The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 270 Leiston Retained Fireman

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


5th July 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Discipline case – Ff M Hyde

With reference to the above case scheduled for 20th July 1999.

I would be pleased if you can make overhead projector facilities available for my use at the hearing. If these cannot be provided from your stock at Headquarters please advise so and I will make alternative arrangements to obtain such equipment from the Training centre.

Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 269 Leiston RFU

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


2nd July 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Discipline case – Ff M Hyde

Thank you for your letter dated 24th June 1999.

As already expressed to you by others, and myself, the appointment of an assessor at a summary hearing is unprecedented. Despite extensive research I have as yet not identified its occurence previously. I would be pleased if you could inform me as to where and when this procedure has been used before.

Having widened my search further I note the deliberations of Widgery LCJE 1978 in connection with a Fire service discipline case which departed from normal procedures. The LCJE expressed words to the effect that such action could only possibly be accepted in exceptional circumstances.

There is absolutely no doubt the attendance of Mr C Jackson is a serious departure from the specific laid procedures, by regulation and guidance.

For that reason above I ask you once more to please provide in a particularised form the exceptional circumstances which exist and require the appointment of Mr C Jackson to the summary hearing of Ff M Hyde.

By implication, to ensure the defence is not prejudiced it is my reasonable belief that we are made aware of what these exceptional circumstances are. At the same time I also ask why to date we have not been informed of these circumstances. Indeed, an element essential to natural justice is that the accused should know the nature of the allegation against him/her.

Ff Hyde and myself are unaware of any circumstances that could reasonably adjudged to be exceptional.

I would be grateful if you could give these matters your prompt attention.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 268 Leiston FBU

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


2nd July 1999


Dear DO Smith,

Discipline case – Ff M Hyde

Thank you for your letter dated 30th June 1999.

In response to paragraph three. I refer you to page two line 6/7 of your typed transcript. Please supply the document to which you refer, in your words dated 21.01.99.

Finally, I would ask you to respond fully to the question I posed in my letter, to you 24th June 1999. In particular, can you confirm the relevant bundle of documents have not been seen by any other person. If you are unable to confirm this matter I sahll assume you have divulged the documents entrusted to you and breached trust and confidence.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 267 Leiston Female Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 266 Beccles Fireman

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service
A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft Fire Station
P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA
GDS/SIS/DISC
DO G Smith
(01473) 588861
30th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


I have just returned from leave and acknowledge three letters from yourself dated 10th June 1999, 23rd June and 24th June 1999 respectively.

In the final paragraph of your letter dated 10th June 1999 you indicate you prefer your own record of proceedings at the hearing. For your information no verbatim recording is made at a summary hearing. Because there is no right of appeal to awards made at a summary hearing, there is no requirement for a record to be made. However, should you choose to be accompanied by an assistant, that person could, of course, make notes. For your information ADO Meelan will be my assistant for the hearing. I must point out though that the Presiding Officer will not allow proceedings to be interrupted by an individual attempting to maintain a verbatim record.

In respect of your letter dated 23rd June 1999 you request a copy of a written order dated 21st January 1999. If you check the transcript of the interview with Firefighter Hyde you will see it actually refers to a written order dated 20th January 1999. I assume this is the document you refer to and this was copied to Mr Hyde when he was served with the charge sheet. I can confirm that that document is a copy of the one in my possession and is unedited.

In response to your letter dated 24th June 1999 I would remind you that I wrote to you on 4th June 1999 stating in the final paragraph that the documents you refer to have been secured in my office. I also offered you the opportunity to request their return.


Yours sincerely



G D Smith
Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 265 Beccles Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


30th June 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Discipline case – Ff M Hyde

Thank you for your letter dated 22nd June 1999.

This indicates the unavailability of Ff Wood on 20th July 1999.

Having given consideration to Ff Wood’s non-appearance we now wish to call T/LFf English to fill the resulting gap. T/LFf English’s relevance is completely compatible to that of Ff Wood. Therefore, a witness of equal value.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 264 Beccles Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


29th June 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Discipline case – Ff M Hyde

With reference to my earlier notice to you of an intention to maintain a record of the hearing to the above case.

I am currently looking to make arrangements for tape recording equipment by hire or other means. As such cost will fall on the FBU, the latter’s officials have asked me to inform you in good time that we wish to introduce such equipment to the hearing.

I trust you have no objection to the FBU introducing such equipment into the hearing. Unless I hear to the contrary I will take steps to obtain such equipment.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 263 Rhyl Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Fire brigades Union
Lowestoft Fire Station
P.O. Box 54, Lowestoft
Suffolk NR32 2QA
SAS/SIS
SASmith
(01473) 588939
28th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER M HYDE

Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 requesting my attendance as a witness in the above discipline case. As I am not a witness to material facts, I am not willing to appear as a witness for the defence.


Yours sincerely



S A Smith
Deputy Chief fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 262 Leiston Volunteer Firefighter

Mr David Kemp
Felixstowe

27.06.99


Ref: Discipline Case FF: Hyde


Dear Tony,

With regard to your letter dated 23.06.99.

I can confirm I was offered a temporary secondment to Normanshurst Station in early December 1999. However, I don’t know by whom, as a message was left on my answer phone from my station and not a senior officer.

I believe the reason behind asking me to go to Normanshurst at the time was due to the fact that I had a transfer request in to go there as a leading fire-fighter or Acting Sub Officer to gain watch experience as a senior officer on a station of my choice.

I hope this letter finds you well

Yours faithfully

David Kemp
LFf@06

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 261 Leiston Volunteer Fireman

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region
Chris Hayward
55 Burrell Rd
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP2 8AH

24th June 1999

CFO Alcock
Suffolk Fire Service
IP2 8AH

Dear Mr Alcock,

Appointment of assessors for summary hearings

I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the brigades decision to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing within the Fire Service discipline regulations 1985.
To my knowledge this is a first for Suffolk. I have spoken to Bill Rampling and Graham Tranquada who deal with discipline matters on behalf of the union at brigade and regional level respectively and both are unaware of this circumstance happening before. My investigations would therefore indicate to me that this would indeed be setting a precedent.
I have contacted Thompsons the FBU solicitors for advice on this matter. Their opinion is that the brigade are not entitled to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing. That regulation 9 (4) specifically provides the chief with power to appoint up to two assessors for a hearing where the hearing falls to be heard by him or the elected members. A summary hearing, regulation 9 (3) procedure does not fall within either of the above circumstances and as such no assessor should be present.

The guidance states "the general tone of the hearing (summary) should be more of an interview than a procedural hearing". This then begs the question what role an assessor would play in an "interview" style hearing.

1. Why are the brigade seemingly going against the discipline procedures and guidance?
2. Who made the decision to appoint an assessor?
3. Why does the brigade believe there is a necessity to have an assessor present.
4. Is this precedent, due to the fact that the defendant is an active trade union official?
5. Why is there no mention of assessors in the guidance (annex c) regarding summary hearings if this facility is available to the brigade?
6. Why does the role and function of an assessor only appear under annex d (the full hearing ) in the guidance notes?
7. Can the brigade provide an example where this has happened before?

The FBU firmly believes that by appointing an assessor, the brigade is not adhering to the 1985 discipline regulations and I would ask that this decision is reversed.

The case in question has been set for the 20th July. I would therefore be grateful if I could receive a reply as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Hayward

Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 260 Suffolk FBU

Spare

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 259 Wickhambrook RFU

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


KEYPOINTS DOC 258?

1. The appointment of an assessor is claimed to be approved/suggested on ‘Legal advice given to Mr, Seager.’

Perhaps it’s the advice of Mr Jackson?

Did Mr. Seager suggest the appointment of an assessor or was it Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Legal advice?

And when was the Legal advice requested before or after the appointment of an assessor?

Perhaps the letter content suggests Legal advice has only extended as far as the right of appointment ?

By the way it is a fact that Mr Seager, in preparation for the role of Brigade Investigating Officer, was privileged to attend the extensive Brigade Command course at the Fire Service College Moreton – in – Marsh. So, fully equipped with comprehensive Legal training for all the challenges inherent in any Fire service Discipline prosecution that is executed properly and according to statute.

Of course the explanatory plea to the wisdom of Legal advice pegged to the ultra-viries appointment the assessor might be more convincing if it had been volunteered on 14th June 1999 (Doc 224) in Miss Sarah Davie’s (now Mrs Meelan) letter?

In Doc 224:

There is no mention of the decision to appoint an assessor belonging to Mr Seager?

There is no merit to its reasoning being due to Legal advice?

Finally, for all intents and purpose’s Miss Davies (now Mrs Meelan) puts responsibility for the appointment solely on Mr Seager. In fact, Miss Davies (now Mrs Meelan) claims no knowledge of the reason for appointment.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 258 Wickhambrook Volunteer Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA
PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588872
24th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


I refer to your letter dated 22nd June 1999.

Thank you for clarifying Mr. Seager’s commitment to copy his own letters to Mr. Jones. I make no such commitment and my position remains as stated in my letter dated 18th June.

Legal advice given to Mr. Seager regarding the appointment of an assessor at Mr. Hyde’s hearing is, I understand, contrary to your own interpretation on this point. We consider the appointment of an Assessor to be a reasonable and consistent with the Fire service Discipline Regulations. With regard to the reason for an Assessor being appointed, I am afraid you will need to refer this point to Mr. Seager, as the Brigade Investigating Officer. Mr. Seager is, I believe away on leave until 1st July.

I note that you are considering pursuing this matter under the Disputes Procedure. You may like to bear in mind the “Grey Book” specifically excludes disciplinary matters from the Disputes procedures.

Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 257 Wickhambrook Fire Station Training Night

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Station Officer Rolfe From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 24th June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to walk to the post box at the end of Northgate to insert a letter. The letter is related to matters connected with Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 256 Lowestoft Fire Alarm Free Firefighter Check

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Secretary and Solicitor

Mr A D Wigglesworth
The fire Brigade Union
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA
6028/KWS/TQ 588969
24th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


Thank you for your letter of 15 June 1999, which was received on 23rd June.

I understand that you have written in similar terms to the Chief Fire Officer.

You will in due course be receiving a reply to the points that you raise from him.

Yours sincerely



K W STEVENS
County Secretary and Solicitor

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 255 Advice for School Visits to Felixstowe Fire Station

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Reply to:

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

24th June 1999


Dear DO Smith,

Discipline Case - Ff M Hyde

In compliance with normal practice and courtesy you were provided with a bundle of documents that the defence may have relied on for the hearing was scheduled for 7th June 1999. The hearing was postponed at short notice. The documents were also necessary for you to carry out the duty imposed upon you by the relevant regulations.

‘To bring out both sides of the case fairly.’

If I might remind you the bundle of documents were for your own personal use. Solely provided to you for a fair opportunity to advance a valid and informed counter argument if you so choose. I naturally assumed that this was the implication you inferred by virtue of good faith.

Bearing the above in mind I would be pleased if you can confirm the relevant bundle of documents have remained under your possession at all times since service. At the same time I would ask you to confirm good faith in the form of trust and confidence complete with total confidentiality has been preserved.

Finally, if these documents have been divulged or shown to any other person I would be pleased if this/those persons can be named by you. It is my reasonable belief that you will have no concern or reservations in responding to the issues I have raised.

Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 254 Leiston Fire Station Drill Night

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


8 The Bretts
Kesgrave
Ipswich
IP5 2YY

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

23rd June 1999


Dear Mr Wigglesworth

Discipline Case – Ff M Hyde


I refer to your letter to me dated 1st June 1999.

