Warden Services - South Tyneside Council.
A history of South Tyneside Council’s Warden Service/Central Control Unit.
The South Tyneside Council Community Care System was a bold step towards care and support for the elderly, and went ‘live’ as a public service for the elderly and vulnerable residents of South Tyneside in July 1986.
Its early days were based in nothing more than a spare flat at a local sheltered accommodation at Prince Edward Court, in South Shields.
Over the following four years, the service expanded into new purpose-built premises within the South Shields town hall and civic office complex, based at the southern side of Beach Road, South Shields. It remained there until 2003, when it was relocated to alternative premises at the former probation office buildings in Barrington Street, South Shields. This was in itself to some degree a result of the fallout of the ‘CCTV Case’.
The new premises, consisting of three floors, now accommodate Warden Services; the council run CCTV control room, and management and social services emergency duty team offices.
But back to the Service itself.
With particular relevance to the original Warden Service itself, it’s staff covered – and still cover a working shift pattern of dayshift, backshift and nightshift, whilst the staff themselves are split into two separate ‘teams’ – the weekday team, covering Monday – Thursday; and the weekend team, covering Friday – Sunday. All staff, with the exception of management and administrative assistants, is technically part time workers.
As with any office or group that works in close proximity with one another on a regular basis, there will be those who get on well, those who are universally disliked, cliques, and also closely-formed friendships; some friendships even flourishing into something considerably more.
The service was originally managed by (during 1986 – 1995) the Housing Department at South Tyneside Council, it’s housing chief being the sadly retired Mr. Jack Brown and assisted by Mr. Eddie Bell; both of them excellent men and managers. Mr. Bell also moved to pastures new sometime in 1995 (approx).
The service, during Messrs Brown and Bell’s term of office, was certainly dynamic. It was generally still in its junior infancy, and was expanding and improving as working practices settled in and newer technologies assisted in the daily contact required with all sheltered accommodation in the borough, and it’s other elderly residents.
Although there were a number of minor disputes between staff and management during this time, it was all mainly based upon the usual concerns of staff such as pay, terms of service and working practices. During that time also was the onset of the CCTV operational service for South Shields town centre – a duty, which because of the 24-7 nature of Warden Services, was placed upon the mobile wardens as an extra duty. In effect, mobile wardens now had two jobs – to care for the elderly and to monitor a small number of CCTV cameras on behalf of Northumbria Police.
Despite these changes; generally - all was well.
However, in early 1995 the supervisor of the service, Mr. E. Jordison, retired. For the following 18 months the service routinely ran itself with only arms-length management, as no replacement supervisor was engaged to take over the day to day running of the service. Mr. Jordison’s loss was acutely felt, as he was also expert in the rather stone age technology of the Honeywell DPS6 systems computer and its programme, known as the STYCCS system. This system and computer in its own right, now over 10 years old, was no longer in good running order and routinely crashed, required regular expert technological repair and was becoming increasingly unstable. Every time a thunderstorm occurred the system would be inundated with hundreds of false alarm calls from premises and sheltered accommodations throughout the borough – putting the vulnerable population at risk.
For 18 months, the service literally ran on the general goodwill and proficiency of (some of) the staff. After about 12 months of running entirely without a supervisor, a temporary supervisor was appointed, but it is fair to say that he took most of his own instruction from the more capable members of staff. He is best remembered by the staff – and not in a positive light - for removing a portable television, bought for the staff by the previous management to use after duties were completed on nightshift to help pass the quiet hours. The television was sold to a local TV repair dealer. No-one can establish where the money went, or to whom.
So, with the wheels coming off the service and insufficient management, the service went from one minor crisis to another. News eventually came that this situation was to be addressed once a major departmental shake up had taken place, which would combine approximately eight separate departments into 5 ‘super departments’ – as described by the late councillor, Albert Elliott.
Unbeknown to everyone at this time, it would be this new management structure and their behaviour and contempt towards staff that would, in the space of only four years of their eight year tyrannical term; bring the service almost to its knees and into regional and media disrepute. It has never fully recovered.
In mid 1995 the new departmental structure of South Tyneside Council was revealed. Warden Services was at last to get a new manager and it’s new department and management team would be the newly-created Community Services, headed by Mr. Frederick McQueen, brought from a former (and lesser) department, and his new Assistant Mrs. Norma Richardson – who had previously worked as a relative unknown in the Internal Audit department.
Neither of them had any working knowledge of how the service ran, or how it could run at its optimum capabilities.
In June 1995, the new manager was appointed, as were two new members of a ‘management team’ – Mr Paul Anderson, as Administration Assistant, and Mr William Cooper, who was to be the Technical Assistant. Mr Cooper came to work for over two years, doing little or nothing, only to sit at his desk reading the Daily Mirror, whilst his job was being ‘created’. At an approximation this must have cost the borough in the region of £36k – for doing absolutely nothing.
Overall and to generalise, things appeared to have a good start. The Manager asked trusted members of staff (including all three of us) what problems there were, and more importantly, what members of staff were deemed as troublesome or incompetent. A number of respondents informed him that staff unrest was caused by a particularly unpopular and indolent member of staff who worked originally on the weekend team, but later moved to work on the weekday shift pattern instead. The individuals name was mentioned several times by several different respondents. Incredibly, the staff member concerned, despite a number of high-profile incidents, one costing the authority a substantial sum of money and work to rectify, still remains an employee.
