Cyngor Gwynedd Councillors 'Shut Out" Of Decision Making Process During Lockdown - Updated.

An article by Gwynedd Local Democracy Reporter, Gareth Wyn Williams was posted to the North Dot Wales website on Friday, 31st July, 2020.

The article features the Llais Gwynedd party member, Alwyn Gruffydd, who makes comment on the recent Cyngor Gwynedd Annual Governance Statement and in particular the section referring to the low number of residents responses to various public consultations by Gwynedd Council.

The Council's statement states that there is "no great aspiration" amongst the public to hold the Council to account."

However, Councillor Gruffydd, representing Porthmadog - Tremadog, challenged this statement citing "a lack of trust" in the decision making of the Gwynedd Cabinet Members.

He continued - "I fear there may be a feeling out there that their local members simply aren't in a situation to represent them as they aren't part of any decision making process".

"The agenda today is full of items for considerations only, but we have to consider accountability or we'll be in an even worse situation, and a loss of that vital contact means that the principle of local government goes down the drain."

The Chair of Gwynedd Council Care Scrutiny Committee, Dewi Roberts, added - "I do agree there's been a lack of input in the decision making process."

Head of Finance, Dafydd L Edwards, is quoted - 

"The sharing out of business grants was an additional task above and beyond, with Gwynedd allocating £55 Million to local business, which is more than any Welsh authority apart from Cardiff."

Councillor, Paul Rowlinson, representing Gerlan, noted the pausing of committees, including the Employment Appeals Committee had left some members of staff in limbo.

This article by the Local Democracy Reporter for Gwynedd was first sighted on Twitter where someone pointed out the issue of FIVE Ombudsman for Wales investigations in just FOUR years shows that some people of Gwynedd are attempting to hold Gwynedd Council to account.

The Democracy reporter has since deleted the Twitter thread and the article below is no longer on the news website - why ?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Update - The local democracy reporter has since been in touch to inform that his tweet was deleted due to a an error in one of Councillor Gruffydd's quotes.
The corrected article can be found here - https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/gwynedd-councillors-say-were-shut-18705757

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - “extraordinary”, “ill-conceived”, and “emphatically wrong”.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council recently lost yet another Employment Tribunal. This case involved the Council dismissing two local school teachers.

So the Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London - and lost again.

The full judgment can be found here - Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ed79310e90e0754cd08d6c4/Gwynedd_Council_v_Shelley_Barratt_and_Other_UKEAT_0206_18_VP.pdf

Below are extracts from the judgment. 
My emphasis in bold.

The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy following the closure of the school where they worked. They were unsuccessful in applying for positions at a new school that opened at the same location. The Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair because of the failure to provide the Claimants with a right of appeal, the absence of consultation and because of the manner in which they were required to “apply for their own jobs”. 

The Respondent local authority appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the assessment of fairness under s.98(4) of the 1996 Act in that it had treated guidelines as to what an employer should do in a redundancy dismissal as inflexible legal requirements; and had failed to take account of the particular limitations on the Respondent’s role in relation to recruitment at a maintained school.

8. On 18 August 2017, the chairperson of the Governing Body of School 1, Mr Siencyn, wrote to the Claimants’ representative apologising for the fact that no opportunity to make representations or appeal had been given. 
However, Mr Siencyn went on to say that the failure to allow an appeal did not cause any disadvantage to the Claimants and that the appeal would have made no difference as the dismissals were caused by the closure of School 1,which was something that no appeal panel would have been able to reverse so as to avoid dismissals. 

The Tribunal found that the assertion by the chair of the Governing Body of School 1 that denying the Claimants their right of appeal did not cause any disadvantage was “extraordinary”, “ill-conceived”, and “emphatically wrong”. 

6.An appeal is ingrained in principles of natural justice and, although I do not say that the absence of an appeal would render every dismissal unfair, I do determine that it requires truly exceptional circumstances to refuse an employee the right to appeal against their dismissal. Such exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case, particularly where the Claimants have a statutory and contractual right of appeal. It was substantively and procedurally unfair to deny the Claimants in the case the right of appeal. Furthermore, no reasonable employer would refuse to consider an appeal in circumstances where an employee had a clear right of appeal. 

