The Appeal: February 20th 1998.

K.E’s appeal date had arrived. Mr E met with UNISON official representative Mr J. McDade at the UNISON office in South Shields shortly before the appeal was to commence. Mr E asked his representative why no witness – there were many who could have been called - from Mr E’s former workplace had been arranged by the union. McDade’s reply was astonishing.

UNISON believed that if witnesses came forward in Mr E’s defence, then South Tyneside Council would ‘retaliate’ by holding more investigations and interviews into more staff members from the Central Control Unit. McDade, defending UNISON’s decision stated: - (quote)

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Now, we will pause just there. Does that phrase sound familiar to you? It should do. Let us explain. Chances are that you have heard this line before – as it is taken directly from a Hollywood movie. In fact, that line was originally said by none other than the actor Leonard Nimoy, otherwise known as Mr. Spock, in ‘Star Trek – The Wrath of Khan’!

That must indisputably rank as a ‘World First’ – advice being taken from not only a being from the future, but a ficticious character, no less - in 1998.

Eventually, the appeal commenced. Present for the council were Mr Fred McQueen (Director, Community Services), Norma Richardson (Assistant Manager, Community Services),  the Manager of Warden Services and Graham Fells (Personnel Department). As this was an appeal, there were also three councillors sitting on the panel too. These were Cllr Linda Waggott and two other councillors whose names presently escape us.

Do you know who they were? Let us know.

In Mr E’s defence, there was simply Mr E himself and Mr McDade of UNISON. No witnesses had been arranged by the union to be called.

Already, this was evidently a ‘David & Goliath’ case. A stitch-up.

The appeal began, from memory at 10.00am. Management now marched in with a host of papers and began their verbal onslaught. The Warden Service/CCU Manager had little to say – in fact his short statement was read out by someone else if memory serves correctly.

And so began yet another attack – a highly personal attack, not concentrating upon the workplace at all, but mainly upon working and private relationships in particular. 

It need not be repeated in this section as it completely copied the exact same process which had been undertaken in Mr E’s ‘Dismissal’ hearing in November 1997 – which is listed and is available earlier in this site. For a full statement of the management case; see side navigation bar for ‘Summing Up’. This is taken directly from council records of the event.

The ‘charges’ against Mr E had now been expanded considerably with additional theories and suppositions and were mind-boggling in their content. They are listed as follows:

1) Abuse of the Council Sick Pay scheme

2) Misuse of Council equipment and time; including:

a) use of the email
b) unauthorised visits to the Central /control Room
c) Personal Telephone Calls
d) CCTV Cameras
e) Use of Warden Service vehicles
f) Meal breaks

3) Unauthorised absences from work

4) Breach of the terms of his suspension 


The ‘Charges’ – The Fiction and the FACTS. A step - by - step synopsis.


1) ‘Abuse of the Council’s Sick Pay Scheme’.

The Fiction presented by Management.
Management claimed throughout their investigations that Mr E had ‘falsely’ claimed sick pay – therefore abused the sick pay system - as he was observed out of his home during his sickness. We need not go over this again. Self Certification Sickness Notes – a legally accepted document – is a statement from an employee that they, for whatever reason, consider themselves to be unfit for WORK. It is not a statement that as a result of their illness they are housebound. The fact that management simply chose by personal belief to refuse to accept this or disregard this is unquestionably illegal.

The FACTS. 

As above, this legally binding document to employers is a statement that the individual considers themselves as unfit for WORK, with no codicil stating that they must remain within the confines of their home. Mr E was unfit for work. His health matters were personal and stress-related.

This was completely disregarded by unthinking, uncaring, inept management. We are being too kind in this description – the management were utterly corrupt .

And as for Norma Richardson, who disbelieved that an individual could be ‘sick’ if they left the confines of their home – we have news for you.

Norma Richardson herself went sick during 1996/7 – on the grounds of ‘stress’. We discovered this information all too late for Mr E’s investigations and dismissal, but, during her period of sickness, Richardson was observed on a social night out at ‘The Neon’ Social Club in Inverness Road, Jarrow, by a former Warden Services employee, Mrs SF.

The double standards of this woman’s actions are truly alarming.

A veritable case of “Do as I say; not as I do”.

2) ‘Misuse of Council equipment and time’.

The Fiction presented by Management. 

Use of email. 
That Mr E had misused the email system for personal messages in corresponding with Mrs B.

Unauthorised visits to the central control room 
That Mr E had been in the control room whilst not on shift. 

Personal Telephone Calls
That Mr E had used the telephone for his own use, and had caused an argument with a staff member, during work hours, in late August 1997.

CCTV Cameras
Mr E had ‘”allowed” the misuse of CCTV cameras on 5th September 1996 and had reset the CCTV cameras at the request of another Team Leader, Mrs KC, who was on duty, in August 1997.

Use of Warden Service Vehicles.

Mr E had unauthorised use of a council vehicle during 1997.

Meal Breaks.

That Mr E had taken a SINGULAR unauthorised meal break on Sunday 26th September 1997 – as stated by Mr William Cooper, Technical Assistant. 

The FACTS.

Use of email

When the email systems were first introduced – which were inter-office email messages only and not internet or ‘Outlook Express’ linked, as today’s systems are; the CCU Manager verbally stated that they could be used by the staff for any purpose. No limitation was set upon the use of the technology. The email system was only capable of conveying text, nor could pictures, images or attachments be added. It may sound rather alien in today’s world, but at that time in 1996-1997 the technology simply was not available. 

All staff used them for personal work messages and for private messages. It had become a Common Practice.

Furthermore, what makes the charges against Mr E more alarming is that management conceded that Mrs B had also sent personal messages to Mr E. Therefore, why was she not also under disciplinary procedures for the same charge? This was evident victimisation – or – on the other side of the coin – favouritism on the part of the female employee.

Richardson attempted to maintain that "new legislation" was due in regarding the use of personal emails at work, which “could” jeopardise the ISO 9002 procedure. Firstly, Richardson was talking about a yet-to-become –Law situation, but secondly, some 10 years later – NO SUCH LAW EXISTS.

Unauthorised visits to the central control room
Numerous staff members called into Central Control whilst not on duty. It was and still is a Common Practice. Some used to call in to pay their lottery contribution, some relief members of staff would come in to check upon their working rosters for the following week. Other off duty members of staff such as Mr E, Mr Fox and Mr WR were regularly called in to rectify computer system faults or CCTV camera faults.

The practice of calling in to the workplace – therefore an 'unauthorised visit' – still continues.

Furthermore – in 1998 – this rule was completely violated by the CCU Manager, then Norma Richardson – the management – themselves. This was the occasion when the CCU Manager unexpectedly called into the unit unannounced in an attempt to “catch people sleeping” and was again attempted for the same reasons by Richardson only weeks later at 04.00 in the morning.

Personal Telephone Calls

The use of telephones for personal calls was, and is to this day, Common Practice. In fact, since Mr E’s dismissal, the council have had to concede somewhat and allow limited use of telephones for personal calls – mainly due to Legislation.

However, what the council were driving at during Mr E’s dismissal is not yet quite clear. Allegations which were made were of Mr E telephoning from his own home TO Central Control – so how was that a misuse of 'council time and equipment'?

Furthermore, management also brought up at investigation and dismissal the incident involving Mr E and Mrs B, whereupon a verbal argument broke out upon the telephone.

Mr E did not initiate this phone call. He was not at work. The employee in question telephoned HIM!

CCTV Cameras

This is truly incredible. As we write this account, we are still in disbelief as to how this was compounded as a ‘charge’ against Mr E.

As stated elsewhere in this site, Mr E was one of a small number of staff (including Mr Fox and Mr WR) who was frequently called into work, outside of their normal working hours, and for no additional payment, to keep the computer system running. This occurrence was a regular one; especially during the time when central control ran for 18 months without management. Mr E was infrequently called to restart the computer system – but was regularly called by other on-shift Team Leaders to restart the CCTV system, which had a repeat fault within the system, causing the CCTV system to ‘freeze’.

At the dismissal hearing, one such visit by which Mr E had been called in to reset the CCTV system was brought up. This charge should have been laid at the feet of the Team Leader on duty, not Mr E.

On the Saturday evening in question, the duty Team Leader, Mrs KC, telephoned Mr E after 23.00hrs to state that the CCTV system had frozen and could Mr E reset them for her. Mr E had been out socialising and was unable to drive, as he had taken alcohol. Mrs KC sent a mobile warden to bring him to the unit.

The system had indeed frozen. By depressing a simple ‘system reset’ button, the CCTV cameras were temporarily restored to working order, until a maintenance engineer could arrive on the scene. Without this action taking place would have meant that the council-run CCTV system would have been unable to monitor and record any potential criminal incidents until an engineer could be arranged. Therefore, Mr E had successfully though temporarily restored what could have been a useful tool to record the activity of any potential criminal act.

This was not taken into consideration whatsoever. In fact, Management stated to the Appeal Panel the following:

 “He jeopardised the entire CCTV operation.”

What comes next, however, is truly staggering to any right-minded person.

Management also claimed that Mr E “Did not prevent the misuse of CCTV cameras.” They were referring to one occasion – from 5th September 1996. The incident, over a year old, was with regard to a staff night out, at which Mr E was present!

In short, the night out has been covered in this site. However, on this social evening out, staff who were on duty at work at the unit had followed and recorded the activity of those off duty members of staff who were out socialising. This was the evening which Mrs B had first invited Mr E to attend.

What management were actually saying was that Mr E – clearly captured on CCTV imagery – therefore not at work – and therefore not on duty but socialising – was somehow responsible for the on-duty Team Leader and operators who were actually on shift and who had taken CCTV footage of the night out!

We have added the evidence of the night out of 5th September 1996 as concrete evidence that Mr E was not on duty – therefore could not be responsible for the images taken. How can he have been?

He was clearly on the actual CCTV images under discussion!

The blame plainly laid with the Team Leader on duty on that particular evening – but there was a problem for management. He had left their employment on ill health grounds. Evidently, blame simply had to be apportioned on to someone else.

Please see side navigation bars for ‘CCTV Images 1, 2, and 3’. 

Use of Warden Service Vehicles

Mrs B, who worked on the weekend shift, had seen Mr E making his way home on an occasion one Saturday night after an evening out socialising in South Shields in 1997 and, as she had finished her security checks, stopped to chat to him. She was in radio contact with the control room all the time, had her attention been required by the control room.

Mrs B offered Mr E a lift home in the works van. There were rules prohibiting this, but it was frequently overlooked for numerous matters and was a Common Practice.

In general terms, a mobile warden was not at any time to carry passengers.

However, this rule has been frequently disregarded and continues to be disregarded to this very day. Most recently, in fact, on Saturday 24th May 2008 at 19.25hrs, a Mobile Warden van (number 197), complete with two Mobile Wardens, was observed heading towards the South Tyneside College area of South Shields, in Grosvenor Road, South Shields. 

In 1998, and covered in this site under ‘Management Failures’, the vans were also used to carry an unauthorised passenger despite the protests of the mobile warden on duty, Mr Jon Stokoe, on a council-sponsored ‘Bring Your Child To Work’ Day. Mr Stokoe was instructed to convey the son of Management assistant Paul Anderson with him on his daily duties – contravening vehicle regulations and violating client confidentiality matters.

Yet further to this, a number of Team Leaders (including Mr E) had repeatedly complained to management that the rule of ‘one Mobile Warden only’ on a night shift was in fact contravening Health and Safety Law.

This has since become known as ‘Lone Working’ – and is recognised by the HSE as an unacceptable Health and Safety at Work risk.

Regardless, despite the fact that Mr E had been offered a lift by the Mobile Warden on duty, management’s singular claim was that Mr E – who was off duty – (and we quote Mrs Richardson here) “Was still her supervisor”!

Meal Breaks

Later admitted by management themselves – Central Control suffered from “generic” problems, preventing staff to be able to work entirely within the confines of ISO9002. We have an audio tape of the CCU Manager making this verbal admission as evidence.

On Sunday morning 26th September 1997, Mr E was the Team Leader for the day shift. Also on shift with him was Mrs LJ, a mobile warden and (at that time) close friend and colleague.

The official dayshift meal break was for only half an hour, and was usually taken at around midday. However, this was not always possible due to unexpected alarm calls from the elderly, major incidents, or other work-related matters which required urgent attention. Frequently in fact, staff missed their lunch breaks altogether.

On this Sunday morning in question, Mr E had received notification that there were problems with the alarms monitoring system at the central control unit, so had to telephone Mr William (Bill) Cooper at his home in Blyth, Northumberland. Sunday was Mr Cooper’s day off work, as he only worked Monday to Friday, nine to five. 

Otherwise, this was a quiet morning. Mrs J, who had completed her duties, decided that she would take an early meal – not as a meal break – but at her workstation. She went into the kitchen, only taking approximately ten minutes, and returned with a small heated ‘breakfast’ fro herself and for Mr E – which he accepted. He remained at his terminal throughout. As they were both sitting at their terminals, still working whilst eating their meal, Mr Cooper arrived.

Upon his arrival, he jokingly stated “By! It’s alright for some!” and continued to chat with Mr E, who explained why he had called Mr Cooper into work on this Sunday morning. 

