The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 86 Suffolk County Solicitor

Home Address
Lowestoft
NR 33

31. 03. 99

Lowestoft County Court
28 Gordon Road
Lowestoft
NR32 1NL

Case No LO900306

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to withdraw my claim against Mr M. Alcock C.F.O. As liability has been admitted and the matter settled.
I return the notice of default summons duly signed and ticked for your process.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 85 Suffolk Fireman

The Court Service

South Eastern Circuit
Lowestoft County Court
28 Gordon Road
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1NL

DX NO.97750 Lowestoft 2
Tel 01502 573701
Fax 01502 569319
Minicom VII (Gateshead) 0191 4781476


Suffolk County Council
St Helen Court
County Hall
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 2JS
DX 87951 IPSWICH

Your ref: 6028/JCA/JEC
Our ref:
31 March 1999

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Mr Michael John Hyde –v- Mr M Alcock C.F.O
Case No. : LO900306

With reference to the above case and your letter dated 26th March 1999. The plaintiff has not contacted the Court since the issue of the summons in this action. Your letter will be placed on file and we will inform you as and when the Plaintiff contacts us.

Yours faithfully

Miss V Howe

Pre-Judgement Section

Ext 201

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 84 Ipswich Freemasons

SubO X Case Conference 14.30 30th March 1999
Thompsons Solicitors Congress House
London

Present:
SubO. Tony Wigglesworth.
Firefighter. Mick Hyde.
Firefighter. Bill Rampling.
Solicitor. Craig Jones.
Barrister. Gary Morton.

In preparation for the SubO X discipline prosecution hearing arranged to take place at County Hall, Ipswich 12 & 13th April 1999 a defence case conference took place on or around 30th March 1999.

SubO X arranged to collect Firefighter Mick Hyde at his home address at approximately 09.30 hrs. Then to travel to Ipswich to park up and meet with Firefighter Bill Rampling at Princes Street Fire Station before travelling on to London by train. The 11.30 hrs train was taken.

The reasoning for Firefighter Hyde’s attendance was on account of the role of FBU secretary at Lowestoft Fire station and his preceding involvement in SubO X’s case.

As to why Bill Rampling had tagged on the case conference cannot be recalled? Indeed, in hindsight it cannot be reasoned.

Following introduction of those present Craig Jones with the help of Gary Morton went through the chronology, background and specific issues central to SubO X’s prosecution. Questions were asked and clarifications made of specific points of contention. All those present contributed to the discussion. Consideration was also given to each witness and the value of their evidence. The 3 not guilty pleas of SubO X were also confirmed.

Having gone through the case detail the discussion then went on to consider the limitations of the 2-day hearing set for 12th & 13th April 1999. Craig Jones and Gary Morton advised that 2 days would be insufficient to present all the material witnesses and evidence in supportof SubO X’s defence. Both Craig Jones and Gary Morton were particularly keen to restrict the cost of the hearing to 2-days.

Furthermore Craig Jones and Gary Morton suggested any extension through adjournment could cause a backlash by the panel of elected members (Councillors Peter Monk, Selwyn Pryor and Belham Roger) against SubO X.

Bill Rampling also thought the same way. This led on to the suggestion that SubO X should plead guilty to 1 of the 3 charges!

Again Bill Rampling thought that that would be a good idea as the elected members were in his opinion ‘a bit thick.’ In particular, he referred to Selwyn Pryor as being a pissed head and perpetually in a state of drunkeness. They were incapable of keeping in touch with a long hearing and didn’t know how the fire service operated. Bill Rampling also said that pleading guilty would enable SubO X to show he was a reasonable person to the elected members.

On these suggestions SubO X and Mick Hyde looked at each other in a state of disbelief.

In essence it was suggested SubO X plead guilty to a charge purely to ensure the hearing could be completed in 2-days. Also to show he was reasonable.

Mick Hyde was of the opinion that pleading guilty was not a course of action he would recommend. SubO X was also cool to the suggestion.

When asked which charge they thought should be admitted, Craig Jones and Gary Morton suggested that as the "absence from duty" was the most complex and involved the most witnesses they would like to se that one pleaded guilty to. That would then allow the prosecution hearing to be completed within 2 days. In reply SubO X and Mick Hyde said that that charge was the easiest to defend and clearly dubious, as the leave concerned had been taken by way of normal custom and practice. It was also accounted for out of SubO X’s statutory leave. Both Craig Jones and Gary Morton agreed that there was no substantive offence, however expediency should be applied.

SubO X said he would give the matter some thought when the conference finished at approximately 16.30 hrs.
On the return rail journey the not guilty/guilty issue was discussed further between SubO X, Mick Hyde and Bill Rampling. Again while Bill Rampling was in favour Mick Hyde remained unconvinced of the merit of such action.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 83 Lowestoft Firefighter

Spare for editing

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 82 Suffolk County Solicitor

Notes of Telephone call by DO. G. Smith to SubO A Wigglesworth at Home 08.00 hrs 30th March 1999.

DO. G. Smith.
Hello it’s Graham.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Graham

DO. G. Smith.
Graham Smith

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
What do you want then?

DO. G. Smith.
I Have been asked to contact you about your letter.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
What letter?

DO. G. Smith.
The one you’ve sent to Ken about further particulars.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Where are you calling me from?

DO. G. Smith
I am at…. Look just listen to what I have to tell you. It’s irrelevant where I am calling you from.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Oh yeah. Hang on a minute, I thought we agreed last week that you or any officers should not contact us at home? Are you trying to intimidate me?

DO. G. Smith.
No no no. Look I am only doing what I am being told, this is to you benefit.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Look I would prefer all these matters to be kept formal and recorded. Any discussions should be kept at the workplace.

DO. G. Smith
Look this will only take a minute. We are not going to play your little games. You just listen to what I have to tell you. You won’t get anywhere if you keep causing trouble. Okay.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Are you threatening me?

DO. G. Smith.
No…. errrr…No. just listen.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Right well what is it?

DO. G. Smith.
Your letter asking for further particulars.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Yes.

DO. G. Smith.
We won’t be providing you with anything else. We have looked at the guidance and as far as we are concerned with have complied with everything it requires.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Are you going to put his in writing?

DO. G. Smith.
No. We have told you what are response is. Look what’s wrong with you why do you want everything in writing?

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
I could ask you why you don’t?

DO. G. Smith.
Look just accept it. We have told you what is going to happen and no more needs to be said. It’s in your best interests that you stop causing trouble. We are going to decide how discipline investigations are conducted.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
And what about the complainant?

DO. G. Smith.
Look as I have just told you we have looked at the guidance and as far as we are concerned the investigation complies with it. Look if you are too f***ing stupid to listen to what I am saying you will come a cropper.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
What did you say?

DO. G. Smith
Nothing. Anyway I have nothing else to say. Goodbye.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 81 Keith Stevens

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Your ref
26-03-99

Dear ACFO Seager,

I am writing to follow up on the letter sent to DO. G. Smith on 6th March 1999. The purpose of the letter was to put you on notice that we required further particulars of your prosecution of SubO J Tiffen and FF M Hyde.

DO. G. Smith said that he would, and later did, pass the letter on to you. He has told me that he is incapable of dealing with the matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to you.

Following his advice I would ask you to supply the further particulars that were requested on 6th March 1999.

At interview on 23rd March 1999 DO. G. Smith stated that the prosecution of SubO J Tiffen and FF M Hyde has no complainant. Please confirm that status.

Further, it is admitted by the Suffolk County Council solicitor, Mr K Steven’s, that the process resulting in Ff Hyde’s demotion from LFf was without contractual notice. Therefore, unlawful breach of contract. As such I notify you that the perpetrator of that flawed episode, Temporary Assistant Divisional Officer G Saward may have committed an offence under the Fire Service (discipline) Regulations 1985.

I looked forward to receiving further particulars.


Yours sincerely


A Wigglesworth. BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 80 Christchurch Park Ipswich Firework Display

Suffolk County Council

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
FIRST CLASS POST

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

6028/JCA/JEC
Miss Alexander
01473 584148
26th March 1999

Dear Sir,

RE: CASE NO. L0900306

MJ HYDE – V – M ALCOCK

Thank you for your fax of 24th March 1999. I note that you accept the County Council’s offer to settle your claim and that you agree to withdraw your claim against Mr Alcock.

Upon receiving written confirmation that the case against Mr Alcock has been withdrawn the Fire service will be making the necessary arrangements for the appropriate sum to be paid to you via Payroll.