37.Mr Siencyn was also wrong in his contention that the claimants’ appeals would have challenged the closure of the school. Both he and the Respondents conflate the closure of [School 1] with the inevitable dismissal of the claimants. The claimants were merely 2 teachers of many. They had never complained about the reorganisation of educational provision in general nor the decision to close [School 1].There is no factual basis to support the contention that the Claimants were opposed to the reorganisation affecting their school. Indeed they cooperated with the Governing Bodies by applying for their jobs/substantially similar jobs in the new school. It is a fiction (and indeed disingenuous) for Mr Siencyn to say what the claimants appeal would have been about without asking them. The vast bulk of teachers were not dismissed and were able to continue their employment with the respondent as (sic) the new school.

 39. Threatening to dismiss staff and compelling them to apply for their own jobs or similar jobs ignores years of jurisprudence on dealing with potential redundancy situations. It abrogates the employer’s responsibilities and seeks to circumvent employment rights. Mr Adkins submitted that the appeals would have challenged the Respondent’s approach to this reorganisation/redundancy and this was something that Mr Siencyn should have allowed. 

From the original Tribunal hearing -

41.... Some processes adopted by the employer are so unfair and so fundamentally flawed that it is impossible to formulate the hypothetical question of what would be the percentage chance the employee had still been dismissed even if the correct process had been followed: see Davidson v Industrial Marine Engineering Services Ltd EAT/0071/2003. This is an instance where the breach of a proper process was fundament (sic) and profound. I am not prepared to make a Polkey deduction in such circumstances.
                                                      
                                                    ********************


The school in question, Ysgol y Gader, had long been dogged by claims of poor management and heavy absenteeism of teachers leading to poor educational standards.

On the 15th March,2014, the Daily Post published an article with the subheadline - 
'Governors raise concerns over the number of experienced staff who have recently left the Dolgellau school and parents have signed a petition.'

It continued - 
One of the main concerns are pupils  complaining of not having formal lessons and being taught by classroom  assistants.
There are also concerns about the  number of experienced staff who have  recently left the school, and claims of a  culture of “overbearing management”  causing “a serious issue with staff morale”.

The full article can be found here - 
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/gwynedd-ysgol-y-gader-pupils-6835574


The Daily Mail also reported on March, 27th - 

• Parents at Ysgol y Gader school, Wales, created petition about absent staff
• Meeting arranged and staff absenteeism was put at the top of agenda
• But headteacher Peter Maddocks was not present - and is now not at work
• One parent said: 'The meeting was a farce. Someone needs to step in'

Cllr Dyfrig Siencyn, chairman of governors at Ysgol y Gader said: 'The governing body recognises that there are concerns regarding staff absenteeism at Ysgol y Gader during the current academic year.

From the parent's petition - 
We believe that the school is failing to provide suitably-qualified staff to cover lessons during long-term staff absences, which leads to a lack of consistence and rigour in the standard of teaching and learning.

The full article can be found here - 
 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590885/School-fire-high-levels-absent-teachers-holds-public-meeting-discuss-issue-head-fails-attend.html

Ysgol y Gader was closed in 2017 and replaced by a 3-16 all-through, super school, Ysgol Bro Idris.

Dyfrig Siencyn is now leader of Gwynedd Council.

Autism - The Ombudsman For Wales And Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

On the 4th July, 2018, the Ombudsman for Wales published a Report into the case of an autistic individual and his mistreatment at the hands of Gwynedd Adults SS department.

The Report can be found here -
 http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf

The Ombudsman for Wales Investigating Officer in this case was a Beverley Allen.

Her report is truly shocking especially when you consider some of the points highlighted -

"Mr A would seek reassurance from, or be influenced by, those present when responding,which meant that he would readily agree to an action without understanding what had been discussed or its impact".

Would those actions include asking the client whether he really wanted these services ?

Being in a Residential Home, this person would have had a key worker, assigned by the home's care team to support him during his assessment and guide him through the process.

From the I/O's report -

"Instead, the Residential Home re-allocated a significant portion of Mr A’s support hours to bridge gaps in its staffing needs".

A private, residential home used the client's taxpayer funded, commissioned hours to cover for their own staffing problems.

At least, we now know why there was no-one to support the person when his care plan was being deleted before his eyes....

Oh yes - no need to worry - of course we care - just sign here.

All support gone with the person being left to rot in bed.

In the Ombudsman's report, the I/O states -

69.In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.11 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome. I have therefore decided to say no more about that.

To my knowledge, the Cabinet Member for the Adults SS, Dafydd Meurig, has still not presented this report for scrutiny by Councillors and the public. Why not ?

