The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 227 Keith Hanscomb Fire Brigades Union

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Chris Hayward
55 Burrell Rd
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP2 8AH

15th June 1999

Mrs Lin Homer
Chief Executive
Suffolk County Council


Dear Mrs Homer,

Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985

Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 which I was disappointed to receive.

I agree that as the allegations relate to a principal officer and other officers, it is for the Fire Authority to nominate the investigating officer to investigate the matter if it appears that a member of a fire brigade may have committed an offence.

The letters are in my possession as a representative of the Fire Brigades Union. Mr Wigglesworth was present when the Deputy Chief Fire Officer gave evidence. Mr Wigglesworth is also the accused’s friend in Mr Hyde’s case. Where evidence is given by a principal officer which is directly contradicted by the same officer in later correspondence, it is perfectly proper for the matter to be raised through the employee’s trade union representative if the individual so wishes. To refuse to entertain such complaints is in my view a tactic designed to discriminate against members of the Fire Brigades Union and to discourage them from participating in the activities of the union.

I am unsure as to the relevance of the fact that the letter was drafted on the Deputy Chief Officer’s behalf by the County Secretary and Solicitor (re Doc 149*). The letter purports to be from and is signed by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer. It must then be taken to be his view. Surely he had some input into the letter writing? Surely he read it before he signed it? If not, then the letter should not have been held out as being written by him as to do so in such circumstances would be grossly misleading.

Whether Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith was giving evidence of facts or his opinions is neither here nor there. It is the case that at the disciplinary hearing, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith stated that a grievance has the effect of preserving the status quo. Subsequently, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith states entirely the opposite. That being so he clearly gave evidence which he did not believe to be true. The operation of the status quo provision in the grievance procedure is not qualified by the operation of other procedures. The Deputy Chief fire Officer’s letter makes it clear that he is of the view that the status quo is not preserved pending a grievance because to do so would mean that the Brigade must be run by consent. On that analysis, which is now mirrored by yours, because Mr Wigglesworth had been told that his wages would suffer a deduction, had he chosen to lodge a grievance rather than file a near miss, the grievance would not have meant that he could avoid the deduction as he had previously been informed that the deduction would be made.

The task of the fire authority is not to establish whether or not there appears to be a prima facie case. That is the task of the Investigating Officer at the completion of the investigation. With respect, the task of the fire Authority is to determine simply whether an offence may have been committed. The test was clearly satisfied in this case. The Deputy Chief Fire Officer has given two different descriptions of how the grievance procedure works. There may or may not be reasons for that discrepancy, but the fact remains that an offence against discipline may have been committed, and it now falls to be investigated in accordance with the regulations. You have quite obviously gone some way to carrying out a partial investigation yourself but such action is clearly inappropriate. Investigation should be carried out in accordance with the principles explained in Annex B of the guidance and you should have invited a principal officer of comparable rank from another Brigade to investigate the allegation. The reason for this is made patently clear in your letter. You seek to explain the fact that the grievance did not preserve the status quo on the ground that a disciplinary charge held the grievance in abeyance and therefore, presumably, also held the status quo provision in abeyance. Firstly, to charge an employee is an inventive and vindictive way of avoiding the status quo provision, but secondly, it is obviously not true. On 29th May 1998, Mr Wigglesworth was told about the intention to deduct pay from his wages at the end of June. He lodged a grievance on 4th June 1998. An allegation raising the possibility of an offence against discipline was raised by Divisional Officer Hodge on 5th June 1998. Mr Wigglesworth’s pay was adjusted at the end of June. He was not charged until the end of July. Please explain then, how the grievance came to be in abeyance at a time when the charge had not even been brought and it was still not established that Mr Wigglesworth had done anything wrong. Your purported explanation demonstrates that a proper investigation has not been carried out and that every effort is being made to avoid the allegations being fully and properly looked into.

It is noticed that the Brigade will charge and discipline a member of the fire service’s lower ranks without hesitation. Recently, that seems to have been particularly the case with officials of the Fire Brigades Union, or with members who have disagreed with senior management. The refusal of the Fire Authority to treat principal officers in the same way that less senior members of the brigade, and particularly those active in the F.B.U. are treated, is not only disappointing but creates a feeling of distrust amongst the lower ranks and, if reflective of a desire to treat active F.B.U. members differently is unlawful. It is worth noting that the allegations against ADO Saward and DO Hodge have been dealt with following an investigation by a nominated Officer, as required by Regulations.

In the circumstances, I urge you to comply with your obligations under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and to refer the complaint against Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith for an investigation by a principal officer of comparable or senior rank, to the DCFO, from another Brigade.

In the event that you are unwilling to do so, can you please tell me why.

Finally, the wording of the “status quo” provision is in my, and other Brigade Officials view, beyond dispute. Are you now suggesting that in any case, the “status quo” provision can be rendered ineffective by the Brigade starting disciplinary proceedings against the individual concerned?



Yours sincerely,



Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU.