted to discuss matters privileged to the defence team of Firefighter Hyde ahead of the hearing planned for 20th July 1999.

In particular, DO Smith was very blunt and keen to discuss the line of questioning that Sub Officer Wigglesworth intended to pursue. The latter politely advised DO Smith that he could not engage in the discussion of matters privileged solely to the defence.

Sub Officer Wigglesworth also suggested that DO Smith’s behaviour was inappropriate and abuse of authority. The matters he wished to pursue were beyond his remit and solely of interest and authority for the nominated presiding officer. At that point DO Smith abruptly, and with the usual and typical brand of name-calling ended the conversation.

For Sub Officer Wigglesworth this was not the first experience of DO Smith seeking to obtain information privileged to the defence in a Suffolk Fire Service discipline case. Much the same had been tried out by DO Smith in the Firefighter Faiers hearing some time earlier.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 287 Suffolk Firefighter Kit for Sale

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”
http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr C Hayward
Brigade Secretary
Suffolk FBU
Ipswich
Suffolk
LMH/CEH/HQ.10
9th July 1999



Dear Mr Hayward,

RE: FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS

I’m sorry I didn’t take the opportunity to discuss your letter dated 15th June when we met last week. It might have been easier to have had a chat face to face. I don’t think there is any value in being drawn into a lengthy exchange of correspondence on this issue. I will therefore, deal briefly with the main points in your letter.

I’m afraid that I don’t accept your view that any complaint must be referred for investigation. It is quite clear that a preliminary view must be taken before referring the matter for investigation. I have reached the view after interviewing CFO Alcock and DCFO Smith that there does not appear to be a matter requiring investigation. You say that Mr Seager carried out an investigation under the procedures into allegations against ADO Saward and DO Hodge. I have checked this point with him and he has confirmed that he merely carried out a preliminary investigation in the same way as I have. His letter to you 1 June confirms this.

From my preliminary inquiries I have been unable to verify your argument that MR smith gave evidence which he did not believe to be true. He was not giving evidence of fact; he was (in response to a question) giving an opinion, which subsequently ( in another case) after receiving legal advice he considered was not the correct view.

You appear to have misunderstood my point about the disciplinary charges in Mr Wigglesworth’s case, meaning that his grievance would be held in abeyance. I merely meant that once a charge had been laid it would be inappropriate to consider the grievance until the charge had been dealt with. This had nothing to do with the “status quo” provision.

I do not believe that the rules for principal officers should be different to the rules for lower ranks, whether FBU members or not, and I do not believe they have been in this case. It is noted that ADO Saward and DO Hodge were treated exactly the same as CFO Alcock and DCFO smith. I am advised that in several cases involving lower ranks where a preliminary investigation has indicated that an offence has not been committed the matter is not referred for formal investigation under the Regulations.

Yours sincerely

Lin Homer

Chief Executive