Five Ombudsman Reports in four years critical of policy and behaviour of both Gwynedd Adults and Childrens departments. One in which a vulnerable person died.
.
The Officer for the Ombudsman, Beverley Allen, also recommended improvement in the areas in which the Council had so obviously failed and her recommendations were accepted by the Council in full.

These included -

81 (f) Reviews its process on monitoring commissioned services for adults.

(g) Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met.

(h) Undertakes an audit of its ASD trained officers, identifies any shortfall and arranges appropriate training within the following 12 months.


Due to the disingenuous nature of some Councils behaving with little regard for Law and Government agencies, the Ombudsman is meant to have a robust system to check that Councils actually keep to their word after long and costly investigations.

It is usual for the Investigating Officer, in this case, Beverly Allen, to ensure that LA's implement the Recommendations. The I/O's  know best the issues raised and have sighted all evidence of the case in point. The Ombudsman's policies ask for proof that the improvements have been completed and in the agreed timescale.That is to include proof of Council committee meetings when policy change is needed.

Whilst the Council agreed to undertake the review and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met within the agreed timescale - there is no evidence that the Council have kept to their word.

Why has the Ombudsman for Wales robust procedures not picked up on this failure by the Council ?

A recent FOI request to the Ombudsman for Wales has provided evidence that the Council, at that time, openly admit to not yet carrying out this review.

More on that here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2020/01/an-ombudsmancyngor-gwynedd-council-and.html

Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken, nor if the requirements of Law have been met.
               
This case - involved untrained council officer's behaving in a way that caused injustice(s) to and impacted on the human rights of a 'high functioning' autistic adult with mental health issues, features in the Ombudsman's casebook on Equality and Human Rights 2019/20.

Is the complainant Mrs X aware, that after surviving the Gwynedd Council Complaints Procedure then to bring a case to the Ombudsman for Wales which highlights apalling behaviour by council officers, that the recommendations in her son's case were not complied with as agreed to.

In the Ombudsman's casebook he rightly points out that the issue of people's Human Rights being trampled on by Government agencies must stop.

Joe Public can not do that alone, Mr Bennett.

It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the actual Investigator in this case.

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

More Problems With Data - #BCUHB North Wales.

One week ago, the interim CEO of Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board reported that between 200-300 Mental Health patients had been 'wrongly discharged'.

From the BBC -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52729237

Simon Dean, stated the decision was an "error that should not have occurred".

Who is responsible for making the decision to discharge nearly 1700 vulnerable people and how was it done ? Phone call ? Letter ?

Once again, the Board has failed  in its reporting of accurate information.

Today's, BBC article reveals more of the reality of the situation -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52827479#

The true figure is 1,694.

 Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Môn, received a letter from the Board with the corrected figures.

Along with yet another apology from Simon Dean - 

"I would like to say how sorry I am for any distress that may have been caused."

Figures from the third sector Mental Health services, such as Mind Cymru and Hafal show a four fold increase in calls from patients seeking support. 
Support which many in North Wales report as non-existent or so poor to be of little use - for years.

Mental Health services encompass not only Health services but Social Care, too. Disability services may also be involved. Some patients may even require Safeguarding.

Why no statement from the Local Authorities's in North Wales concerning BCUHB's decision and the extra pressure that LA's would come under by nearly 1700 vulnerable people being discharged ?

What of the private Care Homes whose clients will include vulnerable people with Learning Difficulties or Acquired Brain Injury ? Have they been discharged ?

Figures for those who have died during this pandemic in these Care Homes must be made public ? 
Along with data for Care homes for the elderly.

Now it is usual in these circumstances that Board members resign.
No resignations should be accepted at this time.

What is needed is a public inquiry into the failings of the Board and the Senior Managers over the five years it has now been in special measures - lumbering the taxpayer with £60 Million of debt this year alone.

Where is the voice of those workers on the ground who know of the problems ?
Statements from the local Trade Unions would be very interesting.

#Unison #Unite

Failings Within North Wales Vascular Services - #BCUHB

The Extraordinary Meeting of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board held on the 21st May, 2020, to discuss the Review of its Vascular Services was a complete shambles.

From the 'technical' difficulties experienced through to the final decision by the Board to review the Review. Were part of the technical difficulties caused by some Board Members complaining they were not comfortable being on screen for the meeting ?

The Report - described as a whitewash by members of the public and some employees - is highly critical of the Health Board and its decision to close the vascular services at Ysbyty Gwynedd and centralise the service at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

The Review raises many questions for diabetics and renal patients and some of the data for limb loss and antibiotic use should be of high concern for everyone.