Yours faithfully

Alexander

For K W Stevens
County Secretary and Solicitor

g:\fire\letters\mr m hyde 26.3.99.doc/daron1

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 79 ACFO G Smith DO Edward Meelan Sub Officer John Tiffen

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Operations Department, Normanston Drive, Lowestoft
Facsimile Transmission Covering Letter

To: NAME K.W. Stevens
COMPANY 01473 - 214549
FAX NO. 01473 ******

FROM: NAME MICHAEL. J. HYDE
DATE 24-03-99
FAX NO. 01502 ******

Instructions

Dear Sir,

I make reference to your letter dated 18th March 1999 (see Doc 69), regarding the admission of liability. I wish to accept your offer of settlement and I agree to withdraw my claim, which you agree to pay via payroll which totals £386. 50.

Yours faithfully

M. J. Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 78 Martlesham Heath Fire Station

Defence transcript/notes taken during interview of
Firefighter M Hyde 23rd March 1999

Location: Lowestoft Fire Station ADO’s Office

Time: Approx 1440 hrs

Present:
DO. G. Smith (Assistant Investigating Officer)
ADO. E. Meelan (Brigade witness/note taker)
SubO. J. Tiffen (Accused)
SubO. A. Wigglesworth (Accused’s friend)

DO. G. Smith.
"This is to do with the regulation 7 letter you got on 1st March - Is there anything you want to ask before we get started?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Yes"

DO. G. Smith.
"What then."

SubO. A. Wiglesworth
From pre-set questions (Doc 75). "Can we see your letter of appointment as the assistant investigating officer?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Look you have already asked me that before and there is no need to ask that again – you know who I am – I just don’t understand what your point is – why do you want to see that?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"We would like to see the date?

DO. G. Smith.
"The date! – I was appointed on the same day as the letter, no the day after."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"I also gave you a letter asking for further particulars."

DO. G. Smith.
"Well its all part of a process and basically nothing to do with me – if you want to take issue see ACFO Seager."
SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Alright."

DO. G. Smith.
"Anyway the interview is about the circumstances of your reversion from Temporary Leading firefighter to firefighter when ordered by ADO Saward.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"So it’s about ADO Sawards unlawful order?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Unlawful – what are you talking about? – you keep mentioning this unlawful order"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Hands DO. G Smith a copy of solicitors letter. (Doc 69).

DO. G. Smith.
Reads Doc 69 and pushes it back. "That’s nothing to do with me – I don’t know anything about it."
SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"That’s strange as it’s central to your investigation."

DO. G. Smith.
"Well as I keep telling you I am just the assistant – I am sure ACFO Seager will deal with that matter - Anyhow I am now going to read the caution if you don’t mind."
Time is 1447 hrs Stopwatch activated.

DO. G. Smith to Firefighter M Hyde.
"You do not have to say anything, or answer any of the questions put to you at this interview unless you wish to do so, but what you say will be taken down in writing and may be used in a subsequent disciplinary hearing." "Do you understand the caution?"

Firefighter M Hyde
"Yes."

DO. G. Smith
"I want to ask you some questions about the circumstances of your reversion from temporary promotion - when were you first aware of the reversion from temporary promotion being imposed on you?"

Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"
Stopwatch at 01. 47.

DO. G. Smith.
"There was a meeting between you and ADO Saward on 19th January 1999 when ADO Saward told you you were to revert. At that meeting on the 19th January 1999 between you and ADO Saward were you abusive in your response to Mr Saward?"

Firefighter M Hyde
"What was that date?"

DO. G. Smith.
"19th January 1999."
Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"
Stopwatch reads 02. 38.

DO. G. Smith.
"Okay – At that same meeting did you speak to ADO Saward with words to the effect of YOU HAVE PICKED ON THE WRONG ONE THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO COME AFTER YOU AND WIN THIS ONE – or similar types of words?"

Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"
Stopwatch reads 03. 52.

DO. G. Smith.
"Did you receive a memorandum from ADO Saward dated the 20th January 1999, instructing you to revert to Firefighter with effect from the 1st February 1999?"
Firefighter. M. Hyde and SubO. A Wigglesworth notify DO. G. Smith that they wish to discuss a matter in private and vacate the room. The time is 1452 hrs, the stopwatch reads 04.52 and continues to run.
The accused and his representative return to the ADO’s office with the stopwatch reading 06. 15.
The Accused responds to the last question.
Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith
"Did you revert back to Firefighter on 1st February?"
Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"Did you seek advice and replace your rank markings back on your uniform on 4th February?"
Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"
Stopwatch reads 07. 56.

DO. G. Smith.
"Have you at anytime received advice to disobey the written order from ADO Saward?"
Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"I don’t have any further questions - Is there anything you wish to add or comment on yourself which you think would help this investigation?"

Firefighter M Hyde
"No comment"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
To DO. G. Smith. "With regard to the further particulars we requested, I remind you – oh sorry, Mr Seager has not obliged.

DO. G. Smith.
"Well basically I offered to go fully into the background before we started this interview but you interrupted me – anyway it is something you should take up with the Brigade Investigating Officer."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Who is the complainant?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Well hmm, its not a complaint as such – more a matter brought to the attention of the Brigade Investigating Officer and via the normal chain of command. So I don’t know – anyway my job is just to investigate the matter, which I am trying to do but you have basically frustrated me today. If you had have been more co-operative today it would have much better for us all and you would have found out far more. Instead by not answering the questions I have asked you have made my job far harder. If you don’t know the particulars its your own fault’s."

After DO. G. Smith finished his ramblings the accused and his representative exit the office and edit the notes taken by SubO. A. Wigglesworth. DO. G. Smith and ADO. Meelan help themselves to tea in the station canteen before departing.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 76 & 77 ACFO Graham Smith DO Eddie Meelan

Defence transcript/notes taken during interview of
SubO J Tiffen 23rd March 1999

Location: Lowestoft Fire Station ADO’s Office Time: 1400 hrs

Present:
DO. G. Smith (Assistant Investigating Officer)
ADO. E. Meelan (Brigade witness/note taker)
SubO. J. Tiffen (Accused)
SubO. A. Wigglesworth (Accused’s friend)

DO. G. Smith.
Gives a brief general outline of what he intends to do. To SubO Tiffen, "your accused friend can give you advice if he wants." "ADO Meelan is going to record the interview by hand." " I have been appointed to carry out this investigation by ACFO. Seager." "Are there any questions you would like to ask before we get started."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Yes I have got a few things to ask."

DO. G. Smith.
"Go on then."

SubO. A. Wiglesworth
"From pre-set questions (Doc 75). Can we see your letter of appointment as the assistant investigating officer?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Letter of appointment?" "You know who I am why do you want to see that?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"We would like to see the details on it?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Its not relevant to this interview and I have no intention of showing you it."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Well that’s not in keeping with the recommendation in these Discipline Seminar documents produced by Moreton for discipline investigators ahead of the introduction of the 85 regs is it?" Document passed to DO. G. Smith

DO. G. Smith.
"Hmm, where have you obtained these documents from?" "Look there is no need for me to show you my letter of appointment, you know who I am."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Your refusing?"

DO. G. Smith.
"No I am not refusing, there’s no requirement for me to." "It’s as simple as that"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Oh I see." What about evidence then?" "Have you got any at this stage from which my colleague might be able to form the substance of the prosecution against him?"

DO. G. Smith.
"Look as to evidence that’s what were here for today." "Whatever evidence there might be will be given to you if this investigation results in charges being made." "And as to your use of the term prosecution this is an investigation and not a prosecution."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"And what about statements?" "Have you taken any in relation to this interview?"

DO. G. Smith.
"I don’t have tell you anything about what I have done to date." "So if you don’t mind I would like to put some questions to John."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Well if you have taken some statements we would like to see them so that SubO Tiffen can respond."

DO. G. Smith.
"No." "Statement or any other evidence will only be released if the investigation results in a charge."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
So you can’t provide any evidence other than the blanket form in the regulation 7 letter.

DO. G. Smith.
"I have told you before I am only the assistant investigator." "If you want more information you should speak to ACFO Seager."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"So what about the complainant. Can you tell us who that is?"

DO. G. Smith.
"I don’t know."

SubO A. Wigglesworth.
"Pardon." "Did you say you don’t know."

DO. G. Smith.
"The complainant is irrelevant anyway." " Look you have had your chance to ask questions." "I will not answer any about evidence." "So unless you have any to do with procedure I will now read out the caution to John and proceed with the interview." "Any other questions should be sent to ACFO Seager." "I am warning you not to obstruct me any further."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth. (Stopwatch started 0.00)
"Obstruct." We are trying to help you sir – to conduct a proper investigation."

DO. G. Smith.
"Huh!" "John I have been appointed by ACFO Seager to carry out an investigation into the circumstances of Ff Hyde's failure to revert to the rank of Firefighter when ordered to do so by ADO Saward." "I will read you a caution." – "Mr Wigglesworth why are you writing everything I say down?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"We would prefer our own record of what is said in the interview – right from the start." "We might want clarification of things you say or ask later on."

DO. G. Smith.
"I would prefer it if you leave the written recording of what we say to Mr Meelan – you won’t be able top keep up."

SubO. A. Wiglesworth.
"Keep up?" I will just use the same technique as Mr Meelan to keep up."

DO. G. Smith.
"Well there is no need to try and keep up – you will be given a copy of Mr Meelans record – do you want everything on the record?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Absolutely, yes we want all that is discussed recorded.

DO. G. Smith.
"Hmm" (Looks to ADO Meelan and gives him a nod to start taking notes). "Right I will now read the caution.

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"Mr Meelan are you writing down everything?"

ADO. E. Meelan.
"I will start after the caution."

DO. G. Smith.
"The caution if you don’t mind."

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
"I would prefer it if all the asides and comments are in your record Mr Meelan."
Stopwatch at 04. 04.

DO. G. Smith.
Reads caution.
"You do not have to say anything, or answer any of the questions put to you at this interview unless you wish to do so, but what you say will be taken down in writing and may be used in a subsequent disciplinary hearing." "Do you understand the caution?"
Reading of caution takes 29 seconds.
"Do you understand?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"Yes I understand."

DO. G. Smith
"All the questions I am going to ask you surround the reversion of Firefighter Hyde to Firefighter on 1st February 1999 – Did you see a copy of the memo from ADO Fuller made in September 1998?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"
Stopwatch at 06. 37.

DO. G. Smith.
"I will now show you the memo to which I refer and ask you if you have seen it?" DO. G. Smith shows SubO. J. Tiffen the memo (Doc 2)

Sub O. J. Tiffen and SubO. A. Wigglesworth notify DO. G. Smith that they wish to discuss the matter in private and vacate the ADO’s office for approximately two minutes. The stopwatch is put on hold. They then discuss the interviewers strategy which they conclude to be an attempt at division and a blame game. It is decided to continue with a strategy of no comment until DO. G. Smith co-operates and demonstrates goodwill by the production of credible evidence. SubO. J. Tiffen states he is appalled by DO. G. Smith’s
"arrogant attitude and complete and utter disregard for the fact that the order for T/Lf Hyde to revert was unlawful and one he could not support." As he says, "I would not trust him as far as I could throw him********************************** etc."

Sub O. J. Tiffen and SubO. A. Wigglesworth return to the ADO’s office. The stopwatch is restarted.

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"What length of time was Leading Firefighter Brown meant to be off on sick leave when the memo was written?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No Comment."

DO. G. Smith.
"Can I take it that at this stage that you intend to reply no comment to all the questions I ask you?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment."

DO. G. Smith.
"Hmmm – ER do you believe it is – errr is it your opinion it is reasonable for sickness cover, such as for Leading Firefighter Brown’s to be reviewed after four months?"

SubO. A. Wigglesworth.
Laughs out. "What sort of question is that?

DO. G. Smith
Threatening scowl and general expansion of facial features.

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"
Stopwatch reading 11. 51.

DO. G. Smith.
"When were you first aware that Firefighter Hyde would be reverting back to Firefighter?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"Did you receive a copy of the memorandum dated the 20th January?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"Have you seen it?" Copy passed to SubO. J. Tiffen.
Stopwatch at 13. 35.

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith
"Did Firefighter Hyde revert to the rank of Firefighter on the 1st of February?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"
Doc 76 Continued Beginning of this event starts at Doc 75/74.

DO. G. Smith.
"Subsequent question not asked – can you strike it Mr Meelan." Turns back to SubO. J. Tiffen. "Were you in contact with anybody to clarify the instructions that Firefighter Hyde should revert to firefighter on 4th February?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"Did you follow the instructions given to you by ADO Saward with regard to the reversion?"
Stopwatch reading 15. 00.

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
By now getting quite irritated and glowing aggression. "Did Hyde remove his rank markings on the 4th February 1999?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith
"Did Hyde put his rank markings back on the 4th to 5th February on night shift?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"Did Firefighter Hyde give you an account to his decision to wear his rank markings, following instructions by you to remove them?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
"During the course of the 4th and 5th did you make any inquiries on yours and Firefighter Hydes actions?"

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"

DO. G. Smith.
Is there anything else you wish to say in regard to this investigation.

SubO. J. Tiffen.
"No comment"
Stopwatch reads 19. 46.

SubO. J. Tiffen & SubO. A. Wigglesworth exit the Lowestoft ADO’s office and discuss the contents of the interview with the co accused in the Lowestoft TV room with the rest of the watch present. This discussion goes on for a good 10 minutes before it is interupted by a jovial and smirking ADO. E. Meelan with a cheap (manikin- henri wintermans?) lit cigar between his fingers. Looking at Y and SubO X he says, "Were ready for you - well if you'll just give me 5 minutes to finish this."

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 75 Suffolk Fire Service Cap badge

Defence pre-set questions for interview 23rd March 1999

Identification of Appointment?

Do you possess any evidence at this stage from which my colleague might be able to form the substance of the prosecution against him?

Have you taken statements from anybody else at this stage in relation to the matters to be discussed in this interview?

Who?

When?

May we see them so my colleague is able to respond?

I ask you to provide your evidence now in other than the blanket form so far presented?

Who is the complainant/s?

When was the complaint made?

With reference to circumstances 2 (M Hyde) please outline fully the meetings inferred?

Are you able or willing to provide further particulars?

From the letter (regulation 7 notification – Doc 53 & 54), I ask you to specify the information received?

On 8th March you said I have been appointed by ACFO Seager, and I don’t know anything about the case yet?

If this is correct how could it be that you were prepared to interview SubO Tiffen that very evening?

You clearly must have had your questions ready correct?

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 74 DCFO Simon Smith

By way of reference to Doc 67 it will be seen that Firefighter Y’s representative corresponded with DO Graham

Smith re arrangements for the latter to carry out disciplinary interviews.

The last sentence in Doc 67 sent by fax to DO G Smith 16th March 1999 reads,

"Please can you inform me in writing as to your intentions."

DO G Smith failed to acknowledgement, or reply to the contents of Doc 67.

However, at 08.30 hrs 23rd March 1999 DO G Smith contacted Y and Sub Officer John Tiffen’s representative Sub Officer A. Wigglesworth at home. The latter was due to commence duty at 1400 hrs that day.

DO Smith informed Sub Officer Wigglesworth that he would be interviewing Sub Officer Tiffen at 11.00 hrs the interview of Firefighter Y would follow. The interviews would be at Lowestoft Fire Station.

When asked why the short notice and why he had not confirmed these matters in writing his reply was,

"I will be the one who determines how this investigation is going to be run – you will do as your told – like it or lump it."

In response Sub Officer Wigglesworth attended Lowestoft Station off duty at about 10.00 hrs to prepare and discuss matters with SubO Tiffen & Firefighter Y who were both on duty.

At approximately 10.30 hrs DO Smith rang Lowestoft Fire Station to speak to SubO Wigglesworth. He stated that the interviews would not now take place until 1400 hrs. Accordingly SubO Wigglesworth returned home prior to returning to Lowestoft Fire Station for a duty shift at 14.00 hrs.

However, at 12.00 DO Smith & ADO Eddie Meelan arrived at Lowestoft Fire Station. Both Officers met with Sub Officer John Tiffen and suggested that they commence the interview immediately and without Sub Officer Wigglesworth being present as the FBU representative. This was the second occasion on which DO Smith had tried to interview Sub Officer Tiffen without his representative being present. He had tried this on 9th March 1999. Despite this overt challenge, by DO Smith & ADO Meelan, to roller-coaster the interview process SubO Tiffen said he required FBU representation and that he would not be interviewed until 14.00 hrs as was agreed at 10.30 hrs.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 73 Suffolk and Ipswich County Fire Brigade

Spare for editing

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 72 CFO Simon Smith

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

22 – 03 - 1999

Dear DCFO Smith,

In response to your letter of 19th March 1999, I would advise as follows.

Your secretary spoke to me by telephone on 1st March. I attach a copy of my letter to her dated 11th March (Doc 64).

You appear to be misguided. To avoid all doubt. I did not offer or entertain any possibility of being prepared to allow you to frustrate my grievance until 31st March whilst in conversation with your secretary on 1st March. As you will observe from the attached document I offered your secretary a further 7 days grace for you to hear my grievance, until 7th March. This was subject to certain undertakings. No such undertakings were given.