You ask me to attend Mr Hyde’s forthcoming discipline hearing as a witness for his defence. Firstly you make reference to the presentation of various documents sourced by myself which are highly relevant material facts of the case. Secondly you indicate that I will also recall my involvement in the grievance raised by Mr Hyde.

With reference to your first point I do not believe that I am in possesion of any relevant facts that will assist in his defence in his forthcoming discipline hearing.

In relation to your second point, you are correct that I was involved at the appropriate stage in the grievance submitted by Mr Hyde, and you are of course aware of the outcome of my decision on the grievance, which was clearly recorded and sent to Mr Hyde.

Finally I would point out that I find your comments “I am also led to believe that you are an FBU member so must be willing to act as a witness for a fellow member”, as totally unacceptable. They are a challenge to my integrity.

An individual’s membership of the FBU or otherwise is not an issue when I am carrying out my day to day duty, be it the hearing of grievance cases, the investigating of alleged breaches of discipline, or my involvement as a witness in any particular case.

I cannot believe that the FBU would expect me treat their members any differently from any other serving firefighter or officer in such matters, a point I have also made to the FBU Brigade Secretary, Mr C Hayward.

As already stated I do not believe that I am in possession of any relevant facts that will assist in the defence of Mr M Hyde, and therefore based on this fact alone, I can see no justification for my agreeing to act as a witness in his defence.

Yours sincerely

CF Hodge, BSc, M.I.Fire.E.

As you will no doubt have heard Firefighter M Hyde has been charged with the above offence 13th April 1999.

I understand that you were approached and offered the Leading firefighter position on a temporary secondment to Lowestoft blue watch in early December 1998. This matter is of considerable interest to the discipline case, indeed it contradicts in part the rationale held for Firefighter Hyde’s dismissal from post.

Bearing the above in mind I would be extremely grateful if you could pass comment in statement form on your view of the situation. In particular, I ask you to confirm if you were offered the post above and if so when this actually was. At the same time, if you can recall, I would be most interested in establishing if you were given any particular reasons as to why you were offered this particular post. If there is any other factual information you feel may be relevant please include it in your statement.

Just to remind you the document might be used in Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. As such it is important your statement should be accurate and true to the best of your knowledge.

Please ensure your statement is returned to me as soon as possible. In anticipation I thank you for your assistance.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 253 Felixstowe Crucial Crew 2006

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr A D Wigglesworth
The fire Brigade Union
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA

MHA/MLA
Marie Anderson
(01473) 588969
23rd June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


Disciplinary Hearing – 20th July 1999

I write in respect of your letter dated 17th May 1999 received at this office on 21st June 1999.

Mr Alcock is away from the office on annual leave until 6th July 1999. I will, therefore, ensure your letter is brought to his attention when he returns.

Yours sincerely



Marie Anderson
PA to Chief Fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair -Doc 252 Felixstowe Fire Cadets

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Reply to:

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

23rd June 1999

Dave Kemp


Dear Dave,

Ff M Hyde – Conduct Prejudicial to Discipline – Discovery of Documents

As you will no doubt have heard Firefighter M Hyde has been charged with the above offence 13th April 1999.

I understand that you were approached and offered the Leading firefighter position on a temporary secondment to Lowestoft blue watch in early December 1998. This matter is of considerable interest to the discipline case, indeed it contradicts in part the rationale held for Firefighter Hyde’s dismissal from post.

Bearing the above in mind I would be extremely grateful if you could pass comment in statement form on your view of the situation. In particular, I ask you to confirm if you were offered the post above and if so when this actually was. At the same time, if you can recall, I would be most interested in establishing if you were given any particular reasons as to why you were offered this particular post. If there is any other factual information you feel may be relevant please include it in your statement.

Just to remind you the document might be used in Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. As such it is important your statement should be accurate and true to the best of your knowledge.

Please ensure your statement is returned to me as soon as possible. In anticipation I thank you for your assistance.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 251 Felixstowe Woman Firefighter

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Reply to:

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

23rd June 1999


Dear DO Smith,

Ff M Hyde – Conduct Prejudicial to Discipline – Discovery of Documents

As you will no doubt remember you conducted a formal interview with the above 23rd March 1999. Within that interview you personally posed Firefighter Hyde a question relating to T/ADO Saward’s written order dated 21st January 1999.

As the representative of Firefighter Hyde and as necessary for his defence, we request to be furnished with a complete and unedited copy of the above written order to which you referred during the relevant interview 23rd March 1999.

I would be pleased if you could comply with the request in a reasonable period.




Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 250 Black Suffolk Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Station Officer Rolfe From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 22nd June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to compose and draft a reply to a letter I have received from the personnel manager. This is with regard to the Firefighter Hyde discipline case.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 249 Haverhill Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Station Officer Rolfe From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 22nd June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to meet the FBU Brigade chair and secretary during the afternoon 23rd June 1999. This will be post my departure from the Brigade Health & Safety committee meeting in Ipswich, for which I have already obtained permission. The meeting is for the purpose of discussing aspects of Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case with FBU Brigade officials.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 248 Felixstowe Volunteer Fireman

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Campion From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 22nd June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to walk to the post box at the end of Northgate to send a letter for union business to the County Solicitor.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 247 Felixstowe FSYTA

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 4RD

PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588872
22nd June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


Disciplinary Hearing – 20th July 1999

Further to my letters of 14th & 18th June, Mr S Wood, named by you as a witness for Mr Hyde, has advised me that he is unavailable to attend the hearing on 20th July due to annual leave commitments. No other witness has indicated their unavailability and the hearing remains scheduled for 20th July 1999.


Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 246 Felixstowe Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


22nd June 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letter dated 18th June 1999.

In following up the content may I start by pointing out to you that the letter by ACFO Seager dated 10th May provides confirmation of the acceptance to copy in Mr C Jones. For further clarification on this point I refer you to paragraph two of ACFO Seager’s letter dated 27th April 1999.

‘Whilst I am happy to copy to Mr Jones, I cannot deal’ [with him exclusively]

The offer was gratefully accepted on behalf of Firefighter Hyde, by way of formal letter sent, on 11th May 1999. I apologise if I have misdirected you non this matter.

Moving along to the main issue communicated to you by my letter 15th June 1999. I thank you for identifying the person responsible (ACFO Seager) for the appointment of Mr Jackson. If this is the case it appears there may be a breach of the relevant regulations.

I invite you to reconsider your understanding of the individual regulations 9 (30 and ( (4) which cite in support of Mr Jackson’s attendance. Taking a literal, golden and mischief approach there is absolutely no power to appoint an assessor under the prevailing circumstances. The power within 9 (4) is restricted to cases which fall to be heard by the CFO or by the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority. Firefighter Hyde’s case is being heard by neither and there is no power to appoint an assessor.

To reiterate my earlier concerns the intent is a serious and alarming departure from the procedures set out in the regulations. For this I can see absolutely no reasonable justification. Having given serious exhaustive consideration as to what the explanation maybe, I can only assume it is directly related to some form of anti-union policy. Firefighter Hyde is, of course, a long-standing FBU official. There is I fear no other plausible explanation. Notwithstanding I will be more than prepared to consider your own explanation.

Finally, may I also remind you that in view of the unusual procedures being adopted we maintain the right to pursue this matter to a higher body. Whilst we may assume you will obstruct the grievance route the dispute mechanism between the authority and the FBU remains a consideration.

I would be extremely pleased if you will give these issues further thought and forward your response as soon as possible. Indeed, given the situations that exist I reasonably believe your failure to respond in detail may invite a negative inference.



Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 245 Felixstowe Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Firefighter Hyde From: ADO Saward

Date: 21 June 1999


Contact Whilst off Duty

I acknowledge receipt of your memorandum dated 16 June 1999, in which you request that you are not contacted whilst off duty, the content of which has been noted.

G. E. Saward
Assistant Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 244 Wickhambrook Woman Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Wilson From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 21st June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to assist Leading Firefighter Paul Brown compose and draft a letter with regard to the condition causing his current sickness.


Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 243 Mildenhall Fire Safety

Spare

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 242 Leiston Fire Station Drill Night

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Thompsons
Solicitors

CONGRESS HOUSE
GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDOM
WC1B 3LW
DX 35722 BLOOMSBURY
TEL 0171 637 9761
FAX 0171 637 0000
Fax 0181-546 5187

CDJ/FBU/F98/60224

Mr A Wigglesworth
10 Somerleyton Road
Oulton
Lowestoft
NR32 4RD

By Post only

18th June, 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

DISCIPLINE CHARGES MR MICHAEL HYDE

The correspondence arrived in the second post.

I would point out to the Brigade that there is no power to appoint an assessor.

The power conferred in regulation 9 (40 is limited to cases which fall to be heard by the chief Fire Officer or by the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority. Mr Hyde’s case is being heard by neither and therefore there is no power to have an assessor. Any attempt to have such a person will be a breach of the Regulations and a departure from the usual procedures. I suggest that your letter makes it clear that there is no justifiable reason for the departure, you can only assume that it is yet a further example of an anti-union policy operating in the Brigade.
I would also point out in response to Ms Davies’ letter of 10th June 1999 that the guidance makes it quite clear that the Brigade investigating officer should be experienced. Certainly, one would expect the personnel officer to keep a watching brief.

I think that finally, I would make the point that you are highly concerned at the unusual procedures being adopted generally by Suffolk Fire Service and that while matters of discipline are excluded from grievance procedures, there is always the dispute mechanism between the authority and the fire Brigades Union to be considered.




Yours sincerely



Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 241 Sudbury Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Tel 01502 403842

18 – 06 - 99


APPLICATION FOR TIME IN LIEU

Dear DO Hayden,

Further to the telephone conversation between Sub Officer Tiffen and yourself. This was with concern to my application to obtain time in lieu. Your instructions were subsequently conveyed to T/ADO Saward and formed the subject of the memorandum dated 7th June 1999 (Doc 216) which I attach.

I cannot agree with your reasoning, conveyed via T/ADO Saward, to refuse my reasonable claim for time in lieu.

Firstly, I draw your attention to the precedent struck and practiced over a long standing period, thereby affirmed normal custom. For this Firefighter W Rampling has been compensated on a time for time basis to duties connected with discipline matters. My claim is not distinguishable in any way from the facilities provided to Firefighter W Rampling.

If the above fact is not sufficient to convince you my claim is reasonable may I also point out the portrayal in the final paragraph of the memorandum 7th June 1999 is somewhat misguided. My attendance was subject entirely to the arrangements of brigade Officers. I attended when they determined, wholly for their convenience to my own detriment. No other dates or times were offered, nor the right to alternatives.

As you well know all members have a right to representation if they wish. Indeed, such non-provision would, or could, be claimed a breach of natural justice. It is in the Brigade interest to ensure representation is provided. The reality being that if I had refused to co-operate and restrict my representation to duty hours great difficulty would arise in the process of discipline matters. Is that what you want?

If this is the case may I suggest that all future meetings, interviews and matters concerned with discipline matters are convened during the hours of the participating parties. To reiterate this would impose severe detriment on the discipline system. I am not in favour of such a step and see no need for such action if you are prepared to act in a reasonable manner.

Bearing these points in mind I would be extremely pleased if you will grant my reasonable request for the time in lieu I believe I am entitled to in respect of official FBU duties carried out for the Brigade benefit.


Yours sincerely.


M Hyde.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 240 Leiston Volunteer Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Wilson From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 18th June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to draft a letter as representative for Firefighter Hyde. To be addressed to the Senior County Solicitor in respect of the unlawful involvement of Mr C Jackson in Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case hearing. Such confirmation is required in connection with a potential complaint to the law society for England and Wales arising from Mr Jackson’s unethical behaviour.


Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 239 The Unlawful Sarah Meelan

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA
PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588872
18th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


I refer to your letter dated 15th June 1999

With regard to the first page of your letter, I have nothing further to add to the points made in my letter dated 10th June.

I was asked by the Brigade Investigating Officer to invite Mr. Jackson to attend the Hearing on 20th July in the capacity of an assessor. Regulation 9, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Fire Services Discipline Regulations 1985 permit such an arrangement. In your capacity as Mr. Hyde’s representative you will, of course, have the opportunity to hear any comments, advice or information given by Mr Jackson at the Hearing.

Please be aware that the Hearing of Mr. Hyde’s case is scheduled to take place on 20th July 1999. To date, none of the witnesses ordered to attend have indicated their unavailability. I would, howver, draw your attention again to the reference in my letter to Mr. Hyde (dated 14th June) regarding the possible unavailability of one individual.

Mr Seager is currently away on annual leave. I have, however, gained access to his letter dated 10th May. I can see no commitment to copy all correspondence to Mr. Jones. Should you wish to do so at your own expense (or that of the FBU), I have no objection.

Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 238 Mildenhall Woman Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Wilson From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 17th June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to reply to a letter I have received from S Davies in connection with the appointment of an assessor to Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. As there is no statutory provision for such action the act must be deemed unlawful. To follow this up I need to confirm the intent by letter to the CFO, ACFO Seager and the County Solicitor.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 237 Wickhambrook Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


17th June 1999


Dear Mr Alcock,

I write with regard to your intention to engage Mr C Jackson as an assessor for the Firefighter Hyde discipline hearing set for 20th July 1999.

I imply the intent for this move is yours, being that ultimate responsibility for overall brigade policy on discipline belongs to you.

I am informed from a reliable legal source that the appointment of Mr C Jackson will be a breach of the discipline regulations. In effect unlawful.

The relevant legality is, to some extent, outlined in my response to S Davies dated 15th June 1999. I enclose that document.

I would be grateful if you can confirm the appointment of Mr C Jackson to act as an assessor is to go ahead in light of the obvious legal contravention it will incur.



Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 236 Wickhambrook Fireman

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


17th June 1999


Dear ACFO Seager,

Thank you for your two letters dated 11th June 1999 which are supposedly in reply my letters sent 4th & 5th June 1999. Both are apparently addressing the discipline case of Firefighter M Hyde.

If I might question the reply to my letter dated 4th June 1999. I have absolutely no record of any such letter sent to you on that date bearing relevance to Firefghter M Hyde. I would ask you to recheck the letter received and confirm this matter.

The only letter I am aware of which was sent to you on 4th June 1999 was in connection with my own personal matters. I enclose a further copy of the letter sent to you 4th June 1999 and ask that it receive your attention.

With reference to the reply of the letter dated 5th June 1999 I note you are unable to demonstrate good faith entirely. As you are abundantly aware good faith is a mandatory component of natural justice. It is by your latest reply 5th June 1999 prudent to assume no complainant exists. At the same time you are unable to furnish the relevance of the non competent documents served 13th April 1999.

Once more it is prudent to assume your inability to assist in these matters is an indication that you agree with my own analysis. Unless I hear to the contrary I will assume that is the case.


Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 235 Wickhambrook Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Wilson From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 17th June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to draft a letter of reply to a letter delivered to me yesterday from ACFO Seager. The contents err and a reply is absolutely necessary with urgency.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 234 Mildenhall Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/



or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Thompsons
Solicitors
CONGRESS HOUSE
GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDOM
WC1B 3LW
DX 35722 BLOOMSBURY
TEL 0171 637 9761
FAX 0171 637 0000
Fax 0181-546 5187

CDJ/FBU/F98/60224

Mr A Wigglesworth
10 Somerleyton Road
Oulton
Lowestoft
NR32 4RD

By Post only

16th June, 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

DISCIPLINE CHARGES MR MICHAEL HYDE

Further to our telephone call today, I thought I would drop you a line confirming our telephone call.

I note that the Chief Fire officer is proposing to request the attendance of an assessor at Mr Hyde’s summary hearing and that he has suggested Mr Chris Jackson. Mr Jackson is involved in all the discipline cases.

Regulation 9 (4) specifically provides the Chief with the power to appoint an assessor for the hearing where the hearing falls to be heard by him. you have told me that the chief is going to deal with the matter under Regulation 9 (3) procedure. That being so, the CFO should have nominated another officer to deal with the hearing and therefore the case should not “fall to be heard by him” and therefore there is no power to appoint an assessor and the disciplinary procedure is arguably in breach of the disciplinary regulations.
The guidance makes it clear that the summary hearing procedure is more of an interview than a procedural and is informal. It is difficult to understand why an assessor would be needed in such a hearing.

Again, the Guidance makes it clear that an assessor is there to give solely technical advice or guidance that the disciplinary body may require during the hearing. What technical advice does the Brigade anticipate that they will need from Mr Jackson who is a member of the County Council and a solicitor? I anticipate that Mr Jackson will be there to say one or a number of things. Firstly, he may suggest that Mr Hyde was wrong to sue the Chief fire officer personally. In that regard he is right. However, it might be argued that in fact Mr Alcock was named purely because he is the Chief Fire Officer of the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service. The solution to the problem was simply to apply to the Court to amend the Defendant to delete the reference to CFO Alcock. It was quite clear from the summons that the proceedings were against the fire Brigade and it is highly likely that the Court will have agreed to that amendment. It is an easy mistake for a lay person to make particularly when you bear in mind that when you are suing the police, the Defendant will be named as “The Chief Constable for…”.

