The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 133 Suffolk FBU Press Release
CDJ/FBU/F98/60224
Mr S A Smith
Deputy Chief Fire Officer
Suffolk Fire Service
Fire Service headquarters
Colchester Road
Ipswich
Suffolk IP4 4SS
By Post only
22nd April, 1999
Dear Mr Alcock,
FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL HYDE
YOUR REFERENCE: LMH/SMM/HQ10
It is with despair that I find my self once again embroiled in correspondence with the Suffolk Fire service over the treatment of a representative of the Fire Brigades Union.
I am instructed by the above named who is employed in the Suffolk Fire service. Mr Hyde has been charged with conduct prejudicial to the discipline of the brigade under the Fire Services (discipline) Regulations 1985. Initially, I intended to write to the Chief Fire Officer but I have seen your letter of 16th April 1999 and in light of its comments have decided not to do that out of courtesy. However, I do not consider that the Chief Fire officer is in a position to hear the charges in any event. Much of the correspondence relating to the grievance has been addressed to him and therefore he cannot approach the matter with the impartiality which your letter of 16th April 1999 quite rightly stresses.
Mr Hyde has been charged for conduct prejudicial to the discipline of the Brigade in that he failing to relinquish his temporary promotion and to revert to his substantive rank when ordered to do so by Assistant Divisional Officer Fuller and by Sub Officer Tiffen. You may be familiar with the background but I fear that this letter may end up being shown to various decision making bodies and therefore I shall set out the facts for completeness:
On 25th September 1998, Assistant Divisional Officer Fuller sent to Mr Hyde a memorandum telling him that he was temporarily promoted from Sunday 27th September until such time as Leading Fire-fighter Brown returned from sickness. Mr hyde agreed to this temporay promotion on the basis that it would be his until the return of Leading Fire-fighter Brown. On Tuesday 19th January 1999, Assistant divisional Officer Sward spoke to Fire-fighter Hyde, telling him that other Fire-fighters had now returned to duty and were going to receive the temporary promotion instead and therefore Fire- fighter Hyde would revert to his rank as of 1st February 1999. Fire-fighter Hyde took exception to this because he had understood that he would retain the temporary promotion until such time as Leading Fire-fighter Brown returned to duties. On 20th January, ADO Saward sent written confirmation to Fire-fighter Hyde of the discussion on the previous day. In response on 29th January 1999, Fire-fighter Hyde lodged a grievance under the Suffolk County Council Grievance Procedure. This grievance was acknowledged by ADO Saward on 29th January 1999. I was of course able to hear your evidence at the recent hearing of Sub-Officer Wigglesworth’s case and I recall that you explained clearly to the members of the tribunal on that occasion that by invoking the grievance procedure, the status quo as it was put was preserved pending the resolution of the grievance. I now have the benefit of seeing a copy of the grievance procedure itself and I see that on page 4, paragraph 12 the evidence that you gave is quite correct. It is surprising therefore that ADO Saward refused to observe this provision. Two senior officers, ADO Saward and Divisional Officer Hodge seem to be either unaware of this provision or alternatively are willing to show wholesale disregard for its contents. This will no doubt be of concern to you because as you are aware from Sub-officer Wigglesworth’s recent case, the decision to unlawfully deduct wages was the subject of a grievance which was stayed pending the disciplinary process but again, although the grievance was lodged on or around 4th June 1998, the wages were still deducted at the end of that month. Again, the status quo provision in the grievance procedure was totally disregarded. The procedures are stated at page 1, paragraph 5 of the procedure booklet to be part of an employee’s contract and I consider that the failure to observe the status quo provision is in fact a breach of an employee’s contract.
The grievance (at stage 4.1.1) was not resolved by ADO Saward and so went up to DO Hodge (stage 4.1.6) who was also unable to resolve it. It seems that ADO Saward took advice from someone regarding the status quo provision of the grievance procedure although it is not clear in the paperwork who that third party was. I must confess that I disagree with that third party and DO Hodge. Under the terms of his contract, Firefighter Hyde is entitled to the status quo prior to the registration of the grievance being preserved. The status quo was that he was a temporary Leading Fire-fighter. Failure to preserve that was a breach of contract and was therefore unlawful.