As to your apparent belief that I have agreed to a variation in the contractual time limits associated with the grievance procedure. Yes you are right I have agreed/offered a variation in the time limits. To be precise the variation offered was 7 days. I note you have been incapable of complying with such a reasonable offer.

I note your reference made to the County Court Summons. I have still to make a full consideration of the County solicitor’s letter, received on the same day as your letter dated 19th March. Please ensure my grievance is passed forward and listed for hearing by the appeals panel of members drawn from the personnel sub committee. As far as I am concerned I still have a grievance. Indeed, by the admission of liability made by the County solicitor it is a very serious grievance, one that arises from an obvious unlawful order.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 71 Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Chief Fire Officer

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

SAS/MLA
Mr S A Smith
01473 588939
19th March 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

In response to your letter of 16th March 1999, I would advise you as follows.

You are well aware that my secretary has made strenuous attempts to arrange a mutually convenient date to hear your grievance. On 1st March 1999, when she telephoned you to ask for some suitable dates, you were prepared to offer dates as late as 31st March. The Grievance Procedure makes provision for any time limits to be varied by mutual consent. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that, as you were clearly prepared to have your grievance heard on 31st March, you had, in effect, agreed to a variation of any time limits set out in that stage of the procedure.

Notwithstanding the above, your recent County Court summons against the County council, which has now been dealt with by the County Solicitors Department, has resulted in resolution of your problem and, I am advised that you therefore no longer have a grievance against your employer in this matter.

Yours sincerely

SASmith

Deputy Chief Fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 70 SASmith

The Bottomline is that Suffolk County Solicitors admit that Y’s contractual rights have been breached.

Therefore, the reversion of Y to Firefighter was outside of the agreed contractual terms. In consequence, the order to compel Y to revert was unlawful in law. In the words of Suffolk County’s solicitor, ‘It is clear…….Thus you are entitled.’

Y was legally entitled to retain the Leading firefighter for 90 days when told he was to be demoted.

It is clear that, in making your temporary promotion to the rank of Leading Firefighter dependent upon the return to full duties of Mr Brown, you were expecting to resume your substantive rank either upon Mr Brown’s return to work or upon the expiry of your contractual notice period (i.e 90 days).

Thus, you are entitled, in lieu of notice, to receive a sum equivalent to 90 days remuneration at your former temporary rank, less monies already paid in respect of your substantive rank for that period. Accordingly, I have now advised the Fire service to arrange for payment of the appropriate sum in respect of salary in lieu of notice via payroll.

And another thought on this is that Y was a fully paid up member of the Fire Brigades Union. Where were they when he wanted their help?

So the reversion of Y was a breach of contract. And what of the Discipline prosecution in relation to these circumstances? The circumstances now being to result from an unlawful order. Stick with the site and find out.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 69 Suffolk Firework's Displays

Suffolk County Council

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
FIRST CLASS POST

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

6028/JCA/JEC
Miss Alexander
01473 584148
18th March 1999

Dear Sir,

RE: CASE NO. L0900306
MJ HYDE – V – M ALCOCK

I am instructed by the Suffolk Fire Service in connection with your action against Mr M Alcock, Chief Fire Officer. I note you are claiming an amount of money equivalent to the difference between your enhanced and substantive salary for 90 days in lieu of Notice of Termination of your temporary probation from the rank of Firefighter to Leading Firefighter.

It is clear that, in making your temporary promotion to the rank of Leading Firefighter dependent upon the return to full duties of Mr Brown, you were expecting to resume your substantive rank either upon Mr Brown’s return to work or upon the expiry of your contractual notice period (i.e 90 days).

Thus, you are entitled, in lieu of notice, to receive a sum equivalent to 90 days remuneration at your former temporary rank, less monies already paid in respect of your substantive rank for that period. Accordingly, I have now advised the Fire service to arrange for payment of the appropriate sum in respect of salary in lieu of notice via payroll.

Regrettably, in naming Mr M Alcock as the defendant to the summons you have erred in that, as a matter of law, your employer is Suffolk County Council and it is on behalf of the Suffolk County Council that the notice period would have been given or payment of salary made in lieu of notice made.

Technically, Mr Alcock would be entitled to apply to have the summons struck out as showing no cause of action. This would necessitate you issuing new proceedings to recover the monies due to you and you would incur further court fees in doing so (each party being expected to bear their own costs in the Small Claims Court).

In view of the willingness of the Suffolk Fire service to settle this matter in your favour, a more sensible course of action would be for you to agree to withdraw your claim against Mr Alcock upon the basis of the admission of liability on behalf of Suffolk County Council contained in this letter. Upon receiving written notification of the withdrawal of your claim I will advise that payment arrangement be made.

If we have not received written notification of your acceptance of this offer by 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 24 March 1999, I shall take the necessary steps to defend your claim against Mr Alcock.

Yours faithfully

Alexander

For K W Stevens
County Secretary and Solicitor

S:\personal services\fire\letters\mr m hyde 16.3.99.doc/daron1

The suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 68 ACFO Graham Smith

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
16 – 03 - 1999

Dear DCFO Smith,

With reference to your letter 9th March and the proposals you make to further my grievance.

May I remind you that a failure to process a grievance submitted, within 7 days allows progress to the next stage.

Your proposals outlined for dealing with my grievance in respect of the time scale attached is quite clearly unreasonable.

Bearing the above in mind I elect to move to the next stage and reaffirm the same original request made on 28th February. In essence I wish to air my grievance to an appeals panel of members drawn from the personnel sub committee and public protection committee.

I enclose a copy of the submit sent 28th February.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 67 Sigi Winters - Sigi Schwabe

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
15 – 03 - 99

Dear DO Smith,

With reference to our conversation on the 12th March and the arrangement of suitable dates for the interview of FF Hyde and SubO Tiffen.

I note that both are on duty at Lowestoft on the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th March therefore may be available should you wish to interview on these dates.

I have spoken to FF Hyde who informs me he is willing to assist you on the 22nd or the earliest opportunity. As for SubO Tiffen he is currently on leave and I will discuss the matter with him when he returns to duty on Monday week.

As for myself I would be willing to attend on these dates to act as the representative for both.

Please can you inform me in writing as to your intentions.

Yours faithfully


A Wigglesworth.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 66 Graham Smith

Notes Telephone Conversation

A Wigglesworth – DO Graham Smith 12th March 1999

DO Graham Smith rang SubO Wigglesworth at Lowestoft to discuss his intentions to prosecute SubO Tiffen & Firefighter Y.

DO Smith
Asked what was the state of Y’s grievance and asked if Y could be persuaded to withdraw it as it would be in his interests and allow him to look at the complaint more sympathetically. Also much simpler for all concerned.

SubO Wigglesworth
Asked if the prosecution and grievance were linked.

DO Smith
Indicated that this was the case and the prosecution was partly retaliation. So it would be in Y’s interest to drop the grievance. "If you know what I mean?"

SubO Wigglesworth
Best put it down in writing.

DO Smith
NO, I would rather not do that. I will leave it up to you to talk to him.

SubO Wigglesworth
You know my standard is to keep everything proper in these matters. Put it in writing. You have tried this trick before when you asked me to enter false witness evidence against Faier’s haven’t you?

DO Smith
It’s up to you.
I have some dates when I can interview "Hyde" and Sub Officer John Tiffen. All week beginning 22nd March and following week. I insist interviews are done before end of March. Sort it out between yourselves and get back to me

SubO Wigglesworth
Okay I will contact Mick and Tiff and WRITE back to you.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 65 Sigi Winters - Sigi Schwabe

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
11 – 03 - 1999

Dear Miss Schwabe,

I write in reply to your letter dated 9th March 1999.

I can confirm that we had a telephone conversation in connection with my grievance. The grievance was invoked January 1999. As part of that conversation I agreed that I would, subject to certain undertakings, be prepared to allow DCFO Simon Smith and extension to the time limits applied to the procedure.

The first undertaking I sought was that any extension would be restricted to a further seven days. It would not extend beyond 7th March 1999. You agreed that this was perfectly reasonable and sufficient to enabled the DCFO to hear the grievance and comply with his responsibilities.

The second undertaking I sought was that DCFO Simon Smith should make a written apology for the delay incurred in dealing with the grievance. You agreed that this was perfectly reasonable.

I also sought an undertaking from you to confirm the above matters were acceptable by 1700 hrs on the same day (1st March 1999). You agreed to accept that responsibility and contact me at work by telephone. Having, been advised that the mutually agreed grievance arrangements were acceptable I would then withdraw my memo 28th February 1999 (doc 51). By 1700 hrs on 1st March 1999 I had received no undertaking, by telephone or other medium, from you that the compromises I had offered you were acceptable/not acceptable.

As to your latest proposals for DCFO Simon Smith to conduct a grievance hearing, that should be heard within seven days, up to two months late. Such a delay is unacceptable and I will apply my right to put the grievance in front of the elected members as applied for 28th February 1999 (see attachment doc 51).

Finally, I note your efforts to contact me by telephone at home. Following the harassing conduct of T/ADO Graham Saward, reported to DO. C. Hodge, please ensure you refrain from causing me further distress at home. To avoid all doubt, you should not telephone me at home. Should you or any Fire Service officer wish to discuss work matters with me then you/they should do so at work.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 64 DCFO Graham Smith

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Your ref
09-03-99

Dear DO Smith,

I write to you once more as the representative for SubO J Tiffen and FF M Hyde.

My colleagues and I have given serious consideration to your request for tape recording facilities to be allowed in any subsequent interviews. On this occasion I can confirm we have decided to decline your offer and will not permit the use of such equipment.

Yours sincerely


A Wigglesworth. BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 63 East Anglia Regional Fire Control

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

SAS/SIS
Miss S Schwabe
01473 588939
9th March 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

I refer to our telephone conversation on the 1st March when you offered me some dates when you would be available for your grievance hearing. Unfortunately, the Deputy Chief Fire Officer is unable to make any of those dates so I propose the following: Friday 16th April, Monday 19th April, Thursday 22nd April and Monday 26th April.

Please note that I have tried to contact you on your home telephone number on numerous occasions but to no avail.

I would be grateful if you could advise me of your availability as soon as possible so that the final arrangements for a meeting can be made.

Yours sincerely

Sigi Schwabe

Secretary to Deputy Chief Fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 62 Suffolk Fire Control Room

Doc 61 was handed over in person by Y’s representative Sub Officer A Wigglesworth to Divisional Officer Graham Smith in the afternoon 8th March 1999.

Divisional Officer Smith was visiting Lowestoft at the time. During this visit he ordered Sub Officer into a meeting with him while Assistant Divisional Officer Bob Wilson acted as a witness. The following is a record of the notes compiled immediately after the meting.

Ordered by ADO Wilson to attend his office to meet with DO. G. Smith. On entry ADO Wilson shuts the door and stands by it. Told to sit down by DO. Smith.

DO Smith
"Sit down."
Sub Officer Wigglesworth

"I will stand if you don’t mind."

DO Smith
"No sit down, this will take a few minutes, I have a few things I want to discuss with you."

Sub Officer Wigglesworth
"Right okay."

DO Smith
"First of all, I been appointed by ACFO K Seager to investigate Sub Officer John Tiffen & Hyde’s behaviour surrounding the latter’s failure to revert when ordered to do so by ADO Saward. I have been told you are representing them."

Sub Officer Wigglesworth
"Hmmm. Yeah I am aware of your appointment to prosecute Ff Hyde & Sub Officer Tiffen. You emm mean the unlawful order to revert don’t you?"

DO Smith
"What do you mean by prosecution?" My role is officially assistant brigade investigating officer."

Sub Officer Wigglesworth
"Prosecution, investigation officer are both the same to me sir. You were responsible for the false case against Eddie Brown weren?t you?"

DO Smith
"I am not going to say anything about that case. You don?t know the full truth about that."

SubO Wigglesworth
" Oh yeah Huhh."

DO Smith
"And what?s this unlawful bit you mentioned. I don?t know what you?re talking about. I have only just begun my investigation and am not fully aware of all the circumstances at the moment."

SubO Wigglesworth
"Well anyway if that?s all you wanted to tell me thanks for that. I will be off. Here?s a letter for you (doc 61). I would appreciate a prompt response please"

DO Smith
"What?s this." Opens envelope and reads.
"What does prima facie mean?"

SubO Wigglesworth
"First appearance, first sight or glance."

DO Smith
"Oh." "I will pass this on to ACFO Seager and ask him to deal with it." "Anyway I just wanted to check out with you about whether the interviews I will be conducting with Hyde and Sub Officer Tiffen can be tape recorded. I am sure you will appreciate that would be best for both sides."

SubO Wigglesworth
"Well I will have to discuss that with Ff Hyde and Sub Officer Tiffen, its up to them."

DO Smith
"Well your representing them surely you can decide."

SubO Wigglesworth
"What, are you serious? Its up to them."

DO Smith
"Yeah I suppose so. Anyway if you can ask them if it?s alright, and then get back to me."

SubO Wigglesworth
"As soon as I speak to them I will get back to you and let you know, in writing."

DO Smith
"Just give me a call at Headquarters."

SubO Wigglesworth
"Nah-no-no-no I will advise you in writing. That’s the normal standard for discipline matters."

DO Smith
"Alright suit yourself. Anyway that’s all for the moment, thanks for your time."

SubO Wigglesworth
Right, thanks then if you could ensure we get a written response to the letter."

DO Smith
"As I said I will pass it on to Ken Seager. Its not for me to comment"

The suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 61 DCFO G Smith

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Your ref
06-03-99

Dear DO Smith,

I write to you as the representative for SubO J Tiffen and FF M Hyde.

My particular concern relates to the notice of investigation served on these officers. Most notably the allegations you wish to further are prima facie, vague and blanket allegations to which no primary facts are attached.

As such, we request to be furnished with further particulars of the grounds on which you rely, and of any facts and contentions relevant to your intention to investigate SubO J Tiffen and FF M Hyde, which are already in your possession.

I enclose a further copy of this letter which, I kindly ask you to sign and return to me in acknowledgement of this letter. Unnecessary postage costs can thus be avoided. Such confirmation will not be taken in any way as an indication that you intend to comply with the request submitted herein

Yours sincerely


A Wigglesworth. BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 60 ACFO G Smith

Administrators Follow Up to Doc - 59

In their public relation documents, circulated across the County, Suffolk promise a prompt replies to all inquiries. Indeed, within 4 days or thereabouts. So, Y could expect a response to the letter sent to the Chief Executive, Mrs Linda Homer on or around the 10th March 1999.

As for Mrs Linda Homer she became the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council in October 2002. Incidentally, the web is replete with information as to her current interests and background. As reported in her brief biography, on the Birmingham City Council website she is a qualified Lawyer. In fact, on or around 1st October 1998 she told Y she was still a practising lawyer. As for the biography it states, ‘….(She) has an impressive record of energising and changing the culture of organisations.’

Prior to her appointment as the Chief Executive in Suffolk she was the Deputy Chief Executive of Hertfordshire County Council and close working colleague of Suffolk’s DCFO Simon Smith.

Mrs Linda Homer is also a non-executive director of DfES. She also sits on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inspection Research Board and the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 59 Hadleigh Fire Station

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Linda Homer
Chief Executive
County Hall
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 1ZZ

6th March 1999

Dear Linda,

I invoked the Suffolk County Council grievance procedure on 29th January 1999.

The first stage of the procedure was completed on 5th February 1999. The second stage on 12th February 1999 by D.O. Hodge.

Still dissatisfied I requested to go to the next stage and be heard by the County Fire Officer. I received a reply on 22nd February that the matter would be dealt with. This has not happened and I again wrote to the Chief Fire Officer on 28th February 1999 asking to be heard by elected members.

To date I have had no reply. Can you please intervene and allow this process to take place.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 58 Lin Homer

County Court Summons

Case No LO900306
Court Office
28 Gordon road
Lowestoft
NR32 1NL

Plaintiff
Michael John Hyde
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR33 9BT

Defendant
Mr. M. Alcock C.F.O.
Suffolk Fire Service
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester Road
Ipswich
Suffolk

Claim

Breach of contract

Particulars of the Plaintiffs Claim

I was contracted to be temporary promoted on 27th September 1998 to replace LFf P. Brown who was on long-term sick. I was to remain in this post until his return to full operational duties. P Brown has still not returned to his duties and I have been ordered to revert back to my rank, without any statutory notice. Therefore I invoked the grievance procedure, there has been a breach with regard to this, and I am unable to proceed with my grievance. I therefore claim 90 days loss of enhanced salary which is in lieu of notice. I have documents to support my claim which I will submit to the court in due course. MJ Hyde.

Amount Claimed £346.50

Court fee 40.00

Total 386.50


Summons Issued 5th March 1999

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 57 Malcolm Alcock

Why the Need to ask ACFO K Seager if there are any other documents?

Perhaps Firefighter Y & SubO X have been told other documents do exist?

Perhaps the Suffolk Brigade hacker has also been at work?

Or maybe it is merely a safety measure to combat the creation of retrospective documents after the event?

