The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 130 Bury St Edmunds Firefighters Strike

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

KES/SIS/Wigglesworth
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939

21st April 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985 – RE FIREFIGHTER M HYDE

Thank you for your letter dated 20th April which I received by fax yesterday.

I have reviewed the letter you referred to, i.e. the one addressed to DO Smith dated 6th March 1999 and my reply dated 10th March. I remain satisfied that the reply adequately addresses the points you raised at the time.

You hint that the transcript of DO smith’s interview with Mr Hyde may not be a true record. This would be ironic if so, in that the offer to tape record the interview was made – an offer which you declined in your letter dated 9th March. I have always believed a taped record of an interview to be preferable, but regrettably my view is not shared by the Fire Brigades Union or you, it seems, on this occasion at least.

I must point out that Mr Hyde was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him when he was interviewed by Divisional Officer Smith on the 23rd March. As I see it, the questions asked were specific enough for Mr Hyde to know the nature of the allegations against him. The fact that he declined to answer a single question, even those that sought to confirm facts easily capable of proof elsewhere, causes me to doubt your contention that Mr hyde is "more than willing" to make a written response. He does, of course, have the right to make a written response at any time, and I would encourage him to do so, even at this late stage. But he must realise that any written submission would be admissible as evidence in a subsequent hearing.

On the matter of the wording of the charge, I agree with you that it could be more specific. I will ensure that a revised charge sheet is served on Mr Hyde without delay, and I shall assume that his response to the first charge sheet (which I have already received) is null and void.

So far as I am concerned, this is my final reply to the issues you raise. I will not enter into any further correspondence in the matter prior to hearing. Any further concerns you may have will, I am afraid, have to be put before the presiding officer at the hearing in order for him to determine what weight to attach to them.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 129 Bury St Edmunds Firefighter Strike

Spare for Editing

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 128 Lowestoft Firefighter's Strike

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985
CHARGE SHEET

Part 1

Full name of accused: Michael John Hyde

Rank, number and station: Firefighter, No 566, Station 16, Normanshurst

Age, rate of pay/retaining fee and date of appointment: Age: 44

Pay: £1,717 per month Date joined: 1 October 1974

Under the Code of Offences against Discipline contained in the Schedule of the Fire Services (Discipline) regulations 1985, you are charged as follows:

Under paragraph 14 with

(i) Title of alleged offence: Conduct prejudicial to discipline

(ii) Particulars of alleged offence including time, date and place:

In that you did, between the dates of Monday 1 February 1999 and Friday 5 February 1999 (inclusive) at Normanshurst Fire Station, fail to carry out instructions issued by Assistant Divisional Officer Sawardton separate occasions by temporary Assistant Divisional Officer Saward verbally on 19 January, and confirmed in a memorandum dated 20 January 1999, to revert in rank to firefighter, and separately that you failed to carry out instructions issued verbally by Sub Officer Tiffen on Thursday 4th February 1999 to revert in rank to firefighter, which actions are, or likely to be, prejudicial to the discipline of the brigade.

(iii) Name and addresses of witnesses in support of charge:

T/ADO Saward – Normanshurst
Sub Officer J Tiffen – Normanshurst
ADO Campion – Normanshurst
ADO E Smith – Normanshurst

You are ordered, within 7 days after service to this Notice to you, to complete Part II and return it to the Investigating Officer, stating whether you admit or deny the charge(s)

Date 21st April 1999

Name and signature of Investigating Officer……………… K Seager

Signature of member charged……………………………………………

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 127 Lowestoft Firefighter Strike

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Firefighter (566) M Hyde
Station 16
Normanshurst

KES/DISC/Hyde/SIS
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939

21st April 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

I regret that it has become necessary to issue you a revised charge sheet following representations made on your behalf by Mr Wigglesworth.

Please find enclosed the revised charge sheet and Part II reply. The original one, dated 12th April 1999, should be destroyed. I shall assume that your response to the earlier charge sheet is null and void.

As before, you must return a copy of the charge sheet, and a completed Part II reply to me within 7 days. You have the right to consult with your Union representative before replying to the charge.

For the avoidance of doubt, the documents provided to you on 12th April 1999 when the original charge sheet was issued remain unchanged by the issue of this revised charge sheet.

I enclose two copies of this letter and the charge documents. I would advise you to pass a copy of the letter to your Union representative, Mr Wigglesworth. One copy of the charge documents is for your signature and return as described above – the other is for your retention

Please do not hesitate to contact me if any of the foregoing instructions are not clear.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 126 Ipswich Firefighters Strike

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr M Hyde
Lowestoft
KES/SIS/DISC
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939

20th April 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

Thank you for returning the charge sheet and part II document.

I note you deny the charge, and that you intend to be represented at a hearing by a member of the Fire Brigade. I note you also intend to call witnesses on your behalf.

I am happy that the names and addresses of theses witnesses will follow after you have consulted with your representative. Please understand, however, that it is in nobody’s interest, least of all your own, for this to cause an undue delay to the process. I cannot make arrangements for the charge to be heard until I know who I must call on your behalf as witnesses.