Ultimately, it is yet another report into Local Government Organisations in North Wales that raises issues of bullying and staff fearing for their jobs if they speak out.

Sitting on the Board from Gwynedd are R. Medwyn Hughes, County Councillor for the Hendre ward, Bangor and Morwena Edwards, who is an Associate Director of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

Morwena is also the Director of Cyngor Gwynedd Social Services - both Adult and Children's Departments.
 
There have been 5 Ombudsman for Wales Investigations highly critical of the departments that Mrs Edwards has overall responsibility for - in the last four years

There may be more as these Departments have a history of sitting on critical Reports, whilst trumpeting mediocrity.

One Ombudsman's Report highlights an Independent Investigating Officer feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' after a meeting with Head of Department, Marian Parry Hughes and the senior Operational Manager. Aled Gibbard amongst others to change the findings of her Report.

More on that here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html

Four to five pages regarding a Social Worker undertaking an inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs and the withholding and censoring of personal information by a senior manager deleted along with Recommendations for improvement.

To someone with no knowledge everything looks rosy in the garden - the data is false.

Recommendations for improvement and to create a pathway for autistic individuals to receive support and SS assessment have been agreed to - so where is it ?

Concerns that the legal documents and data are being manipulated to cover for bad behaviour and poor management have been raised with a Cabinet Member but as yet no response has been forthcoming.

Now the Ombudsman for Wales had arranged a phone call conversation with the Director, Morwena Edwards, to discuss matters of non compliance of Ombudsman's recommendations.

This call was arranged three weeks in advance but the Council cancelled the meeting one hour before the arranged time and the Council told the Ombudsman that they would be sending a letter instead.

This letter did obviously not impress the Ombudsman as the CEO was then summoned to discuss non compliance - alongside other agenda items, in Cardiff.

Concerns have been raised that the story as explained by the CEO and the Senior Safeguarding Officer to a Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee is misleading. Questions have been asked concerning the truthfulness of the Officer's statements but no answer has been forthcoming.

Officer's promoted above their abilities ? A social worker being moved to a third sector organisation to protect reputations ? - and their pension ? Social workers lying and senior managers colluding in cover up ?

All that is missing is a sex scandal..... 

Something is very wrong within both Gwynedd Council and BCUHB.

#BCUHB Abandons Mental Health Patients During Lockdown ?

#MentalHealthAwarenessWeek

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board have been lambasted for their failure to report daily death rates due to #Corona in North Wales leading to a large spike in figures for Wales. A 'glitch' using the Goverment system was given as the reason for the failure but the full report is yet to be released by either BCUHB or the Welsh Government.

A BBC article dated May 1st, informs that all is not well within Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, either.

Especially it's Vascular Services - 

'Vascular staff are in fear for their career if they complain -
Patients are "fearful" of using the service....
In its final and as yet unpublished report - based on 14 public consultations and one consultation with staff - the CHC says there remain grave concerns surrounding the provision.

It says some staff felt "unable to use whistleblowing procedures" and notes those raising concerns were said to be "often subsequently subjected to disciplinary action".

The report says staff "have a perception that it is dangerous to their careers to raise concerns about patient safety with senior managers"

More - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52499099#

The Health Board is also between £45 and £60 Million pounds over budget. It is hard to get an accurate figure in this regard, too. The Board have been paying an 'adviser' £1,990 a DAY to work from his home in Marbella but that contract has now ended due to the Corona virus.

More on 'Marbella Man' here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52510497

On the 20th May, the BBC reported that Mental Health patients are being discharged and ordered to seek re-referral through their GP's.

The North Wales Community Health Council's chief officer, Geoff Ryall-Harvey, is quoted saying there was "no reason why patients with pre-existing mental health issues should be discharged".

"At this time patients need professional support more than ever," he said.

"We are informed by local GPs that the number of patients presenting to them with mental health problems is increasing and, post Covid-19, could be problematic."

Now the Plaid Cymru MS for Ynys Mon, Rhun ap Iorwerth, states -

"Government needs to be looking at ways to step up support for those with mental health problems. Instead, here we have doctors being told to discharge them."

But the Welsh Government say the advice was "not in line with our guidance." - newspeak for nothing to do with us ?

More on the BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52729237

Now it is usual when organisations fail that the CEO falls on his/her sword and resigns.
But any chief is only as good as those who are appointed to support him/her.