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 56 Ken Seager

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
PO Box 54 Lowestoft
Suffolk NR32 2QA

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

KES/SIS/DISC
ACFO Seager
01473 588939
1st March 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

Thank you for your letter dated the 27th February 1999.

So far as I know, I have complied fully with the requirements of Regulation 8 (4) regarding the provision of copies of reports, etc to Mr Wigglesworth in connection with the charges he faces.

I have not, to my knowledge, denied you access to, or copies of, any documents which you have requested for use in Mr Wigglesworth’s defence. Please let me know if you disagree.

It is not possible to determine from your letter what other documents you might be referring to, and I am at a loss therefore to know whether or not I can assist you further. If you are able to be more specific, I will do my best to help you.

I enclose herewith a copy of your letter by way of confirmation of receipt.

Yours sincerely

K E Seager
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

Enc. Copy letter

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 55 Bungay Fire Station

Administrators Comment Documents 53 & 54*

Possible reasons for current situation/emergent propositions in the elaboration of Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST)?

1. The action of Y in response his reversion is viewed as a challenge to the authority of Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST)?

2. A failure to respond (retaliation) with formal sanctions (Disciplinary action) is symbolic with a loss of face by Fire Service Command Power practitioners?

3. Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory needs visible victims (show trials, victimisation etc) to coerce organisational members to toe the line and bow to Command?

4. Fire Service Command Power practitioners will conduct collateral operations to avert/mitigate the exposure of Command failure (i.e. undermining/obstruction the progress of Y’s grievance to County Councillors)?
On the basis that there is no economic, or material, loss from Y’s action and that he has asserted a contractual right (grievance application) then all the above propositions seem valid?

It is noted that both Y and SubO Tiffen are the subject of formal disciplinary investigation. Of course Sub Officer Tiffen was highly involved in complaints of alcohol consumption while on duty by the former Chief Fire Officer of Suffolk Tony Baker (see doc 3 link
http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/563

Attention is also drawn to the wording of doc 53 & 54. Kenneth Seager states,
………….I am writing to notify you that I have received information which leads me to believe that you may have committed an offence, or offences………..

The appointment of Divisional Officer Graham Smith. Who is he?
A Suffolk Fire Officer with a chequered past, and aggressive personality. As told by long serving officers, this includes disputes with neighbours over the parking of vehicles used in part time working enterprises. Also a road rage incident. Also an attack on an individual after a dispute in a local disco/club round the back of a dark alley.

Attempt at interfering with a defence witness in the Ff Faiers discipline hearing 1996. A key member of the team who instigated the 1998 malicious prosecution of Sudbury Ff E. Brown. Dismissed at first instance Ff Brown was later reinstated on appeal by Suffolk County Councillors. And at this time the complainant against SubO X.

It is also well known that Graham Smith had repeatedly failed to be successful at the Home Office in attempting to gain entry to a Brigade Command Course. Hmm so there you go!!!!!!!!!!!

* These are subjective comments and generated from the values and prejudices intrinsic to the administrator. In consequence, if readers disagree and consider other perspectives are more valid please let me know

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 54 DCFO Ken Seager

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

To: Sub Officer J. A. Tiffen (752)
Station: 16, Normanshurst
KES/SIS/DISC
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
1 March 1999

Dear Sub Officer Tiffen,

IMPORTANT

Notification that you are the subject of an investigation under the Fire services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985
In accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the above Regulations, I am writing to notify you that I have received information which leads me to believe that you may have committed an offence, or offences, under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

The circumstances which I have asked to be investigated are:

1. The failure of Ff. M. J. Hyde to revert to firefighter rank in February, 1999.

It is my intention to carry out an investigation into the allegations, and I have appointed Divisional Officer Graham Smith to assist me. He will shortly be making arrangements to interview you in relation to this matter, and I would suggest that you use the opportunity to make a statement in reply.

However, you are not obliged to say anything, or to answer any questions put to you at an interview, unless you choose to do so. I must also warn you that anything said or written by you in connection with this matter may also be used in evidence at any subsequent disciplinary hearing.

I enclose two copies of this notification. One should be signed by you and returned immediately to the officer serving this notice on you. The other copy is for your use, and I would strongly recommend that you pass it to your union representative. You are entitled to seek the advice of your union in this matter, and for a representative of the union to be present at any interview hereafter.

If you have any questions about the disciplinary process which the officer serving this is unable to answer, please do not hesitate to contact me at Brigade Headquarters.

Yours sincerely

K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

I acknowledge receipt of this notification. I understand I am the subject of an investigation under the Fire Services (Discipline) regulations, 1985.


Signed………………………………………Date……………………………….

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 53 K Seager

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

To: Ff. M. J. Hyde (566)
Station: 16, Normanshurst

KES/SIS/DISC
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
1 March 1999

Dear Ff Hyde,

IMPORTANT

Notification that you are the subject of an investigation under the Fire services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

In accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the above Regulations, I am writing to notify you that I have received information which leads me to believe that you may have committed an offence, or offences, under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985.

The circumstances which I have asked to be investigated are:

1. Your failure to comply with an order to revert to firefighter rank on 1 February, 1999
2. Your demeanour in meetings with Temporary Assistant Divisional Officer Saward about the matter.

It is my intention to carry out an investigation into the allegations, and I have appointed Divisional Officer Graham Smith to assist me. He will shortly be making arrangements to interview you in relation to this matter, and I would suggest that you use the opportunity to make a statement in reply.

However, you are not obliged to say anything, or to answer any questions put to you at an interview, unless you choose to do so. I must also warn you that anything said or written by you in connection with this matter may also be used in evidence at any subsequent disciplinary hearing.

I enclose two copies of this notification. One should be signed by you and returned immediately to the officer serving this notice on you. The other copy is for your use, and I would strongly recommend that you pass it to your union representative. You are entitled to seek the advice of your union in this matter, and for a representative of the union to be present at any interview hereafter.

If you have any questions about the disciplinary process which the officer serving this is unable to answer, please do not hesitate to contact me at Brigade Headquarters.

Yours sincerely

K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

I acknowledge receipt of this notification. I understand I am the subject of an investigation under the Fire Services (Discipline) regulations, 1985.

Signed………………………………………Date……………………………….

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 52 Beccles Fire Station

General Overview of Events March 1999

1st March
The Secretary of DCFO SA Smith contacts Ff Hyde by telephone to arrange a hearing for the grievance invoked 29th January 1999. Subject to undertakings by the DCFO, Firefighter M. Hyde agrees to a &day variation. No confirmation of the undertakings agreed is received by 1700 hrs, hence repudiated.
Whilst on duty at approx 19.00 hrs at Lowestoft Fire Station Ff M. Hyde and Sub Officer John Tiffen are served Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985 regulation 7 letters. They are notified that they are now the subject of discipline investigations (see Doc 53 & 54).
ACFO K. Seager writes to Ff M. Hyde in reply to the latter’s letter dated the 27th February 1999. ACFO K. Seager states, "So far as I know, I have complied fully with the requirements of Regulation 8 (4) regarding the provision of copies of reports, etc to Mr Wigglesworth in connection with the charges he faces".

5th March
Ff M. Hyde issues breach of contract proceedings against CFO M. Alcock in Lowestoft County Court.

6th March
Ff M. Hyde writes to Mrs Linda Homer with regard to the grievance invoked 29th January 1999. It is requested that the grievance proceed as specified by the contractual rights of Suffolk County Council employees.
SubO A. Wigglesworth writes to DO G. Smith requesting further particulars of the allegations made against Firefighter M Hyde and Sub officer John Tiffen.

8th March
Do G. Smith meets with Sub Officer A Wigglesworth. The former dictates the investigation process he intends to pursue against Firefighter M Hyde and Sub Officer Tiffen. The letter outlining the request for further particulars is handed over to DO G. Smith.

9th March
DCFO S.A.Smith by way of letter written by Secretary Sigi Winters writes to Ff M. Hyde to arrange a date to hear the latter’s grievance.
Sub Officer A. Wigglesworth writes to DO G. Smith to notify him that Firefighter M. Hyde and Sub Officer Tiffen decline the use of audio tape recording in any disciplinary interview.

11th March
Ff M. Hyde writes to Sigi Winters as a reply to the letter 9th March. It is specified that the DCFO has breached the time limits governing the grievance procedure. Ff M. Hyde gives further notification that the grievance should be passed to the next stage.

12th March
DO G. Smith telephones SubO A. Wigglesworth to discuss aspects of his disciplinary investigation of Firefighter M. Hyde and Sub Officer John Tiffen.

15th March
Sub Officer A. Wigglesworth corresponds with DO G. Smith to notify the availability of Firefighter M Hyde and Sub Officer John Tiffen’s for disciplinary interview. A written reply is requested.16th March
Firefighter M Hyde Writes to DCFO SA. Smith to reiterate his demand for the grievance invoked 29th January to proceed to the next stage.