The grievance then went to the Chief Fire Officer (stage 4.1.10) by way of a request by facsimile on 20th February which was replied to no 22nd February 1999. The Chief Fire Officer had referred the matter to yourself presumably to set up a meeting. On 28th February, Mr Hyde had not heard of a date for a meeting with the Chief Fire Officer and so, relying on paragraph 4.1.15 asked for the grievance to proceed to stage 4.1.12 – complaint to the Appeals Panel of members drawn from the Personnel Sub Committee and the Environment and Protection Committee. On the following day, 1st march 1999, the Brigade sent out a letter under Regulation 7 of the Fire services (discipline) Regulations 1985 telling Mr Hyde that he was under investigation for his refusal to revert to his substantive rank. This is the second time that I have seen Suffolk Fire Service react to a grievance by use of the Discipline regulations. On that same day Mr Hyde was contacted by your secretary, Sigi Schwabe with a view to arranging a date for the grievance to be heard by yourself. Nothing further was heard so on 5th March 1999, Mr Hyde began proceedings against Mr Alcock in his capacity as Chief Fire Officer for the Brigade in the County court for damages for breach of contract because he was unable to proceed with his grievance. No doubt he had in mind the experience of Sub Officer Wigglesworth who, having lodged a grievance the subject of which later became the subject of discipline proceedings, found that his grievance was stayed while the Brigade got on with the job of disciplining him.
On 6th March 1999, Firefighter Hyde wrote to Lynn Homer the Chief Executive complaining that the grievance procedure seemed to be going nowhere and asking her to intervene.
On 9th March, your secretary wrote to Fire-fighter hyde saying that you could not make the dates put forward and offering new dates from mid April onwards.
On 18th March, the County Secretary and Solicitor wrote to Mr Hyde conceding that he was entitled to 90 days notice of the termination of the contract for the temporary promotion. This is important because it establishes that the order given verbally by ADO Saward on 19yth January and confirmed in writing on 20th January was indeed in breach of the contract and was unlawful. That being so, Fire-fighter Hyde is now being disciplined for failing to obey an unlawful order.
On 19th March, you wrote to Firefighter Hyde suggesting that because he had put forward dates as late as 31st march he had agreed to vary the time limits contained within the grievance procedure. I disagree. Paragraph 4.1.15 imposes a time limit of 7 days for dealing with the grievance at any stage. Fire-fighter Hyde requested the next stage of the grievance on 20th February and was told you were dealing with it. Dates were suggested by Fire-fighter Hyde on 1st March 1999 but by 6th March, 14 days after the grievance was lodged no date had been set he enquired why the next stage of the grievance had been effected. In any event, the next stage had been proceeded to on 28th February, before your secretary had contacted fire-fighter Hyde so effectively, your involvement in the grievance procedure was over at that stage.
The other point in your letter is that the County Solicitors department has dealt with Firefighter Hyde’s County Court Summons. This is not correct. The Department has conceded that the money is owed but have paid Fire-fighter Hyde nothing. The claim is no more dealt with than it was when the grievance was first lodged. I have written to the County Solicitors department about this today.
On 8th April, the Chief Executive wrote to Fire-fighter Hyde having been informed by the Chief Fire Officer that you were dealing with the grievance. I am surprised that this has happened as Fire-fighter Hyde is now contractually entitled to have his grievance heard by the Appeal Panel. Accordingly, I have written to Ms Homer of the Chief Executive today about this.
The final and most disappointing aspect to this sequence of events occurred while Fire-fighter Hyde, in his capacity of a Fire Brigades Union representative was in attendance at the Discipline Hearing for Sub Officer Wigglesworth. In the morning, Fire-fighter Hyde was served with the discipline charge papers although quite why that could not wait until a more appropriate time is beyond me. fire-fighter Hyde tells me that over a lunch break, the papers relating to his case which he had with him had been tampered with and removed from his file. I understand that a complaint about this has been forwarded to the Chief Executive of the Council and also to the Chief Fire Officer.
It is quite clear that the council accepts that the failure by ADO Saward to give Fire-fighter Hyde 90 days’ notice of the termination of the temporary promotion was a breach of contract and therefore renders the order unlawful. To discipline Fire-fighter Hyde in these circumstances is quite wrong and I invite you to withdraw the charges against Fire-fighter Hyde. If one looks at all the events, it is easy to see numerous disciplinary offences. ADO Saward has given an unlawful order and has refused to allow Fire-fighter Hyde his contractual right to have the status quo preserved pending the determination of the grievance – conduct prejudicial to the reputation of the Brigade. Divisional Officer Hodge has repeated the failure to allow Fire-fighter Hyde’s contractual right to have the status quo preserved pending the determination of the grievance - conduct prejudicial to the reputation of the Brigade. The Chief himself has failed to respond in time to Fire- fighter Hyde’s grievance – neglect of duty and similarly because the Chief Fire Officer has asked you to deal with the matter for him, you yourself have failed to respond in time to the grievance – neglect of duty. I have seen rank and file fire-fighters disciplined for far less than some of the above examples. I cannot see any lawful justification for the different treatment and can only conclude that the reason why Fire-fighter Hyde is being so treated is because of his status as a representative and active member of the fire Brigades Union.