Mrs J also asked Mr Cooper if he would like a small breakfast as he had been called in so early, but her replied “No thanks ‘L’; I’ve already eaten”. 

And so it was all an innocuous affair, with apparently no problems.

It was also the only SINGULAR time Mr E had such an unofficial ‘meal break’.

Now let us state the evidence – the facts.

Mr Cooper had relayed this matter to management that he had “caught” Mr E and Mrs J eating the cooked meal. 

Bill Cooper – it takes a special kind of rat to undertake such an action. 

Cooper had not “caught” anyone, and most certainly he did not make any mention that he found the incident to be alarming or reportable.

1. Firstly, Mr E had not left his terminal, therefore was still working.

2. Secondly, Mr E did not leave to cook the meal. A Mobile Warden, who had completed her duties had done this and was away for less that 10 minutes. She returned directly to her duties.

3. Thirdly, the ‘meal break’ was not a break at all – as it was eaten whilst working.

4. Fourthly, this was not a regular occurrence – in fact this was the ONLY and SINGULAR episode.

Mrs J, who could have been a first hand witness in Mr E’s defence, was not called by the union nor interviewed by council management.

There is a final note to add with regard to the activities of Mr. Cooper. Cooper 'reported' an employee (Mr E) for an 'unauthorised break' - or so he perceived it to be. As already covered in this site, Cooper would regularly come to work, during which he would make personal telephone calls, read newspapers and even go out into the town centre during his official working hours.

It is wholly possible to continue working whilst eating. However, it is impossible to work whilst absorbed in reading a newspaper.

Under Managements own regulations therefore, Cooper had in fact breached working regulations himself on at least two counts. Firstly, the frequent use of the telephones and reading a newspaper could have been regarded as an 'unauthorised use of council equipment and time' and secondly his regular trips into town could also have been construed as 'unauthorised absences'.

Cooper himself should have been investigated for this. Needless to say, he was not. Yet another example of "Do as I say, not as I do" management.

At South Tyneside Council's Warden Services/Central Control Unit; everyone was equal - but some were more equal than others.

 
3) ‘Unauthorised Absences from work’. 

The Fiction presented by Management.
Management claimed that Mr E had been late; take careful note of this actual statement – out of “60 identified absences” – to which no timespan of date was given; i.e. it could have been in the past 2 years! The lateness’s were measured between ONE MINUTE and an alleged 7 hours 45 minutes late.

The final allegation of a ‘lateness’ of 7 hours and 45 minutes is an utter fabrication upon management’s part. It is explained below.


The FACTS.
In the real world, we call “unauthorised absence from work” as ‘being late’. Now let us explain in detail the allegations made. Firstly, when Central Control first got a time clock fitted in late 1995, it was sworn as fact by the current Manager that this was not a tool installed by management to keep a check upon staff timekeeping. In fact it was stated that it simply provided a working record of who was on shift and was therefore in the building for health and safety legislation and requirements. What Bullshit.

Lying Management had struck again.

Management further claimed that Mr E was ‘missing’ on his shift, which was predominantly office based, for “7 hours and 45 minutes”.

Any member of staff - if they had been asked to evidence such an incident on the given date would have replied that it was simply not the case.

The likely answer to this is Mr E left the control room via the ‘card reader’ door, and re-entered the room either whilst someone else was also exiting/entering, or through an insecure Fire Door. This was Common Practice to use the Fire Doors, especially when deliveries of solo unit telephones were expected at the control room.


4) ‘Breach of the terms of his suspension’. 

The Fiction presented by management.
That Mr E had wilfully broken, and had set out to break his suspension terms. That is, to either enter a council building, or to make contact with a member of staff during investigations.

The FACTS.
This really takes some beating in the disbelief factor. Picture the scene. Someone telephones your home. You pick the telephone up. You are therefore answering the telephone – not making a call, are you not? You are, until you first make verbal contact, unaware of who is telephoning you – correct? Well apparently, no; that’s not the case at all.

In “The World According To Norma Richardson”, that was not the status of the situation. Far from it.

Despite South Tyneside Council having audio recording evidence, backed with telephone activity logs (which they had been covertly monitoring) to prove where the call emanated, and who made it, the council maintained that because Mr E actually spoke to the caller – Mr John Fleck – who had rang Mr E from work to enquire upon his welfare, it was Mr E who had broken his suspension rules.

Norma Richardson’s argument and defence was that as soon as Mr E had realised who the caller was, he was, “by instruction”, compelled “…to put the phone down”.

Richardson – this was your actions and responses. They were and are insane.

Is this not absolute and utter madness? Please email us with your thoughts. 

We have the actual audio copy of the telephone conversation between Mr Fleck and Mr E. It was obtained from local authority records using the Freedom of Information Act. It will be uploaded as and when possible under the following link. 

<audio recording of J fleck> 

And on it went. Madness after madness. In this room, on this day, black was white and white was black. It was enough to leave any individual questioning their very own sanity. Was this really happening? Can this really be allowed to happen? Is this, in fact LEGAL? Why isn’t UNISON jumping all over them? Why is the union representative just sitting there doodling on paper!!?? (The latter is also a literal statement of truth).

Worse was yet to come. Disbelief, lunacy and indeed disgust would be the order of the day.

This was evidently not enough bloodlust for them, as, close to the lunchtime break, personnel reappeared with an audio cassette recorder and several audio cassette tapes.

KE was informed that these tapes included personal telephone calls between Mrs B and Mr E and not just of the argument in late August 1997. There would also be private and personal discussions aired between other members of staff to be openly played to the panel. This may have yet lead to even further disciplinary procedures against other unrelated third parties if this was to be allowed to go ahead. 

This was nothing short of blackmail on an emotional level.

What was occurring on this day was an atrocity and was no longer acceptable.

As the panel adjourned for the lunch break, Mr E had another discussion with McDade.

If the reader is not already repulsed at the behaviour of the management and personnel department so far – then prepare for a shock.

It was the UNISON representative John McDade’s personal and frank opinion that South Tyneside Council, after playing the audio tapes in the afternoon session of the appeal, were now going to rely upon extremely personal and sexually explicit and private matters to continue their defence in order to destroy Mr E’s character.

As this involved third parties, Mr E was not prepared to have private and personal matters discussed in a room full of people. Private and personal matters were simply none of their business.

A Right to Privacy for your private and personal life is a Human Right. Mr McDade strongly suggested that he presumed that the Community Services Management Team and the Personnel Department personnel present were going to make reference to an email sent to Mrs JB by KE in early January 1997 regarding a weekend break holiday which they had taken in the Lake District in Cumbria as a foursome with their partners.

Mr E had left the following e-mail: This is taken directly from council records which were presented to all present at the appeal.