18th March
In response to the breach of contract proceedings issued by firefighter M. Hyde, against CFO M. Alcock, liability is admitted by Suffolk County Council.

19th March
DCFO SA. Smith writes to Firefighter M. Hyde and effectively contends he gave by entering into discussion a mutual undertaking to extend the contracted period for the grievance procedure. It is also claimed that the grievance is now resolved on the admission of liability of Suffolk County Council.

22nd March
Firefighter M. Hyde writes to DCFO SA. Smith. The understanding of the status of the grievance is clarified.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 51 Southwold Fire Station

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Chief Fire Officer From: FF HYDE 566
Station: 016
Date: 28-02-99



Dear Sir,

I make reference to my grievance to you dated 20th February 1999. As it is now the 28th of February and the matter has not been dealt with within 7 days as per Suffolk County Council Grievance Procedure Policy I wish to go to the next stage. That being to an Appeals Panel of members drawn from the Personnel Sub Committee and Public Protection Committee.

Respectfully Submitted

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 50 Saxmundham Fire Station

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Your ref
27-02-99

Dear ACFO Seager,

I write with reference to the discovery of documents in relation to the discipline case against SubO Wigglesworth.

In recent conversation with a reliable source I have been informed that you are in possession of certain documents collected during investigations which might be useful to the defence of SubO Wigglesworth.
Clearly if this is the case it is a strange situation, essentially the prosecution withholds, or fails to inform the defence of useful evidence. Indeed I am led to believe these documents have been in your possession for several months.

Having regard to the issues I raise I would ask you to confirm or deny the existence of such documentation. Finally if you concede the existence of further documentation I will be most interested t in knowing why, on the face of it, concealment has taken place.

For the purpose of minimising postage costs I enclose a further copy of this letter which I ask you to sign in acknowledgement of receipt and return to me.


Yours sincerely

M Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 49 Framlingham Fire Station

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

M Hyde Esq

MHA/MLA
Mr M H Alcock
01473 588969
22nd February 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

I acknowledge receipt of your memorandum dated 20th February 1999, which I received by facsimile this morning. I have passed your memorandum to the deputy Chief Fire Officer who will make appropriate arrangements for a meeting to consider your grievance as soon as possible.


Yours sincerely


M H Alcock

Chief Fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 48 Eye Fire Station

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Chief Fire Officer From: FF HYDE 566
BHQ Station: 016
Date: 20-02-99



Sir,

I have invoked the Grievance Procedure and have been heard by T/A.D.O. Saward (first stage), D.O. C. Hodge (second stage). I am still dissatisfied and wish to go to the next stage.

Submitted

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 47 Woodbridge Fire Station

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
Memorandum
Operations command

From: DO Hodge To: Ff Hyde
Normanshurst
Date: 15th February 1999

Reference: Your Grievance heard by me on Friday 12th February 1999

I write to confirm the outcome of my hearing of your grievance on the above date. Specifically that I uphold ADO Saward’s decision made, following his hearing your grievance at Normanshurst on Friday 5th February 1999.

You expressed to ADO Saward that you were aggrieved at his decision to revert you to your substantive rank of Firefighter on Monday 1st February 1999. This being because when you were initially temporarily promoted to Leading Firefighter with effect the 27th September 1998, by ADO Fuller, you were informed this would be "until the return to full duties of Leading Firefighter Paul Brown". L Ff P Brown has still not returned to work full duties and you were therefore aggrieved at the decision.

ADO Saward clearly stated in his memorandum to you his decision was based "on the grounds of equality and fairness to all". As you have now carried out the role of Temporary Leading firefighter for in excess of 4 months, and as ADO Saward had recognised that there are other personnel on the station who would benefit from such an opportunity, I fully support his decision.

Further, my understanding of the situation is that the circumstances that ADO Fuller felt appertained, at the time of the sickness of L Ff P Brown, have now changed. Specifically he believed that the period of sickness would be relatively short. Indeed it was partly for this reason that he did not wish to make any temporary watch changes involving a firefighter who had already passed the appropriate assessment, and had been found to be suitable for promotion to the rank of Leading Firefighter.

With the prolonged and continuing absence of L Ff P Brown, ADO Saward felt it necessary to take the action he did to allow a firefighter so qualified the opportunity to gain appropriate experience. Indeed ADO Saward is actually implementing Brigade Policy in so far as general Order OP 25 paragraph 3.1 states that "wherever possible recommendations for temporary promotion will be planned and linked to the promotions list and appraisal system."

You also indicated to me that you felt aggrieved that the status quo arrangements in Paragraph B (1) 12 of the Local Grievance and Disputes Procedures (Uniformed Employees Excluding Officer ranks) had not been invoked. Specifically you stated that ADO Saward’s idea of what the status quo entailed, differed to everyone else’s view. ADO Saward’s hearing of your grievance was NOT about the arrangements that do or do not exist whilst a grievance is being heard, but specifically to do with the issue of his reverting you to your substantive rank of firefighter.

ADO Saward took advice prior to implementing the decision that you would not remain a Temporary Leading Firefighter whilst the grievance was heard. His subsequent decisions were based partly on this advice, and as such your accusation that his subsequent order to you was not lawful, is not in my view correct.
During my hearing of your grievance, you raised the issue of the status quo. Having taken further advice on this matter I can confirm that the decision of the Brigade remains that you will not hold the temporary rank pending the outcome of your grievance.

I therefore confirm that I support the decision of ADO Saward to revert you to firefighter with effect from the 1st February 1999.

I would also wish to make clear that the decision in no way reflects upon the duties that you performed during your period of temporary promotion.

Should you wish to discuss this matter any further with me, please contact me at BHQ on x 8914

CF Hodge

Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 46 Felixstowe Fire Station

By the 12th February 1999 SubO J Tiffen*, the Blue Watch Officer was becoming twitchy and concerned as to how the reversion of Y was being handled. In particular, he was most concerned about where blame for the situation might be placed. In an effort to palm blame away from himself/ provide objective explanation? he compiled the following rough hand chronological notes on or, shortly after 12th February 1999.

- Grievance invoked. 0900

- loite litl mlet day (note added 1999 suggests
that this insertion refers to the
acknowledgement letter from T/ADO Saward).

0900 TUES 2nd FEB - Status Quo - grievance invoked.

1400 – ISH THURS 4th FEB – SAYWARD RANG MY HOME + told me to order mick to remove his bars on nights.

1800 – ordered mick

1801 – went to inspect Hippodrome left mick behind
ON RETURN mick had rang bill - to advice grievance invoked status quo mick to stay at LF or Brigade in dispute.

Fri 5th FEB – 0900 SAYWARD ASKED ABOUT mick.
MICK + GILLY SEE ERIC + SAYWARD
confronted Sayward felt watch were being picked on.

FRI 12th FEB - Mick + Wiggy see HODGE + SAYWARD.

WEDS Jan 19th Day – Me on course
SAYWARD TOLD ME HE WOULD see mick about reverting.

Tues 2nd FEB – Mick spoke to Hodge about grievance AM

* SubO. J. Tiffen, the same person who made a formal complaint against CFO Tony Baker’s alcohol consumption at Lowestoft Fire Stations Christmas dinner. See doc 3.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 45 Nayland Fire Station

Conclusion of Grievance hearing Officers Mess Lowestoft 12th February 1999 1800 hrs .

The hearing was about 30 minutes in length during which Y stated his case and was asked questions by DO. C. Hodge. This included specification of the legal status of the contract made between Y and ADO Fuller 25th September 1998.

DO. C Hodge told Y that he did not believe he had a proper formal contract that could be applied to the temporary promotion situation.

He also told Y that his legal status document was invalid and not relevant.

After discussion of Y’s grievance DO. C. Hodge asked Y and his representative to leave the Officers Mess so that he and T/ADO Saward could come to a decision.

On leaving the Officers Mess Y and his representative slithered off through the Station Canteen to the Officers Mess back door to listen to what DO. C. Hodge and T/ADO Saward were discussing.

It quickly became apparent that DO. C. Hodge would not be upholding Y’s grievance. This was despite the fact that he acknowledged that it should be, as a result of ADO Fullers contract and the rights expressed by Y during the grievance. DO. C. Hodge made several references to the Deputy and inferred that he was ordered to reject Y’s grievance out of support for T/ADO Saward and to remove Hyde from the position of Temporary promotion. Whilst not particularly keen to do this he said that the grievance could be moved up the command and somebody else could sort it out. Asked by T/ADO Saward as to what he was going to tell Y he said, "I’ll just say I uphold your original decision and will give reasons later, after I have had chance to brief the Dep and he has told me what to write."