Please let me know as soon as you are able who you want to call so I can ask the Personnel Manager to make the necessary arrangements for the hearing quickly thereafter.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at these Headquarters.
I enclose a copy of this letter for you to pass to your Union representative.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 125 Ipswich Firefighter Strike

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

20th April 1999

Dear ACFO Seager,

I write as the representative of Ff. M. Hyde and with regard to the charge sheet and associated documents served to him at County Hall 13-04-99.

You may also recall I asked you to provide further particulars 06-03-99 which was reiterated to DO smith during interview 23-03-99, the latter being part of the 6 pages of notes that are a true record of that interview. The request for further particulars was of course made to ensure the accused would know the nature of the accusation against him, from which he could respond.

To date Mr, Hyde and myself are of the opinion that you have not provided sufficient basic information for the former to make an accurate formal response. In particular, if I may draw your attention to the relevant charge sheet and the complete absence of a time, date and place of the alleged offence. Indeed, Ff. Hyde informs me there are other errors within the documents served 13-04-99. This said it seems best that page is clarified in the first instance and I ask you to consider the points I raise.

Ff. Hyde will be back on duty 23-04-99 an be more than willing to make a written response if the above facts can be established.

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 124 Suffolk Firefighter's Strike 2005

SENT BY FAX 20th April 1999

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

20th April 1999

Dear CFO,

I have been asked to confirm the events reported to you by Mr. M. Hyde 14-04-99.

I can confirm that I was in the presence of Mr M Hyde at approx 1430 hrs when he noticed his papers had been interfered with, it is logical to assume this must have occurred between 1150 and 1430 hrs. adding to this further I can confirm Mr. M. Hyde, Mr. J. Parson’s, Mr. S. Bartram and myself all vacated the conference room for dinner in the canteen at 1150 hrs. Also present in the canteen were Mr. C. Hodge and Mr. R. Jory.

The latter two had already vacated the canteen when Mr. M. Hyde and myself made our way back to County hall at approximately 1250 hrs.

As for my own belongings that were left in the conference room I am unsure as to whether they were interfered with or, if anything is missing. Indeed the latter may only become apparent when the need to refer to something specific arises.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 123 FSYTA Sudbury

SENT BY FAX 20th April 1999

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA


20th April 1999

Dear Lin Homer,

I have been asked to confirm the events reported to you by Mr. M. Hyde 14-04-99.

I can confirm that I was in the presence of Mr M Hyde at approx 1430 hrs when he noticed his papers had been interfered with, it is logical to assume this must have occurred between 1150 and 1430 hrs. adding to this further I can confirm Mr. M. Hyde, Mr. J. Parson’s, Mr. S. Bartram and myself all vacated the conference room for dinner in the canteen at 1150 hrs. Also present in the canteen were Mr. C. Hodge and Mr. R. Jory.

The latter two had already vacated the canteen when Mr. M. Hyde and myself made our way back to County hall at approximately 1250 hrs.

As for my own belongings that were left in the conference room I am unsure as to whether they were interfered with or, if anything is missing. Indeed the latter may only become apparent when the need to refer to something specific arises.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 122 Suffolk Firefighter Strike 2005

Interested by what happens in the UK Fire Service. If so why not take a look at the SubO X aol journal at http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/SubOX

Suffolk Fire Service

To: The Presiding Officer From: SubO Wigglesworth
Station: 055
Date: 19th April 1999

Grievance - M Hyde – Material Facts

Sir,

I was on duty at Lowestoft Fire Station on 29th January 1999. During that afternoon, shortly before dinner I had occasion to enter the receptionist’s office on the ground floor. At this time I noticed the receptionist Mrs S Huggins was typing a letter to T/LFf Hyde regarding the process of his grievance. The originator of the letter was ADO Saward, who from what I can gather was acting on the instructions of DO Hodge who was mentioned in the letter.

In short the contents of material importance centred on the fact that T/LFf Hydes grievance was to be heard by DO Hodge on Tuesday 2nd February 1999, at 10.30 hrs. Having unavoidably seen the contents in front of me Mrs Huggins was concerned I had viewed the letter on account of it was personally addressed to T/LFf hyde. In reply I informed her that T/LFf hyde had asked me to represent him on the matter.

Having noted the contents of the letter I informed T/LFf Hyde almost immediately as to the contents of the letter and the arrangements pertaining to February 2nd 1999.

Later that afternoon close to 1700 hrs Mrs Huggins informed me the original letter confirming DO Hodges involvement had been deleted on the instructions of ADO Saward. A re-hashed letter to T/LFf Hyde had been composed to which, I believe was delivered personally by ADO Saward to T/LFf Hyde’s house that evening.

I spoke to Mrs Huggins about these matters today, she confirmed the existence of two letters being composed re T/LFf Hyde on 29th January 1999 of which the original was deleted. The contents of this submit are to my belief a true record of the events herein.

AD Wigglesworth SubO 854

BSC, MBA, G.I.Fire.E