A quick glance at the members of the Health Board show the problem may be more systemic -

https://bcuhb.nhs.wales/about-us/health-board-meetings-and-members/health-board-members/

The BCUHB website lists Simon Dean as the Interim Chief Executive. Mr Dean left this position in 2016.

Copy and paste the links into your browser.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Covid19 Confusion Over Payment Criteria

The recent opinion article, dated 7th May, 2019 by Dafydd Meurig, Deputy Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council in Nation.Cymru is highly critical of Welsh Government's performance during the Covid19 crisis.

https://nation.cymru/opinion/a-shambolic-welsh-government-have-offered-no-leadership-for-local-government-in-this-crisis/

Gwynedd Council's deputy leader writes that delivery of the original testing regime was 'farcical' and involved sending 15 names of symptomatic employees to Data Cymru who then send the names to Public Health Wales who would then send the names to BCUHB (in this case) for them to arrange testing with each individual.

These tests were then 'to be driven to Cardiff for analysis'. Public Health Wales would then send the results to Data Cymru to send the results to the Local Authority to inform the person of the result.

Farcical indeed if true.

Mr Meurig goes on to complain about second home owners and says that £18 million from Welsh Government would have found their way into 'the pockets of some second home owners, who live outside the area'. Adding -

'Cynically some of these second home owners have flipped their property over to the Business Rate system in order to avoid paying any Council Tax at all'.

'The drawn-out discussions and delay has resulted in thousands of genuine holiday businesses having to wait weeks for their payment'.


But two weeks previous on the 24th April, the Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council,  Dyfrig Siencyn is quoted in the North Wales Chronicle.

“We are pleased that the minister has listened to us and changed the business guidelines available to support small rural businesses in Gwynedd and other counties across Wales,” said Cllr Siencyn.

The government’s new guidance states that three specific clauses need to be adhered to:

Self-catering accommodation produce two years of trading accounts to 31 March 2019

Self-catering accommodation must let the property for 140 days or more in the financial year 2019-20

Self-catering accommodation business must be the primary source of income for the owner (minimum threshold is 50%).

He adds -

“Whilst we did not agree with the exact wording of the changes to the guidelines, we’re confident that the changes will mean that no second home owner will be able to claim this grant money without presenting evidence that the majority of their income derives from the property.


Why was the Deputy Leader not informed of the successful change to the guidelines before publishing his article two weeks later. Has the confusion amongst Members led to any delay in payments to local businesses ? How many payments have been released so far ?

For the full article copy and paste the address into your browser -
https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/18403296.welsh-government-shuts-second-home-grants-loophole/

Dafydd Meurig, is also Cabinet Member with responsibility for  Gwynedd Council's Adult SS.

 

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Behind Closed Doors.

The social worker who won her Employment Tribunal against Cyngor Gwynedd Council worked at the  Dolgellau and Pwllheli offices of Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

MP is Melvin Panther a Manager within the Children's Fostering Service.
MPH is Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Gwynedd Children and Families Department.

Excerpts from the Tribunal's Report include -  

"The Tribunal did not believe MP’s evidence that in an email that only refers to the claimant by name and where each of the comments appears entirely and exclusively applicable to the claimant’s case, he was in fact referring to sickness absences throughout the team.

His oral explanation in evidence was contrary to the natural, logical reading of the email itself and he gave his evidence in an unconvincing way which was not credible in the circumstances.

These are allegations that MP was over zealous in his monitoring of the claimant’s attendance or absence from work with unnecessary referrals for Occupational Health advice specifically with a requirement for psychological assessment. 

The claimant was also assessed independently by the Access to Work Scheme;reports by Mr Newton and Mr Todd regarding Access to Work made further recommendations that were supportive of the claimant. In one such report Mr Todd recommended that the claimant undergo a “psychological assessment”. In a subsequent report Mr Newton recommended “psychological assessment for dyslexia and dyspraxia”. 

The claimant takes exception to what she perceived as a requirement for her to undergo psychological assessment which she says was pursued by the respondent specifically MP with a view to proving that she had a mental illness as opposed to the respondent’s being prepared to address her physical impairments with a view to making reasonable adjustments. 

The claimant’s suspicion is that the respondent wanted a psychological assessment to prove that she was unfit to work and to give an opportunity for dismissal based on incapability by reference to health.5.12.2 

SWC,on behalf of the respondent,felt that Mr Todd’s recommendation that the claimant should undergo psychological assessment was unusual and potentially inappropriate.  