<<Scan copy Email - to be uploaded>>

The email was private & personal, innocuous, though admittedly suggestive, but was also entirely characteristic of the relationship between Mr E and Mrs B at that period in time. The facts were, for whatever reasons that McDade came to this conclusion we are unaware; but McDade’s strong personal opinion was that the council's 'defence team' were going to infer that “the brown eyed kid” which was referred to in the email was in fact a veiled reference of intent to commit an act of buggery upon the named female.

One straightforward witness could have allayed their suspicions and explained that such an act had never taken place, but was never asked;

 The female employee herself.


In relation to the email sent; Mr E incidentally, has brown eyes – a differing colour to the partner of Mrs B. We believe the rest of the email requires no further explanation. 

South Tyneside Council had entirely – wholly – overstepped the mark in this regard. They were not just using personal relationships as a weapon; they weren’t just satisfied with having to trawl up highly explicit and personal details in front of an audience – but they were even prepared to go as far as to openly interrogate in front of 10 individuals how far this relationship went, how intimate it was, and even, disgustingly – apparently, what sex acts, if any, had occurred during the relationship. 

Reality Check: Remember, this was not some police investigation into a sexual complaint, but an Employment Appeal between nothing more than council officers and councillors.

We believe and support the opinion of the UNISON representative (Mr. McDade) to this day. We consider South Tyneside Council to have been in the most extreme criminal breach of Human Rights privacy and the Right to Privacy under the Human Rights Act for what they had upcast, and were allegedly intending to upcast at that appeal. 

If South Tyneside Council is somewhat perturbed at the content of the above statement, then do not ‘shoot the messengers’. In order to gain further information regarding this you should contact UNISON directly.

We believe that any rational-minded individual reading the above account must ascertain it as truly disturbing, unreservedly perverse behaviour from an authority.


Mr E could not allow this disgusting charade to continue. Despite the apparent breakdown of any form of remaining amity between himself and Mrs B, he still had the humanity to defend BOTH of their rights to privacy – no matter what was at stake. Besides, management were now, apparently, prepared to drag ‘other third parties’ into the affray.

He abandoned the appeal.

Before he left the town hall building, Mr E requested that he speak directly to his former Manager. Graham Fells approached the CCU Manager and informed him “Mr E would like to speak with you, ****”.

The Manager was already sitting on some public seating in the main corridor outside of Committee Room ‘A’, where this sham - this kangaroo court process - had taken place.

Mr E stated immediately to him "I don't know what you are being told or why you believe it, but I did not harass that woman" (referring to JB). His former Manager looked deeply uncomfortable, but did not comment upon that statement. He then made some friendly small-talk and walked with Mr E to the main reception area of the town hall and towards the public entrance in Broughton Road, South Shields. As Mr E left, the CCU Manager shook hands with him and wished him good luck. He then set off down the long corridor which would eventually lead him back to the Central Control Unit. Mr E left by the public entrance, never to return again as an employee.

Apparently, Mr E and his former Manager, despite what had occurred via recent management accusations and behaviour, had parted on reasonably good terms. Within months of this occurrence it would be proven to be nothing short of farce on Management's behalf.

However, the best has been saved for last. Throughout this account of investigations, dismissal and appeal, an extremely important factor has not yet been revealed.

The fact being that Mr E is a Registered Disabled Person.

Above: South Tyneside Council proudly display this logo upon their stationery. Such 'positivity', mitigation nor understanding was not shown to a disabled employee in 1997-8.

At the management interviews and appeal which followed at South Tyneside Council in 1997-8, Mr E's disabled status and state of health was completely disregarded. In fact it was later revealed by Cllr. Linda Waggott who had sat on the Appeal Panel that she had not been made aware of any health condition suffered by Mr E whatsoever by the management or personnel team involved. Mitigating Circumstances, in effect, had not been reported to the Appeal Panel.

This is from a council that purports itself to be 'Positive About Disabled People'.

They most certainly were not.

Further Allegations and Investigations.

Richardson's Investigation and interrogation of a Resident Warden - Huntcliffe House, South Shields. April 1998.

Mr E’s appeal had gone, but as far as he was concerned his fight was not over. This whole affair had been mind-boggling. This had been no ordinary investigation or dismissal; this had been a modern-day ‘witch hunt’.

Damned if you did; damned if you didn’t.

The investigations, the dismissal and the bizarre allegations which had followed this had made him all the more certain and confident that something was stinking in this whole mess. Certain individuals were going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Mr E would never, and could never return to his place of work. And from this dismissal had spawned two individuals’ names that were now creating gossip, rumour, falsehood and slander with regularity – Mr Starbuck and Mrs B herself. Their names would become inextricably linked in a number of false allegations made between 1998-1999.

On a highly positive note, a large number of former work colleagues - including Mrs X's male work colleague - were still in habitual contact with Mr E and were providing him with regular and detailed information regarding what was becoming one allegation after another.

It was unmistakable that something regarding this entire episode was profoundly amiss, so Mr E began his own investigations – investigations that would last over a decade.

Unbeknown to him at that time, as one stone after another was unturned, another piece of the farcical jigsaw would come slithering out. One name in particular would stand right out from the crowd.

The UNISON representative for Central Control/Warden Services.

This was becoming a rabbit warren of lies, deceit, allegations and personal hatred from a woman who had used the situation entirely to her own ends. Wherever there was discord and allegations, this woman's name reappeared every time. Of course, such endeavours could not be accomplished alone. The help she needed was given by the idiots who took her advice and were manipulated by her.

As Mr E continued his correspondence with the council, trying to obtain answers to what was unquestionably a devious episode in the council’s official administration; he sought independent advice and witness statements from other employees and union members.

He had been given tremendous support by the majority of his direct work colleagues and others who did not directly work with him.

Without exception, no other employee could understand why, if Mr E had been dismissed, why then had Mrs X not been subject to the same measures.

Something extremely devious and highly suspect had occurred.

As a result of ongoing personal enquiries, on Friday 3rd April 1998, at approximately 11.45am, Mr E went to visit the Resident Warden of Huntcliffe House sheltered accommodation, in Gerald Street, Whiteleas, South Shields.

Above: Huntcliffe House - Richardson "warned off" a staff member here in 1998. 

Mr E had known the Resident Warden there for many years, even prior to his commencement of employment with the council in September 1989. She was in fact a long-standing family friend.

As Mr E approached the complex (pictured above), he pressed the main door entry intercom which was linked to the Resident Warden’s office. In other words, he used the door entry intercom in the correct manner so the security of the building would not be compromised.

At this same time and by sheer coincidence, Mrs McN, the Warden, was having a telephone conversation with the Central Control Unit Manager. He overheard Mr E’s voice over the intercom system and had said to Mrs McN that he would cease his conversation with her so that she could allow access to Mr E.