I do apologise for the length of this letter but for completeness, I though it was important to include full summary of the facts.
Please tell me what you intend to do.
Yours sincerely
Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS
Mr Hyde has been charged for conduct prejudicial to the discipline of the Brigade in that he failing to relinquish his temporary promotion and to revert to his substantive rank when ordered to do so by Assistant Divisional Officer Fuller and by Sub Officer Tiffen. You may be familiar with the background but I fear that this letter may end up being shown to various decision making bodies and therefore I shall set out the facts for completeness:
On 25th September 1998, Assistant Divisional Officer Fuller sent to Mr Hyde a memorandum telling him that he was temporarily promoted from Sunday 27th September until such time as Leading Fire-fighter Brown returned from sickness. Mr hyde agreed to this temporay promotion on the basis that it would be his until the return of Leading Fire-fighter Brown. On Tuesday 19th January 1999, Assistant divisional Officer Sward spoke to Fire-fighter Hyde, telling him that other Fire-fighters had now returned to duty and were going to receive the temporary promotion instead and therefore Fire- fighter Hyde would revert to his rank as of 1st February 1999. Fire-fighter Hyde took exception to this because he had understood that he would retain the temporary promotion until such time as Leading Fire-fighter Brown returned to duties. On 20th January, ADO Saward sent written confirmation to Fire-fighter Hyde of the discussion on the previous day. In response on 29th January 1999, Fire-fighter Hyde lodged a grievance under the Suffolk County Council Grievance Procedure. This grievance was acknowledged by ADO Saward on 29th January 1999. I was of course able to hear your evidence at the recent hearing of Sub-Officer Wigglesworth’s case and I recall that you explained clearly to the members of the tribunal on that occasion that by invoking the grievance procedure, the status quo as it was put was preserved pending the resolution of the grievance. I now have the benefit of seeing a copy of the grievance procedure itself and I see that on page 4, paragraph 12 the evidence that you gave is quite correct. It is surprising therefore that ADO Saward refused to observe this provision. Two senior officers, ADO Saward and Divisional Officer Hodge seem to be either unaware of this provision or alternatively are willing to show wholesale disregard for its contents. This will no doubt be of concern to you because as you are aware from Sub-officer Wigglesworth’s recent case, the decision to unlawfully deduct wages was the subject of a grievance which was stayed pending the disciplinary process but again, although the grievance was lodged on or around 4th June 1998, the wages were still deducted at the end of that month. Again, the status quo provision in the grievance procedure was totally disregarded. The procedures are stated at page 1, paragraph 5 of the procedure booklet to be part of an employee’s contract and I consider that the failure to observe the status quo provision is in fact a breach of an employee’s contract.
The grievance (at stage 4.1.1) was not resolved by ADO Saward and so went up to DO Hodge (stage 4.1.6) who was also unable to resolve it. It seems that ADO Saward took advice from someone regarding the status quo provision of the grievance procedure although it is not clear in the paperwork who that third party was. I must confess that I disagree with that third party and DO Hodge. Under the terms of his contract, Firefighter Hyde is entitled to the status quo prior to the registration of the grievance being preserved. The status quo was that he was a temporary Leading Fire-fighter. Failure to preserve that was a breach of contract and was therefore unlawful.
The grievance then went to the Chief Fire Officer (stage 4.1.10) by way of a request by facsimile on 20th February which was replied to no 22nd February 1999. The Chief Fire Officer had referred the matter to yourself presumably to set up a meeting. On 28th February, Mr Hyde had not heard of a date for a meeting with the Chief Fire Officer and so, relying on paragraph 4.1.15 asked for the grievance to proceed to stage 4.1.12 – complaint to the Appeals Panel of members drawn from the Personnel Sub Committee and the Environment and Protection Committee. On the following day, 1st march 1999, the Brigade sent out a letter under Regulation 7 of the Fire services (discipline) Regulations 1985 telling Mr Hyde that he was under investigation for his refusal to revert to his substantive rank. This is the second time that I have seen Suffolk Fire Service react to a grievance by use of the Discipline regulations. On that same day Mr Hyde was contacted by your secretary, Sigi Schwabe with a view to arranging a date for the grievance to be heard by yourself. Nothing further was heard so on 5th March 1999, Mr Hyde began proceedings against Mr Alcock in his capacity as Chief Fire Officer for the Brigade in the County court for damages for breach of contract because he was unable to proceed with his grievance. No doubt he had in mind the experience of Sub Officer Wigglesworth who, having lodged a grievance the subject of which later became the subject of discipline proceedings, found that his grievance was stayed while the Brigade got on with the job of disciplining him.
