The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 189 Haverhill Fire Engine

The Fire Brigades Union
No. 10 Region

Reply to:
Lowestoft Fire Station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

24th May 1999

Dear Mr Blizzard,

I write with reference to our meeting 22.05.99.

As you may recall I voiced various concerns relating to the management of discipline within the Suffolk Fire Service. The concerns were of both general and individual interest. Overall several issues were outlined which I suggested might merit your attention for their effect on myself and the other members I serve as FBU branch secretary at Lowestoft Fire Station. For this reason and to assist you to pursue the matter further, through the normal channels, the key concerns centre upon:

Senior Fire service Officers have by fact acted unlawfully of late. At the same time it appears the same officers or at least some of them are acting contrary to the discipline regulations. The three letters supplied to you 22nd May 1999, for consideration, inform of such matters.

In the period beyond mid 1998 there has been a large rise in the investigations carried out under the Fire service (Discipline) regulations in Suffolk. It is a fact the Home Office Inspectorate reported eight investigations in 1996. Suddenly and for no explicable reason there has been a large rise in such cases. I myself know the figure for 1998 is in excess of 20 investigations. You may wish to clarify this with the local authority and ask why there has been such a large rise.

In explaining point two it is my belief that the operation of procedures, for discipline, in Suffolk are not currently being applied in an appropriate manner. It appears the full weight of formal discipline is being used as a first resort rather than a normal last resort measure. As such all sense of proportionality has been lost of late with formal discipline being applied across the board for both trivial and serious matters. As recognised Home Office guidance state,

‘When determining the disciplinary action to be taken, officers or, Junior Officers should bear in mind the need to satisfy the test of reasonableness in light of the circumstance.’

In essence formal discipline should be reserved for misdemeanours of a reasonably serious nature, and most definitely not for day to day minor management problems.

I am convinced the Suffolk Fire Service are contrary to the above. This I base on my own experiences and the inexplicable rise in discipline investigations noted above.

My personal interest, to which I refer above, has been stimulated by the fact that I myself now find I am charged with Conduct Prejudicial to discipline. Indeed, what makes this all the more distressing is the fact that the contravention I am alleged to have committed is of minor significance. Worse still the relevant events to which it is linked involve unlawful action by senior officers, to which liability has been admitted during the process of a Legal summons (HYDE v ALCOCK LO 9000306). To date none of the Officers implicated have been brought to book on this matter and I am unaware of any discipline investigation into it. For myself, I remain the subject of discipline proceedings to which I now find I am being denied fair process and roller-coasted to a swift conclusion via a summary hearing without access to any appeal mechanism. Perhaps the most blatant abuse of fair process is the denial by management of the witnesses I have requested for my defence.

Having given consideration to the matters we discussed last Saturday I hope this summary will be of use for your further inquiries in dealing with my concerns. Once more I thank you for your valuable time taken to meet me at your weekly surgery. I look forward to hearing from you and meeting you at your convenience in the future.

Many Thanks

Mr M. Hyde