Unknown to anyone at that time is that the Manager, for reasons we do not yet understand, immediately reported this matter via telephone call to none other than Norma Richardson.
Why?

Mr E’s social visit to Huntcliffe House had lasted about an hour. He then left for home.
Several hours later, he was notified by Mrs McN (via telephone call) of some astounding information. In fact it was simply disturbing.

Later that same day, Mrs McN had received a telephone call from none other than Norma Richardson herself demanding to know what had been discussed and what Mr E’s business had been in visiting the shelter.
This apparently was not enough for Richardson, as the following day, she personally visited the Resident Warden at her place of work and interrogated her yet again as to Mr E’s business at the shelter.

Later information appears to suggest that Richardson had in fact “warned off” the Warden from assisting Mr E in his ongoing enquiries.

After this visit from Richardson, communication between Mrs McN and Mr E ceased. Bully Boy tactics were evidently being employed by higher management figures in order to keep their grubby secrets 'secret'.

Mrs McN left the services of South Tyneside Council in 2000.


With regard to the above account, a letter was sent to Frederick McQueen (Richardson’s superior and director of the Community Services Department) on 14th April 1998 detailing the above and asking the council to provide an explanation to Richardson’s actions. The council refused to acknowledge this event or give any explanation for Richardson’s unacceptable behaviour.

Alleged 'intrusion' into the Central Control Unit.

June 1998.
Mr E had recently been made aware by a number of former work colleagues, including Mrs B's work colleague (and close friend of Mr E), of an incident regarding Mr E's alleged intrusion into Central Control Unit (CCU); being allowed access by various Team Leaders, and intruding into the town hall car park in an attempt to ‘get’ Mrs B and cause her harm.
It was confirmed by both Paul Anderson and the CCU Manager that Mrs B made these allegations that KE was entering the CCU to get her. However, Mrs. B had only said to Anderson that her information regarding this had come from “a source” within the CCU. The origins of this serious allegation were not investigated. Mrs B had also stated whilst at work to Mrs GA, Resident Warden at Lakeside Hall, Hebburn, that she “knew” KE was coming into central control, that he was “after her”, that she was “frightened” of him, but that she had discussed this with Mr Anderson and it had been agreed that if she observed Mr E near the unit she would telephone Anderson immediately. This discussion with Mrs A was carried out during working hours and whilst carrying out the morning board call upon elderly residents. 

The complaint initiated by Mrs B prompted an immediate large-scale internal enquiry, conducted by Norma Richardson. Team Leaders Bryan Fox and Kathleen Cumming fully confirmed that such accusations had been made, but it is well established that all serving Team Leaders and acting Team Leaders at that time were all interviewed and questioned.

On Monday 24th August 1998, after Mr E's (then) friend (and Mrs B's co-worker) acted as middle-man or broker, Mrs B and KE met to discuss the seriously out of control situation as it now stood. They met at ‘The Grotto’ public bar at the foot of Mardsen Beach in South Shields. Mrs B had a female friend with her as, assumingly, a third party witness. Surprising behaviour considering recent events.

Above: The meeting between KE and Mrs B was held outside the 'Marsden Grotto' Bar. 

Some unexpected and astonishing admissions were made to Mr E. during this meeting.

An example of this regards an incident where Mrs B and KE had argued in the town hall car park in February 1997. Mrs B had later stated to three members of staff (the Unison representative, other names withheld) and possibly to management (unconfirmed) that at the end of this argument, as she tried to ‘escape’ in her car, KE allegedly tried to “pull the car door off it’s hinges”, then in an attempt to prevent her from leaving, threw himself onto the bonnet of Mrs B’s Ford Mondeo.

Mrs B denied telling this version of events to staff entirely.

Mrs B also denied ever making allegations regarding stalking and explained that she believed that it was first mentioned by none other than SUE KEY of UNISON. Ms Key was the person who in fact informed KE that such allegations had been made by Mrs B. She also claimed that no such complaint was ever made to the police, as “there was no reason to do anything like that”.

KE was also informed that during her management interview with Jim Barrow earlier that year, in response to KE’s official complaint (covered earlier in this website) she was once again asked why she never reported KE’s email messages to her to management if she considered them to be unwelcome.
It is noteworthy to state at this point that also in attendance at this meeting was none other than Central control's UNISON representative.

Mrs B allegedly reported to Mr Barrow that she did not have a problem with the emails; that in fact she found them amusing. On being asked whether some comments made on the emails were of a personal nature, she again explained to Barrow that they were humorous and did not offend her as we were close friends.

But a point must be made. We still fail to see what great significance the management team persistently held with the emails in question. In effect, Mrs B finally confirmed to management that the mails were humorous, did not offend her, were not intended to harass (nor did they), and that she was not being harassed or sexually harassed by KE.

Collated evidence now strongly points to the fact that Mr E’s dismissal had been deliberately built up in order to dismiss him. Management were simply looking for any potential or possible further allegations, without foundation if necessary, to bolster their evident dismissal proceedings.
Their interviews and dismissal had indeed been built upon ‘shaky ground’. They were now covering their worthless backsides with any means, by any means. 

For the 'uninitiated or naive' reading this site, it is fair to state that the original working and personal relationship between KE and Mrs B had been “extremely close”. Without drawing you a picture, it is considered that the information provided will suffice.

Mrs B also explained that she had been questioned by Barrow in relation regarding an incident where she had ‘gone missing’ from the CCU to go for a drive in her ex husband’s new Mazda car. Mr E had reported this after his dismissal and even then only after allegations of harassment were made against him. In fact, in late January 1998.

She denied this event in question had ever occurred. However, her co-worker was also on shift when this incident took place and confirmed Mr E’s account as absolutely factual.

Another allegation which Mrs B made to Norma Richardson on 9th February 1998; was that she had been harassed and bullied on shift by two female Mobile Wardens, one being Ms KD, regarding aspects of KE's forthcoming appeal. Official complaints were made against Mr E (who no longer worked there!), and the female employees by Mrs B. No other members of staff who were on shift with Mrs B was ever interviewed; the other members of staff being Mr GB and Mrs KC. Either member of staff could have confirmed that Mrs B had not been harassed or bullied, as they were present at the time of the alleged incident.

*Upload info*NB: statements made by Mrs B to Richardson on Monday 9th February 1998 and at a subsequent meeting with Mr Mervyn Butler and CCU Unison rep at the UNISON office in Westoe Road, South Shields.

No other member of staff involved in this (other than Mrs B) or who had been named had been interviewed with the exception of the female Mobile Wardens, who were given written warnings despite there being a complete lack of evidence against their alleged behaviour.