And so it was when Y was called back into the Officers Mess.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 44 Sudbury Fire Station

Attachment- Re Legal Status

Given to DO. Colin Hodge by Y, 12th February 1999 1800 hrs Grievance meeting Officers Mess Lowestoft.
The agreement made between ADO Fuller and Ff Hyde constituted a CONTRACT and a legally binding agreement.

AGREEMENT arises as the result of an OFFER and ACCEPTANCE.

OFFER
ADO Fuller offered acting/temporary to Ff Hyde for the duration of LFf Browns sickness?

ACCEPTANCE
Ff Hyde accepted ADO Fuller’s offer to act/temp for the duration of LFf Brown’s absence.

There must be CONSIDERATION
The PRICE for which the PROMISE is bought.
ADO Fuller Ff Hyde
E.G.
Ff Hyde promised to act up on the understanding that it would be for LFf Brown’s entire sickness duration.
CONSIDERATION DOCTRINE

4 Principles
The promise must have economic value E.G. Ff Hyde undertook Junior officer duties. GOOD CONSIDERATION did not apply.
It was no Ff Hyde’s normal duties.
The promisee’s have not changed. ADO Fuller was the CFO’s agent.
Ff Hyde has executed the consideration entirely.
LEAGAL RELATIONS WERE CREATED = CONTRACT.
When the agreement was made between ADO Fuller and Ff Hyde both parties intended the agreement would be honoured.
CAPACITY TO EXERCISE CONTRACT EXISTED.
Ff Hyde is capable of LFf duties, ADO Fuller was Station Commander.
CONTACT COMPLIED WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
In writing.
Oral understanding.
Implied.
CONTRACT IS LEGAL.
Agreement made was not prohibited by statute.

2 STRANDS TO Ff HYDES LOSS.
Economic
Wages from now till return of LFf Brown.
Insult
Failure to consult, failure to honour contract, stress of grievance procedure and detriment from non-application of status quo.
Failure of normal civilised behaviour to negotiate proper notice.
False grounds to terminate contract.
Victimisation.
Breach of contract (repudiation by words and action)
Repudiation entitles the injured party to sue for damages and losses sustained.
AFFIRM.
To treat contract as still in existence, therefore continue to wear bars. Lapse of time without seeking a remedy may be treated as affirmation

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 43 Holbrook Fire Station

Notes made by SubO X

1800hrs Feb 12th 1999

M Hyde Grievance meeting Officers Mess Lowestoft


Those present
M Hyde C Hodge
A Wigglesworth G Saward

CH
Mr Saward is here because he dealt with the decision last week and can assist me with the background.
To MH can you for my benefit outline your grievance and the reasons behind it.

MH
Gives a general outline in relation to his temporary promotion which began in Sept 98 to provide cover for

PB. Basically I was asked if I would do the job to which I replied, I would be prepared to be temporary if it was for the duration of PB’s sickness.

CH
Asked by whom

MH
ADO Fuller, as you can see from the memo which is a contractual obligation and T/ADO Saward has decided not to honour by suggesting I revert to FF without proper notice. Essentially he is acting in bad faith as it is quite clear that the agreement between me and ADO fuller constitutes a contract, (reading from prepared notes – doc 4?).

CH
Puzzled look in response to contract, takes notes but refrains from comment.

MH
As a result of T/ADO Saward not recognising the agreement I invoked the grievance procedure in good faith and the reasonable expectation that the status quo would be honoured as specified in paragraph 12 page 4.
Unfortunately this has not been the case and T/ADO Saward is misguided/clearly wrong.

CH
Did ADO Saward discuss your reversion beforehand.

MH
The actual letter from ADO Saward confirmed a previous discussion during which I informed ADO Saward his action was wrong.
As I said I had a clear agreement, myself and ADO Fuller in the form of a contract (refer to notes)

CH
Mr Saward what were your reasons for your decision last Friday, to uphold your position.

GS
Basically it was done in the interests of promoting equality of opportunity and fairness at work.
Also I needed to give FF English the opportunity to act up so I could assess him for the forthcoming LFF assessments. So my action created the right environment for me to assess him properly.

CH
To GS so having made these arguments on 19 Jan has anything changed.

GS
I am still of the same opinion.

CH
Why

GS
The same arguments hold as I said it was to promote equality of opportunity, also when PB became sick nobody foresaw the length of his sickness.

CH
As Mr Saward said the circumstances of FF English’s temporary promotion were clear, as he said the need to assess him was paramount. I also commend the equality of opportunity that Mr Saward strives for.

MH
I must point out that T/ADO Saward asked me to revert without the thought of a need to preserve the status quo inherent in the grievance procedure.

ADJOURNMENT
While CH considers his decision with GS approx 2 mins.

CH
I can confirm that I am upholding ADO Saward’s decision.

MH
I refer you back to T/ADO Saward’s reasons and misleading evidence. His need to assess FF English for the forthcoming assessments, FF English is already assessed (see doc 41).

CH
Errrrr………..Even so I uphold ADO Saward’s decision and I will give extended reasons to you on Monday.

MH
If you have made your decision then you must have reasons and I ask you for them now.

CH
Para 5 says the reply will be in writing. That is all I have to say.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 42 Long melford Fire Station

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

Memorandum
Operations command

From: DO Hodge To: Ff Hyde
Normanshurst
Date: 10th February 1999

Reference: Grievance Procedure

I refer to your memorandum to me dated the 5th February 1999, relating to your grievance over the termination of your period of temporary promotion as a temporary leading firefighter.

I understand you saw ADO Saward at 1800 hours on Friday 5th February to discuss your grievance and that subsequently you have forwarded the grievance to me as the next stage of the procedure. I received your memorandum at BHQ on Monday 7th February.

In your absence today, I have arranged to interview you at Normanshurst at 18.00 hours on Friday 12th February. If this time is not suitable, then, in my absence on Thursday 11th February, please notify ADO Saward accordingly, and I will rearrange the date with you at a mutually convenient time.

CF Hodge

Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 41 The Fire Brigades Union

Note this document was not provided to Y until on or around 12th April 1999. Therefore, its creation as dated cannot be independently verified.

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Chief Fire Officer From: ADO Saward

Date : 6 February 1999

Grievance Firefighter Hyde

As a result of leading Firefighter Brown’s sickness, ADO Fuller promoted Firefighter Hyde to the rank of Temporary Leading Firefighter with effect from Sunday 27 September 1998. This appointment was confirmed in a memorandum dated 25 September which also stated that the temporary promotion would continue "until the return to full duties of LFf Brown"

My understanding is that it was envisaged that LFf Brown would be sick for approximately 4 weeks. It has now become evident that the sickness will continue for many months.

I assessed the impact of this long term absence, taking into account the representations of the watch officer, together with the personal development needs of station personnel.

There are two firefighters on station Normanshurst who have been assessed as suitable for promotion to the rank of Leading Firefighter. Firefighter Hyde has not.

Having held the rank for four months and in an attempt to employ the principle of fairness and equality, I took the decision to revert Firefighter Hyde to his substantive rank, having previously taken advise on the position regarding the wording of ADO Fuller’s memorandum, and temporarily promote another Firefighter to Temporary Leading Firefighter.

I spoke to Ff Hyde on the evening of 19 January and informed him of my decision. He was not pleased with the decision and I told him that I would confirm the details to him in writing, which I did in a memorandum the following day.

When I arrived at my office on the morning of 29 January, there was an envelope on my desk which contained a memorandum from Ff Hyde in which he gave notice of his wish to invoke the grievance procedure.

I wrote to him the same day, and delivered the letter by hand to his home address, acknowledging receipt of his request and informing him that I would be available to hear his grievance at 0900hours on Thursday 4 February, which was the next time I would be in Lowestoft.

On Wednesday 3 February Ff Hyde spoke to me on the telephone and said that this time would not be convenient to him and we agreed to meet at 1800hours on Friday 85th February.

At the first stage meeting Ff Hyde was accompanied by Firefighter Gilbert as his union representative and Assistant Divisional Officer smith was present as a witness and took contemporaneous notes.

The main substance of the grievance was the memorandum from ADO fuller. It soon became clear that I would not be in a position to satisfy his grievance and he indicated that he wished the matter to be referred to the second stage.

G. E. Saward

Assistant Divisional Officer



On the 29th January 1999 I invoked the Grievance Procedure with regards to having my Temporary Promotion taken away from me.
Today 5.2.99 I met T/ADO Saward for the first stage of my Grievance and I am not happy with his decisions. Therefore I wish to go to the next stage.
Submitted
MJ Hyde