Alternatively, Mr Jackson maybe there to argue about whether or not Mr Hyde’s action was likely to succeed. It would in my view be wholly wrong to suggest that it will not have succeeded. It may not but the issue will never now be resolved before a Judge. The point is that Mr Hyde put in the claim and the Council accepted that he was entitled to his money and offered to pay it to him.

If the hearing goes ahead with Mr Jackson’s attendance, I think you must do the best that you can. You must register your opposition politely but firmly. I suggest that you try and arrange for the meeting to be recorded if possible using a dictaphone but alternatively by written record. If the Brigade wants to know why you can explain that there is concern firstly that there is a campaign against members of the Fire Brigades Union and secondly that there is a practice in the Brigade of treating senior officers more leniently than junior officers in disciplinary matters and therefore the desire to record the proceedings is as much for the Brigade’s protection as it is for Mr Hyde’s. You can point to the fact that Mr Jackson is there as being an example of an unusual step to take in these cases.

Please let me know how you get on.


Yours sincerely



Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 233 Mildenhall Fireman

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


16th June 1999

Firefighter Hyde’s representative Firefighter A Wigglesworth contacts Craig Jones at Thompsons solicitors Congress House London.

The main purpose was to discuss recent documentation received from Suffolk Fire Service in connection with the prosecution of Firefighter Hyde. Or more specifically that concerned with the illegitimate intent to allow an assessor access to the hearing scheduled for 20th July 1999.

From analysis of the material circumstances described Craig Jones agreed that the appointment of an assessor was not permitted under the relevant statute. Therefore, another illegal act.

Craig Jones advised Firefighter Wigglesworth to obtain further particulars by way of further correspondence with the relevant persons responsible for the administration of the discipline prosecution.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 232 Mildenhall Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: T.A.D.O. SAWARD From: FF HYDE
016 Station: 016
Date: 16-06-99



Dear T/A.D.O. Saward

I wish to notify you that I do not want to you to make contact with me during my off duty time.

Due to complaints that I have made I think that this request is appropriate.

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 231 Leiston Woman Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

Relevance of Doc 230


By now the Firefighter formerly formally know as Sub Officer Wigglesworth (SubO X) had been ordered that he must obtain permission before conducting any FBU business during work time. No matter how trivial that work may be. The order was issued by Assistant Divisional Officer Bob Wilson. As the latter said, ‘every minute and second you wish to spend on FBU business must be approved prior to you carrying it out.’ To which Firefighter Wigglesworth replied. ‘What! Everything.’ Which was uncompromisingly replied back by ADO Bob, ‘Yes everything.’

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 230 Leiston Fire Safety

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: A.D.O. Wilson From: Ff Wigglesworth
055 Station: 055
Date: 15th June 1999


Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is required to draft a letter of reply to ADO Saward, re time in lieu refused to Firefighter Hyde in respect of the latter’s official FBU duties

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 229 Suffolk County Council Legal Services

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

Keith Stevens?

At the time of writing Doc 128 Keith Stevens was the senior legal officer at Suffolk County Council. Therefore he was responsible for the supervision of Chris Jackson and the County Councils legal team. He also held the post of County Council monitoring officer. This required him to oversee all County Council policy and activities for the purpose of ensuring no unlawful action was committed by Suffolk County Council. Thus the reason for which Doc 128 was sent to Mr Stevens. On receipt of a notification of unlawful intent or activity Mr Stevens had by statute a duty to ensure Suffolk Fire Authority was steered on to the straight and narrow.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 228 Suffolk County Council Monitoring Officer

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Reply to:

Lowestoft Fire Station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

15th June 1999


Dear Mr Stevens,

I am writing to you on behalf and in the capacity of the representative for Firefighter M Hyde.

As you will be aware Firefighter Hyde’s hearing, by summary forum, is scheduled for 20th July 1999. You must also be aware (explanation Doc 129) of the intention to engage your colleague Mr C Jackson as assessor to the hearing.

The latter action is a serious and unprecedented departure from the procedure practised and clearly specified in the Fire Service discipline regulations. Conclusive of this is regulation 9 (4)

The chief officer (where a case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where a case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

This being the case I ask you to please confirm that Mr Jackson will definitely act as assessor at Firefighter Hyde’s hearing. I would also be grateful if you can inform me as to why it is felt necessary to introduce Mr Jackson into this discipline case. Furthermore, I am unable to find any authority within the relevant regulations to support Mr Jackson’s introduction. I would be most pleased if you could guide me to the relevant provision. Finally, I would be extremely pleased for you to inform me who in the Fire Service is responsible for this decision, which itself may be a breach of the relevant regulations.

I would be pleased if you could give these matters your urgent attention and provide me with a response within your organisations normal reply period of four days.


Yours faithfully



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

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

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Chris Hayward
55 Burrell Rd
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP2 8AH

15th June 1999

Mrs Lin Homer
Chief Executive
Suffolk County Council


Dear Mrs Homer,

Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Yours sincerely,



Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 226 Clerk to Suffolk Police Constabulary

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/



Re the legality of Assessor (Mr Chris Jackson Suffolk County Solicitor) Appointment?

What does the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1986 state?

Page 5

Part III


HEARINGS AND INTERNAL APPEALS

Hearing
9.- (1) save as provided in paragraphs (2) and (30, where a member of a fire brigade has been charged with an offence under regulation 8(3), the case shall be heard, as the chief officer may determine, by-

(a) the chief officer, or
(b) (b) the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority, that is to say, a committee of the fire authority designated as such by the authority or a sub-committee of such a committee.


(2) A case shall be heard by the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority if either-

(a) the member is a principal office.
(b) the member is of a class or description which the fire authority has directed should be so heard.