SWC queried the recommendation on 30 November 2011 at page 279 with an Occupational Health advisor. The respondent had reservations about undertaking a psychological assessment of the claimant and did not see it was relevant, appropriate or beneficial.  

The respondent’s decision was to defer obtaining such an assessment. to obtain the second Occupational Health opinion from a Dr Baron as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such an assessment. No psychological assessment was undertaken.

She frequently and in fact regularly raised matters concerning working at Pwllheli with MP but she did not present any formal grievance.

Whilst MPH made the decision to suspend the claimant based on information she received from MP (and possibly also SWC) the decision was given to the claimant by MP in his role as line manager in the absence of MPH. 

Following the claimant’s suspension,the respondent attempted to investigate the claimant’s performance and Heidi Rylance carried out a partial investigation,reporting at page 548 on the 12 October 2014. That report is critical of the claimant and of management of the claimant with a lack of guidance and support.

MPH considered that she was too closely involved to lead any investigation into the claimant’s grievances for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. She sought to involve an independent investigator. 

She received feedback from a Ms S Maskell who reported on the difficulty due to complexity that would be encountered in undertaking an investigation into a grievance which was being seen as one against the entire department in which the clamant worked, up to and including MPH herself. 

We accept MPH’s evidence that whilst Ms Maskell’s written notes indicated that there were concerns regarding management as well as regard to the claimant she effectively reported to MPH that the task was too difficult to handle and that she would not do so. 

MPH then approached another independent consultant Ms B Allen who reported back that she would have to interview more than thirty-one individuals, that there was extensive documentation and that she did not have the time and resources to dedicate to the task. She refused the commission.

The respondent had qualms about the claimant’s continued employment even at the time of her suspension but as the period of suspension dragged on it concluded it did not want to have her back. The respondent’s management was not sure how to bring matters to a head and rather than grasp the nettle,or nip matters in the bud, they left it be for two and a half years whilst considering various options. 

 On 24 November 2015 based on legal advice received,and having canvassed the claimant’s Union representative, MPH wrote to the claimant (page 583) suggesting a “without prejudice” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss “how your employment with Gwynedd Council could be brought to an end in what would be an acceptable manner to both you and us”. 

That was the respondent’s agenda. MPH considered that the parties had reached an “impasse” and she was clear that the employment relationship had been “irreparably damaged”. MPH accepted and appreciated that the claimant may not be of the same view. 

The SOSR agenda was investigated by Haf Ingman Jones and Stephen Wood and went to an SOSR hearing on 13 and 18 October 2016 before a panel comprising Aled Davis and E. Jones and A.Owen. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Aled Davies.  

The panel was provided with a statement from MPH which appears at pages 625 –627 in which MPH stated at paragraph 4 “the working relationship has broken down to an extent that termination of employment is the only feasible way forward”;she felt the claimant had made clear to her that the claimant would not discuss matters with MPH. 

This latter observation in MPH’s statement is a misattribution as it relates only to the claimant’s refusal to meet on a “without prejudice”basis to negotiate terms for terminationof employment. 

The claimant remained ready,able,and willing to deal first with her grievances and then with a capability issue and to return to work if possible and if it was not immediately so possible she was prepared to enter mediation. Throughout the SOSR primary hearing and appeal hearing the respondent’s view that termination was the only feasible way forward did not alter;on that basis,it was clear that MPH was not prepared to enter the mediation suggested by the claimant.

The SOSR primary panel concluded that dismissal was appropriate in view of MPH’s unwillingness to mediate and what it considered to be the claimant’s pre-condition that she would succeed with regard to her grievances including with regards to allegations that she was bullied. 

The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not insist on the respondent’s management upholding her grievance on all counts including bullying but she did wish,through the course of the mediation and or grievance procedure,for those complaints to be aired;she did not feel it was appropriate for the respondent to declare that her grievance was at an end when it had never been addressed. 

The claimant’s only requirement was the respondent’s adherence to Occupational Health and Access to Work recommendations in accordance with its statutory duty. Up to the date of termination of employment the claimant’s approach remained consistent indicating her belief and understanding that the relationship was surviving and could survive provided the respondent fulfilled its managerial responsibilities. 

Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. 

We are not to, and have not, substituted our judgment for that of the respondent. A reasonable employer would follow its standard procedures in a timely fashion. The respondent did not do that,

The decision to dismiss the claimant in these circumstances was discrimination arising from disability."

The Report in full can be found here -  
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf

What else goes on behind closed doors ?
Sshh....

Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.