On 6th March 1999, Firefighter Hyde wrote to Lynn Homer the Chief Executive complaining that the grievance procedure seemed to be going nowhere and asking her to intervene.
On 9th March, your secretary wrote to Fire-fighter hyde saying that you could not make the dates put forward and offering new dates from mid April onwards.
On 18th March, the County Secretary and Solicitor wrote to Mr Hyde conceding that he was entitled to 90 days notice of the termination of the contract for the temporary promotion. This is important because it establishes that the order given verbally by ADO Saward on 19yth January and confirmed in writing on 20th January was indeed in breach of the contract and was unlawful. That being so, Fire-fighter Hyde is now being disciplined for failing to obey an unlawful order.
On 19th March, you wrote to Firefighter Hyde suggesting that because he had put forward dates as late as 31st march he had agreed to vary the time limits contained within the grievance procedure. I disagree. Paragraph 4.1.15 imposes a time limit of 7 days for dealing with the grievance at any stage. Fire-fighter Hyde requested the next stage of the grievance on 20th February and was told you were dealing with it. Dates were suggested by Fire-fighter Hyde on 1st March 1999 but by 6th March, 14 days after the grievance was lodged no date had been set he enquired why the next stage of the grievance had been effected. In any event, the next stage had been proceeded to on 28th February, before your secretary had contacted fire-fighter Hyde so effectively, your involvement in the grievance procedure was over at that stage.
The other point in your letter is that the County Solicitors department has dealt with Firefighter Hyde’s County Court Summons. This is not correct. The Department has conceded that the money is owed but have paid Fire-fighter Hyde nothing. The claim is no more dealt with than it was when the grievance was first lodged. I have written to the County Solicitors department about this today.
On 8th April, the Chief Executive wrote to Fire-fighter Hyde having been informed by the Chief Fire Officer that you were dealing with the grievance. I am surprised that this has happened as Fire-fighter Hyde is now contractually entitled to have his grievance heard by the Appeal Panel. Accordingly, I have written to Ms Homer of the Chief Executive today about this.
The final and most disappointing aspect to this sequence of events occurred while Fire-fighter Hyde, in his capacity of a Fire Brigades Union representative was in attendance at the Discipline Hearing for Sub Officer Wigglesworth. In the morning, Fire-fighter Hyde was served with the discipline charge papers although quite why that could not wait until a more appropriate time is beyond me. fire-fighter Hyde tells me that over a lunch break, the papers relating to his case which he had with him had been tampered with and removed from his file. I understand that a complaint about this has been forwarded to the Chief Executive of the Council and also to the Chief Fire Officer.
It is quite clear that the council accepts that the failure by ADO Saward to give Fire-fighter Hyde 90 days’ notice of the termination of the temporary promotion was a breach of contract and therefore renders the order unlawful. To discipline Fire-fighter Hyde in these circumstances is quite wrong and I invite you to withdraw the charges against Fire-fighter Hyde. If one looks at all the events, it is easy to see numerous disciplinary offences. ADO Saward has given an unlawful order and has refused to allow Fire-fighter Hyde his contractual right to have the status quo preserved pending the determination of the grievance – conduct prejudicial to the reputation of the Brigade. Divisional Officer Hodge has repeated the failure to allow Fire-fighter Hyde’s contractual right to have the status quo preserved pending the determination of the grievance - conduct prejudicial to the reputation of the Brigade. The Chief himself has failed to respond in time to Fire- fighter Hyde’s grievance – neglect of duty and similarly because the Chief Fire Officer has asked you to deal with the matter for him, you yourself have failed to respond in time to the grievance – neglect of duty. I have seen rank and file fire-fighters disciplined for far less than some of the above examples. I cannot see any lawful justification for the different treatment and can only conclude that the reason why Fire-fighter Hyde is being so treated is because of his status as a representative and active member of the fire Brigades Union.
I do apologise for the length of this letter but for completeness, I though it was important to include full summary of the facts.
Please tell me what you intend to do.
Yours sincerely
Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS
posted by Bert Blythburgh @ 12:58 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home