(3) Where, in the case of a member who is not a principal officer, the investigating officer is of the view that the nature of the alleged offence is such that it is unlikely to merit greater punishment than a reprimand he shall so inform the chief officer, who shall nominate another officer to conduct the hearing.

(4) The chief officer, (where the case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where a case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

It is put to readers that Miss Davies notification and documented intent to appoint an assessor to a summary hearing at which the chief officer is absent is/ was unlawful?

Perhaps a more important question would be to ask what is the motivating force that directs an experienced and highly qualified local authority personnel officer to wilfully act outside of statutory law?

It is proposed that the motivating force is Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST).

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 225 Advice for School Visits to Leiston Fire Station

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/



Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


15th June 1999


Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letters 10th and 14th June 1999.

The former was in reply to my letter 3rd June 1999. With respect you have not addresses all the issues attached. These are the same issues that have been brought to your attention on previous occasions. As such I will assume you are unable or unwilling to respond in a constructive manner to the content of my letter 3rd June 1999.

Notwithstanding, I note your comment in relation to ACFO Seager. It is clear you nominate him as the person ultimately responsible for all matters concerned.

As to the grievance nullification you interpret in respect of discipline matters. Firstly I would refer you to the mischief of the grievance procedure page 5 par 1.1. This implies an objective test. Secondly you are not embraced by the relevant regulations. There could be no reasonable justification to bar any complaint against your, or any others, administrative performance connected to a disciplinary matter. This may be the case in relation to the actual act, or incident which gives rise to the discipline matter. However, non-competent or malicious decisions by individuals, though they are connected to a discipline case would not be barred. This analysis is based on the concept of reasonableness. Quite clearly you are not a subject of the Fire Service Discipline Regulations.

Moving on to your letter 14th June 1999 and the intention to engage Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) as an assessor. This is of considerable interest for which definitive statutory interpretation is to be found under 9 (4) of the relevant regulations.

The Chief officer (where a case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where the case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

Regulation 9 (4) is totally and unequivocally for application at full hearing. There is no statutory provision for assessors in respect of a summary hearing. Indeed, even if we apply the literal description of any would be assessor, outlined annex D 3, Mr Jackson would be incompatible.

The appointment of Mr Jackson is a serious departure from the procedures inherent to the relevant Regulations. For this reason I would be extremely pleased if you could explain your reasoning behind the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor. In particular, it is a fact Mr Jackson was not engaged for the earlier hearing arranged for 7th June 1999. Quite reasonably I ask you to provide me with material details as to why you now find it necessary for the attendance of Mr Jackson.

I would also be grateful if you might refer me to the relevant empowering statutory provision. Finally on this point could you please inform me who is responsible for the decision to appoint Mr Jackson.

I am sure you will appreciate the issue surrounding Mr Jackson’s appointment is worthy of detailed explanation. It is more than reasonable to expect you will be able to address these issues fully. If you are unable to respond to these specific points I will assume you are inclined to accept my own reading of the situation.

With regard to the unavailability of witnesses, those specified are required.

Finally, I would also be pleased if you could confirm you have copied in Mr C Jones at Thompsons Solicitors in all your communications regarding this case. This was agreed in writing by ACFO Seager 10th May 1999. I get the distinct impression this has not been the case of late.

I look forward to your response.




Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 224 Leiston Firefighter Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/




Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588888
14th June 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,


Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985 Notification of Hearing

Further to the Charge Sheet issued to you on 21st April 1999, the brigade Investigating Officer has informed me that he is satisfied there is a case to answer and that it should be subject to a summary Hearing, to be heard by Divisional officer Ludford. Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) will attend the Hearing as an Assessor.

Accordingly arrangements have been made for the hearing to take place on Tuesday 20th July, commencing at 1000 hours. The Hearing will be held at Brigade Headquarters. In accordance with the Fire service (Discipline) Regulations 1985, you are, therefore, ordered to attend the above hearing. You should report to Reception on arrival at Headquarters.

The dress code for the Hearing will be undress uniform (No. 1 Rig).

One of the witnesses you intend to call, Firefighter S. Wood, may be unable to attend the Hearing. If this is the case your representative may like to contact the Presenting Officer, D.O. Graham smith, with a view to a statement from Mr. Wood being presented at the hearing, without the need for Mr. Wood to attend in person.

Please sign and return the second copy of this letter as confirmation of receipt and your understanding of its contents. A copy has been sent to your representative.


Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

………………………………………………………………………………………….

I have read this letter and understood its contents



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

c.c. Mr. G. Smith
Mr. A. Wigglesworth

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 223 Suffolk College Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/



ANALYSIS DOC 222

For want of better words there seems to have been a sea change in the behaviour of Miss Davies (now, 2005, Mrs Meelan Human Resources Director Suffolk College, Ipswich).

In particular, she seems to have adopted a more personal approach to dealing with the process of the disciplinary prosecution of Firefighter Hyde. For instance, track back to Doc 188 (24th May 1999) and Miss Davies seemed to suggest that the routine organisation and administration of the prosecution process was handed over to her assistant Mrs Jo Campbell. Also Miss Davies has undertaken to write to Firefighter Hyde’s “accused’s friend” at his domestic address. That is in conflict with Doc 188 and with the “accused’s friend” sender address on all correspondence. This seems consistent with a ratcheting up of the personalisation context being undertaken by Miss Davies.

It is also suggested that this trend is a natural symptom of the dynamic of Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST). Miss Davies documented action and intent grounds the following emergent proposition.

FSCPST practitioners have a tendency to adopt personalised strategies against those who resist the individual or collective command will. Accordingly such practitioners will, for the purpose of physical or psychological advantage, transgress into the private and personal environment of those with whom they are in conflict.

There are two other new developments contained in Doc 222 that should not escape notice.

