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.
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.