We were also reliably informed by Mrs B's male collegue – a constant and daily source of information at that time - that during Mrs B’s period of sickness in February – April 1998 due to ‘stress’, two South Tyneside councillors were privately approached regarding this case. The councillors in question, Councillor P. Boyack (Whitburn Ward) and Councillor Evelyn Doneghan (Harton Ward) had allegedly informed Mrs B that if she felt that she could not return to the CCU for whatever reason, they themselves would ensure that Mrs B would secure another scale 3 job anywhere else within the council that she wished. Letters were sent directly to the councillors in relation to this. Boyack responded, denying all knowledge whilst Doneghan refused to reply.

*meeting with Boyack on Friday 4th October 2002.*

The alleged inappropriate political involvement of Boyack and Doneghan were passed to the auditors who, during 1998, were currently investigating South Tyneside Council’s political regime and management structure.

Mrs B, at the meeting with Mr E made it clear that she did not want her workplace Unison steward to be aware that she had met or spoke with him. In fact, Mrs B claimed that her workplace representative had claimed “if you ever meet or speak to KE again I’ll disown you”.

Could this behaviour on the Unison Steward's part be construed as bullying? We think so.

It was becoming irrefutably evident that this particular union representative had interfered in personal matters to an extraordinary degree. Mr E took this matter up with UNISON at local and regional level, as the representative was instructed by none other than John McDade, Sue Key and Mervyn Butler at a UNISON meeting in early 1998 that she must not involve herself, and therefore the union any further in such matters.

She wholly disregarded this instruction.

During Mr E’s telephone conversation with the CCU Manager on 26th August 1998, he explained that he now knew the identity of “the source” of his alleged intrusion into the CCU, which had also falsely informed Mrs B that Mr E was allegedly “after her”.

He explained to Management that he would confirm his telephone conversation and the ensuing details in letter form. The Manager agreed with this and advised & requested that KE to send the correspondence to McQueen directly. He explained that he would verbally contact McQueen immediately regarding the incident.

The person responsible for the allegations had been positively identified by Mrs B as Starbuck. 

This was disclosed to Mr E by Mrs B herself. She stated that she would be prepared to explain in full the incident leading up to this most recent matter.
Mrs B had also informed her work colleague of the incident regarding Starbuck. He in turn agreed with KE that he would be prepared to confirm this as factual if management wished to consult him over this incident and especially if Mrs B (for whatever reason) then denied it at a later stage.

According to Mrs B, during one of her shifts, Starbuck had taken her aside and had explained that he had witnessed Mr E coming to and from the CCU; that he was being granted access to the CCU by “certain members of staff”, and inferred that KE was coming after her to cause her harm. He finished his statement by saying “but keep my name out of it”.

The initial allegations regarding KE’s “intrusions” into the CCU appear to have commenced during the weekend team shifts dated between Friday 5th June to Sunday 7th June 1998. Mrs B was on backshift at this time. It is a certainty that the timing, nature and motives of Starbuck’s allegations will now become obvious to the reader as the following explanation is given.

On Friday 5th June 1998, at Mr E’s personal request, Mr E's former workplace friend conveyed a verbal message to Mrs B that he requested to meet her out of work hours to attempt to resolve some of their differences. As Mr Mervyn Butler of UNISON can confirm, Mr E had offered on countless occasions to meet Mrs B in an effort to resolve some of the problems which appeared to have occurred since Friday 23rd January 1998, when her first allegations of harassment regarding Mr E were discovered.

On receipt of the request to meet, Mrs B explained to her colleague that although she wanted to meet Mr E she would seek the opinion of her UNISON representative, as she was unsure about what to do for the best. It has since been confirmed by Mrs B that upon mentioning to the steward that she was considering meeting him, she instructed her, “No you’re not”. This vetoed any chances of reconciliation at that point, as Mrs B unfortunately took this representative's poisonous advice.

It is understood that over the weekend period of 5th-7th June 1998, although Mrs B spoke to the workplace steward in confidence, she had then breached that confidence and discussed the matter with Starbuck in an attempt to protect and prevent his involvement in this incident from being discovered.
This matter, knowing how much havoc Starbuck had caused before, during and after KE’s suspension and dismissal, had forced Starbuck into taking action to try to prevent KE and Mrs B from meeting, as it would not be in Starbuck’s interests for this to occur.

His actions would be discovered – yet again.

The meeting between Mrs B and KE proved this assumption to be correct. Information, which both Starbuck and the CCu Unison representative had both tried to prevent from being reported, had now reached Mr E.
It was reported directly to the Director of Community Services, Frederick McQueen.

No apparent action was taken whatsoever. 

It was over this weekend period that Starbuck made his false allegations to Mrs B in an attempt to prevent such a meeting from occurring. This can not be regarded as just coincidental or a ‘practical joke’; his usual excuse for such deliberate and destructive behaviour. In fact, what was being committed here is regarded in legal terms as ‘Malicious Falsehood’.

Whilst on shift together, Starbuck had taken Mrs B aside and intimated to her that he had seen Mr E leaving the CCU, that he “knew for a fact” that certain members of staff were allowing KE access to and from the unit on regular occasions, that he had seen KE leaving the car park, that KE “…hated her guts” and that KE was “…out to get her”. He inferred that KE could or would be possibly violent towards her. These allegations were obvious in their intentions and had the desired effect. Further animosity was thus created between KE and Mrs B, ensuring that any possibility of a meeting was abandoned at that stage.
KE had never shown violence or to any other member of staff. Such vicious allegations were sickening.

With the information provided by Starbuck, Mrs B contacted Mr Paul Anderson (in her Manager's absence) at some time between Monday 8th to Wednesday 10th June 1998, reporting these allegations, but would not confirm the source. This was under Starbuck’s direct instructions to Mrs B to “keep his name out of it”.

Mr Anderson and the CCU Manager confirmed the above statements.

The current CCU Manager is still in a position to be able to confirm this account as factual.

Upon reporting the matter, an immediate investigation by Richardson ensued. Once again, Richardson’s knee-jerk reactions at the mention of Mr E’s name were extremely alarming. Her swift actions at any investigation regarding Mr E only gave further conclusive proof that her prior investigations against KE were wholly biased.
Norma Richardson had made vindictive and scandalous allegations against Mr E; the investigation was not conducted impartially; it became Personal.

We digress at this point to add that Mrs B has also explained since to Mr E that she had felt that certain aspects of her management interview held on Tuesday 30th September 1997 was conducted under undue pressure, and that inappropriate ‘leading questions’ such as (regarding the email messages) “Were they unwelcome?” and “Was he harassing you?” were asked by both her Manager and Richardson.

Mrs B explained that she felt pressurised into certain answers, certainly involving the responses regarding the sending and receiving of emails. It is noteworthy to mention that management stated that Mrs B only ever sent two email messages to Mr E. This is totally incorrect. Even Mrs B later contested this. There were far more emails than “two emails” sent by Mrs B to Mr E; and also to and from other members of staff, therefore why were all other email correspondences between staff not investigated?