Firstly, Miss Davies announces that an assessor will attend the prosecution hearing. That being, Miss Davies colleague the Suffolk County solicitor Mr Chris Jackson. Rest assured there is no legal right for the appointment of an assessor in these or any other circumstances at a UK Fire Service disciplinary hearing under the 1986 regulations.

In consequence, it would also seem that FSCPST practitioners will adopt unlawful practices to impose their absolute command will. Of course this is no more than restatement. This proposition has already been grounded by much earlier events in this real life case study.

Finally, the critical importance of retaining control to FSCPST practitioners is also evidenced by the notification that Firefighter Hyde’s prosecution hearing will be at Brigade Headquarters in Ipswich. So, completely contrary to the earlier casual and hasty determination made by Mrs Jo Campbell in Doc 193. Maybe Mrs Campbell wasn’t in tune or a member of the Command Power collective?

Whatever the FSCPST quarry will be kept within the practitioners home domain and isolated. Indeed to ultimate forum to ensure that all the cast of characters directing the FSCPST dynamic sign from the same hymn sheet.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 222 Suffolk College Advice for Job Applicants

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/




Suffolk County Council

Fire Service
A Wigglesworth
10 Somerleyton Road
Lowestoft
NR32 4RD
PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588888
14th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985 Accused Member – Mr M. J. Hyde.

The above member of the Brigade has been charged under the Discipline regulations with conduct prejudicial to discipline under paragraph 14 of the schedule to the above Regulations. I understand that Firefighter M. Hyde has nominated you as his “Accused’s friend”. This case is subject to a Summary Hearing which will be heard by Divisional Officer Ludford on Tuesday 20th July 1999, commencing at 1000 hours and will be held at Brigade Headquarters. Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) will attend the Hearing as an Assessor.

A copy of my letter to Mr Hyde is enclosed, and your attention is drawn to the reference to witness (un) availability at paragraph 3.




Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 221 Bramford Road Sproughton

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/




Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
KES/DISC/Hyde
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
11th June 1999



Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

I refer to your letter dated 4th June 1999.

All matters concerning the charge against Mr Hyde must be properly put before the Presiding officer at the disciplinary hearing.


Yours sincerely




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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 220 Leiston Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/



Suffolk County Council

Fire Service
A Wigglesworth Esq
c/o Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
PER/SD/KMD
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588872
10th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,


I have received your letter dated 3rd June, 1999.

The position conveyed to you in my letter dated 24th May, 1999, remains unchanged.

I am surprised by your apparent anxiety about my role in disciplinary matters. As the Brigades Personnel Manager, it is my duty to be involved. In Mr Hyde’s case, I act on behalf of the Brigade Investigating officer. I hope this puts your mind at rest.

Like you, I would not wish to find it necessary to raise a grievance regarding this matter. Unlike you, I see no reason why you should do so. Indeed, the Grievance procedures specifically exclude disciplinary matters.

I shall be notifying you shortly of a date for Mr. Hyde’s summary hearing. No doubt he is anxious to put this matter behind him.

Yours sincerely



Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 219 Normanshurst fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA


10th June 1999


Dear DO Smith,

Thank you for your letter dated 7th June 1999.

I note paragraph one and the demonstration of good faith on your part. However, this is I assume your involvement in the matter.

As to the bundle of documents, pages123 & 124 were omitted on purpose whilst a further supporting document page 140 remained outstanding. I will submit these in good time.

As to the final paragraph, I am not aware as to what the recording arrangements will be in the actual hearing, this being a summary forum. I do not think this matter has been discussed with ACFO Seager. Notwithstanding, we prefer our own record.

Yours faithfully



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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 218 Haverhill Crucial Crew 2006

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X" http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

KES/DISC/Hyde
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
7th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Discipline Case – Firefighter Hyde

Thank you for your further letter dated 1st June 1999.

I do not believe I can be of any assistance at all to Mr Hyde in his defence of the charge brought against him. I do not believe that I have been witness to any relevant facts.

In so far as my decisions in the case, and the processes which have been followed, are concerned (all of which have been well documented) the appropriateness or otherwise of these will, I am sure, be duly considered by the Presiding officer as part of his judgement on the evidence presented before him.

I cannot imagine what you mean by your reference to Mr Stebbings’ * own case in 1995, and frankly find the tone of that paragraph of your letter quite patronising. It is nevertheless true that I have always done my best to ensure professionalism, fairness and justice and to uphold the discipline of our service.

I am afraid I am inclined to refuse your invitation to attend the hearing on Mr Hyde’s behalf.

Yours sincerely



K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer
* See Doc 199

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 217 Haverhill Fire Station Open Day

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X" http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

Follow up on Doc 216

The claim for "time off in lieu" referred to in Doc 216 was made on the basis of long-tern Custom and Practice. In particular, it was known that Firefighter Bill Rampling stationed at Bury St Edmunds, who had acted as accused friend on numerous other discipline prosecutions had no problem in obtaining such "time off in lieu" arrangements.

Evidently T/ADO Graham Saward had a different outlook on such matters compared to his Bury St Edmunds counterpart.

Or maybe his decision was borne of other influence/s?

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 216 Suffolk Volunteer Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X" http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

TO: Firefighter Hyde
Blue Watch

FROM: ADO Saward

DATE: 7 June 1999

Application for Time in Lieu

I refer to your memorandum dated 26 May, in which you request time in lieu for time spent assisting Sub Officer Wigglesworth in connection with his discipline case.

I would refer you to General Order AA19 which deals with time off for trade union officials. This order is relevant since you seem to be claiming time off in your capacity as a FBU accused friend for Sub Officer Wigglesworth.

Paragraph 4.2.3. is clear that time off in lieu will not normally be given for duties undertaken when the individual would otherwise have been off duty.

The provisions of paragraph 4.2.4. do not apply either, because in none of the instances you cite were you called on by the Brigade to attend these meetings.

Your application for time in lieu is therefore refused.

G.E. Saward
Assistant Divisional Officer