Irrespectively, there is something remarkably suspicious surrounding the ‘disappearance’ of some of Mrs B’s emails which she sent to KE during 1996-7 for the purposes of an “impartial” investigation.

Referring back to the ‘intrusion’ allegations; on the dayshift of Thursday 11th June 1998, Mrs K.Cumming was the appointed Team Leader. During the course of her shift Mrs C was interviewed by Richardson.

Richardson asked:

“Are you aware of any member of the public or ex-employee visiting the control room?”

Mrs Cumming replied that she was not aware of anyone other than authorised staff and visitors entering the CCU. Mr Bryan Fox was the Team Leader for the following backshift. He was also interviewed and the same question was asked, again by Richardson. Mr Fox was suspicious at such questioning and asked Richardson to what she was inferring. By way of an excuse, Richardson replied that she was “checking to see if the Team Leaders were doing their jobs properly.”

Surely it cannot be considered appropriate behaviour for a member of the higher management team to deliberately mislead another member of the management structure.

In other words, lie to them?

Upon Richardson’s departure from the CCU, Mr Fox questioned the Management Assistant Paul Anderson as to the true reason behind the investigation. Mr Fox asked Anderson; that by the term “ex-employee” was Richardson in fact alluding to Mr E. Mr Anderson confirmed that this was indeed the case and explained that there had been reports of an unauthorised intrusion, allegedly by KE, to the CCU made during a meeting held earlier that week with management.
Mrs K. Cumming, Mr B. Fox and Mr P. Anderson could all verify the statements above as factual.

On Friday 12th June 1998 Mrs B was on dayshift Mobile Warden duties -‘outside duties’, one of her morning board calls being at Lakeside Hall elderly person’s complex, in Hebburn, South Tyneside. 

Above: Lakeside Hall, Hebburn. An official complaint had to be lodged to council management due to the unacceptable amount of malicious gossip which was taking place here during working hours in 1998. The warden's office, used by resident and mobile wardens alike, is situated at the left side of the image. (The single pane window).

Prior to leaving the CCU that morning in the knowledge that she would be attending the hall office, where Mrs G.A was the Resident Warden of the large Hebburn complex – not a sheltered accommodation as such but a collection of warden-linked bungalows to a central communal hall – Mrs B also contacted the second Warden of the site (due to it’s size it had to be split into two separate areas of warden coverage) -; Mrs L.W, who resided (at that time) in Lilac Walk, Hebburn, to explain that she would meet her at Lakeside Hall office as she would be calling in to commence the morning board call.

Upon Mrs B’s arrival, and directly resultant to Starbuck’s malicious allegations, Mrs B proceeded to tell the Resident Wardens of Mr Starbuck’s account of events; that she had been informed that KE was coming into the CCU after her, that she “knew that he visited the CCU”; that Mr E was in fact “after her” and that she was now becoming frightened of Mr E as it had been suggested and inferred that Mr E would do her physical harm. 
She went on to say that she had discussed the matter with Mr Anderson and that it was mutually agreed by both parties that if she observed KE “anywhere near the CCU” in future she was to contact Mr Anderson immediately.

There is an independent witness to the incident which took place at Lakeside Hall on that day who can still confirm the above statement as true and correct. This is by a former South Tyneside Council Warden Service employee and latterly a social work assistant, who left South Tyneside Council’s employment in June 1998.

It also became necessary by Mr E to verbally report to the CCU Manager (via telephone) that the Resident Warden of Lakeside Hall, Mrs 'A', had now also entered into perpetual slanderous gossip with regard to the allegations repeated to her. Defamatory comments from Mrs 'A' regarding KE were being repeated to other members of council staff. One such person to which Mrs 'A' claimed that KE was (quote) “giving J**** a hell of a time” was Mrs McN – the Resident Warden at Huntcliffe House and UNISON representative for the Resident Wardens.

Mrs McN informed Mr E of this when he visited her on Friday 3rd April 1998. You will recall this, as yet again, Richardson made enquiries as to why KE was at the shelter visiting Mrs McN, and even visited Mrs McN about this. That account has been covered in some detail under the section “Interrogation of a Resident Warden – Huntlcliffe House”.

No official reply was ever provided by South Tyneside Council for Richardson’s behaviour.

Now knowing that the allegations regarding the intrusions into the CCU were indeed false, it would have been expected that council management would take corrective action on the behalf of Mr E. and disciplinary measures against the guilty parties.

No such action was taken.

On Monday 22nd June 1998 KE had a conversation with a former council employee, Mrs JW, in which she disclosed the full details of the discussion which had been held on 12th June 1998 at Lakeside Hall.

Having full knowledge of the working and personal relationship between Mr E and Mrs B, JW explained to KE the allegations which were openly being made about KE by Mrs B. Upon receiving this information, a message was left for Mr Paul Anderson to contact Mr E immediately. Anderson contacted him shortly afterwards. 

KE explained in full the allegations which had been made against him and that an independent witness had availed themselves. Mr Anderson asked KE if he had in fact been in the CCU since his dismissal. KE replied that he had not. He then asked was it possible that KE had been in the town hall car park. KE replied that he had not.
Anderson explained that he would take the matter up with his Manager. KE asked Mr Anderson if it was true that Mrs B had made these allegations. He confirmed this. Mr E thanked Mr Anderson for his honesty and assistance.

The following day, on Tuesday 23rd June 1998 KE telephoned the Manager regarding the incident.
KE explained to him of the recent events which he had been made aware of. Mr E requested a meeting with management, explaining that this situation was now clearly out of control. The Manager explained that although he would be personally prepared to meet him and would welcome the opportunity, he would have to refer the matter to higher management. KE agreed, then directly requested that if the videotapes of the town hall car park security cameras were viewed, this would then confirm as concrete evidence that he had been nowhere near the car park and therefore had certainly not entered the CCU.
The viewing of the available tapes would have proved conclusively that KE had not been on or entered council property for at least one calendar month. This action would also therefore prove that the staff member was lying. The CCU Manager agreed to Mr E’s request.

It is noteworthy that over the period of time of the allegations of KE’s alleged intrusions into the CCU, Mr E found it necessary to contact his telephony provider, BT, due to a sudden increase in nuisance calls being made to his home address. Mrs B had also informed Mr E that over the same period of time in 1998, she too received a volume of unidentified calls, where there was no speech and the identity of the caller had been withheld using the ‘141’ prefix.

One call made to Mr E’s home address was traceable and was identified as a public telephone box on Westoe Road, South Shields. Mr E managed to trace this call using the ‘1471’ last caller redial service.
This was remarkably and somewhat suspiciously close to where Starbuck occasionally resided and regularly visited at that time, which was at Raynham Court, South Shields.

Less than one minute’s walking distance from the call box in question, in fact.

The nearby dwelling was the home of a relief member of warden service staff who had become involved in a relationship with Starbuck. That staff member also left the employment of South Tyneside Council in approximately 1999.

It was the firmly held belief of both Mr E and Mrs B at their arranged meeting that the malicious calls which they had both endured were initiated by Starbuck; the sole intention being to make both parties believe that each had been antagonising one another.

On the evening of Thursday 25th June 1998, due to the allegations made against Mr E at that time by Mrs B, Mr E telephoned the Central Control Unit UNISON representative at her home. Mr E asked her where the allegations of his intrusion into the CCU originated from. She refused to disclose the source, but would only say “it didn’t come from J****”.

It must be considered at this point, that the union representative did in fact know where the allegations had originated from, as Mrs B had told her herself. The rep had then instructed Mrs B to “let it die”, as Starbuck was only giving her “bullets to fire”. 

KE did not disclose to the union steward the account of which he had been made aware of at Lakeside Hall on 12th June 1998 and as ensuing discussions became heated KE ceased the telephone conversation with her.
It has become apparent that this particular union steward's involvement in this entire case since the management interview with Richardson, the CCU Manager and Mrs B on 30th September 1997 had been far greater than originally envisaged. A great deal of third party interference had taken place between Mrs B and Mr E.
This matter of the union steward's repeated intervention was continually referred to UNISON for further investigation and advice upon the ongoing situation.

Their assistance was utterly unconstructive and bereft of any positive action against this vindictive and interfering female agitator.

On Saturday 22nd August 1998, (incidentally one year to the day in which Mr E had rang in ‘sick’ at work; in an insufficient state of health to supervise his shift), Mrs B agreed to meet KE at ‘The Grotto’ on the following Monday (24th August 1998) at 14.00hrs. Mrs B also stated to her male work colleague and mutual friend that if KE was unable to meet her at that time she would meet him on another date and location to resolve differences. 
Importantly, Mrs B had also informed her co-worker that she also had finally realised that “other people” had compounded her personal and work problems by misinformation or fabrication of events. She knew she had been lied to; by both the Unison Steward and Starbuck. 

At long last, common sense appeared to be prevailing. The rift between Mr E and Mrs B was now over - to the evident horror of certain third parties. However, unanswered questions still had to be addressed. Although, sadly, friendship was now impossible to retrieve, at least some dialogue had recommenced.

Who had caused all the unrest? Why were the bogus complaints made? Who was behind this, and why?

To Be Continued when possible ...

The Employment Tribunals; Newcastle upon Tyne. (Mid 1998). 

This account can be explained in a few short paragraphs. Mr E had forced the dismissal issue to Employment Tribunal Appeal stage against South Tyneside Council’s wishes.

However, all was not as it seemed. The Employment Appeals Tribunal Service outlines in its mission statements that it is an impartial and informal panel, which attempts to place an appellant (the former employee) at ease. It places great emphasis upon the fact that it endeavours hard not to emulate the stress and formality of courtroom hearings.

In other words, it is supposed to be ‘employee friendly’ and takes into account that the individual may not have legal knowledge.

 This could not be further from the truth.

If you should find yourself in such a situation; then take this advice. If your union is unprepared to assist you (as UNISON were in this case), then engage a solicitor without fail.

On the appeal day in question, Mr E was alone to explain his account of the events leading up to his suspension and dismissal. As he waited in a nearby waiting room for his hearing to begin, Norma Richardson and a ‘Ms Callaghan’ from South Tyneside Council’s legal services department walked in. Although allocated separate waiting rooms, they had come to ‘visit’ Mr E prior to the hearing. Callaghan raised her arm forward as a gesture to shake hands. Mr E refused. Richardson stood aside, watching impassively.

Callaghan then read out past employment case law, stating that Mr E had “no prospect” of winning this hearing and should “pull out”.

This in fact, was a threat.

Mr E refused and told them to leave.

It was time for the hearing to begin. From memory, the hearing was at 10.00am. South Tyneside Council’s defence team was startling. Not only was Richardson and a senior officer from South Tyneside Council’s own Legal Services Department in attendance, but they had also hired a BARRISTER.

What must be asked here is what made South Tyneside Council so afraid, that they were prepared to spend on average a fee of £500 per hour to engage independent legal advice in the form of a barrister? Why did they deem it imperative to engage ‘hired hands’?

It is our belief that such measures were taken as they themselves knew that if a full account of the events in question, and the ridiculous allegations were revealed to the tribunal panel, then the council may well have been in a serious predicament. It was evident that they expected a serious legal battle to ensue.

However, the panel’s proceedings were nothing short of farcical.

The ‘employee friendly’ panel were extremely abrupt and unfriendly, and within moments of Mr E’s opening statements, attempting to explain the full account of what had happened, the panel chairman called a halt to the proceedings stating “You have brought no new evidence for us to consider”.

Mr E replied “You have not given me time to explain. I have to ensure you fully understand what caused this and what led to this situation.”

The panel chairman – an abrupt and unfriendly man – refused to listen. He closed the case. Mr E had not even been given the opportunity to officially respond.

The hearing was over in about 20 minutes. However, the appeal – a complete waste of time – must have cost South Tyneside Council in the region of £500 at the very least for the barrister alone. Richardson’s ‘minders’ then even attempted to apply for costs against the appellant (Mr E). That is how far South Tyneside Council went in order to attempt to take some form of ‘revenge’ against an ex employee who had the audacity to oppose them. This request for application of costs was disregarded by the panel after brief discussion.

The hearing was over. Nothing more could be done. Each party now left and went their separate ways.

An Employment Tribunal Appeal is the last bastion of any official route of appeal which an employee can take. After that, all roads are blocked. The official legal process is exhausted.

With this in mind, Mr E left for home. However, his correspondence with South Tyneside Council continued, hoping that someone in authority would see common sense and investigate the increasing number of events in impartial detail.

This of course, never would occur.

From a personal view of an Employment Tribunal – if you find yourself in such a situation; if your union will not support you, or you do not have a solicitor present, then save yourself the transport costs in attending. Stay at home.

The Tribunals are a complete one-sided affair and the ‘playing field’ is certainly an uneven one.

And remember this: all an employer has to maintain and rely upon during an appeal is that “they did what they considered was right at that time” and it is their ‘Get out Of Jail’ card. It is an accepted element of Employment Case Law and is grossly unjust.

Forewarned is forearmed.

<<To Be Continued. Next upload: whenever possible>>

Copyright &nbsp2008 CorruptCouncils.co.uk - All Rights Reserved