It was now only a matter of months before the ‘new management’ and staff honeymoon would be dramatically and permanently changed.
Within months of the new management structure being in place, a new pool of relief staff was employed to supplement the staff already working there. Amongst this pool staff was a name you will become familiar with – Mr. A. Starbuck. This man’s future actions would turn members of staff against each other, create havoc in the workplace, and be solely responsible for the catastrophic ‘CCTV Case’ itself.
Also at this time, it became blindingly apparent as to who was going to be in charge – or thought they were in charge – of the Warden Service/Central Control Unit as a whole.
Mrs. Norma Richardson.
Within months of taking her position as Assistant Manager (her actual job title being Community Services Administration And Finance Officer’ –CSAFO for short), became unanimously despised by Central Control Unit Management and staff alike. Referred to by all as “The Helmet”, referring to her hairstyle – she was universally detested. Other derogatory nicknames for her, created by Central Control Unit Management themselves were 'Oliver Cromwell' and 'Haircut 100'.
This woman clearly - in our opinion and that of other staff - had power issues, and appeared to have a problem with male members of the workforce in particular.
She wielded power with an emotionless force and brought about change simply for changes sake. But it got worse. Far worse. As her power trip increased, so did her need to do things which she presumed all managers should do – and that was to include ludicrous and interminable internal investigations, new rules and regulations, form filling, and of course – the power to take away workers livelihoods – the power to dismiss.
What was to follow in the coming months and years were rafts of investigations, new rules and regulations, numerous disciplinary hearings, attempted dismissals and for the unfortunate or politically or personally unconnected with her; successful dismissals.
The woman was – in our genuine opinion – almost despotic in her personal mission. If anyone dared to stand up to her and openly criticise her, as did Mr. E. and others, their days were numbered.
The devastation of her actions remains to this day for those still working there and for those who fell victim to her tyranny and lost their livelihoods as a result.
Events leading up to our colleague’s dismissal – November 1997.
Shortly after the inception of the new management structure, the new management team in charge of Community Services decided that serving members of staff needed a further extension of the management tree to ‘shop floor level’ and decided upon the requirement of Team Leaders, which would be responsible for each and every shift – day and night – 24 hours per day. This was because management only worked a routine 9-5 pattern, Monday to Friday. They still do.
So, in April 1996 six Team Leaders were chosen from the existing staff. This included two of us; Mr. KE and Mr. BF. The appointment of Mr. KE to the post of Team Leader appeared to outrage one member of staff, the UNISON representative – Warden Services, no less. It was later revealed that at a local Labour Party meeting held in Jarrow only weeks after his appointment; she had verbally raged at a mutual colleague (a Resident Warden) who was also in attendance, of her hatred that Mr. E had been appointed.
Curiously, the representative in question had also applied for the post and had not been successful.
Back at Warden Services, despite the generic unrest, all was appearing on the surface, to be reasonably stable.
As explained in the ‘History of Warden Services’ feature within this website, relationships can play a major part in the working life of a job or service. It can make a job a nightmare, or a valuable and interesting part of your life. For some of us, a nightmare was just about to begin.
In April 1996, a new pool of relief staff was appointed – the first new intake of employees directly related to the ‘new management team’. Amongst this intake of staff was one man who would destroy the staff entente cordiale as it had been for years, forever. Alan Starbuck.
Trouble on a scale never before witnessed by this council department was about to hit the service for six.
We will list in full further in this section all of the reported complaints that we are aware of. It appears in the section ‘Events after Dismissal’.
Was the writing on the wall? You can decide for yourself.
One of the matters which seriously concerned Mr. E – notified directly to him by a female employee who we shall identify as Mrs X, and later other members of staff, was that Mrs X had received a telephone call from Starbuck, during late 1996, claiming that there was to be another social night out, and he was ringing round all members of staff to see who would wish to go, including Mrs X. Starbuck, who lived in Stanley, County Durham at that time, had stated to her that the evening out would be held in Durham City. He offered to call to her home in South Tyneside and pick her up in his car to take her to this event, to save her making her own way there.
Mrs X, upon seeing Mr. E on a following shift, asked about the social evening in question. Mr. E, nor any other members of staff, knew of such an evening being arranged. Telephone calls were made to other members of staff who were not on duty, to establish if they had received any such telephone call from Starbuck. Without exception, each member of staff replied that they had received no such communication from Starbuck and were totally unaware of any arranged evening out or social gathering of any kind.
In fact, what Starbuck had done was to try to persuade Mrs X to drive off with him, in the assumption that she was to be taken to Durham to meet “everyone else” on this secretive and spurious ‘night out’. The fact is, and we find this truly disturbing, is that had Mrs X not mentioned this to other members of staff and had she gone ahead with his proposition, she would have found herself unaccompanied, with no independent means to return home, with Starbuck, over 20 miles from her residence. Starbuck was challenged directly about this. He was caught out – the ‘night out that never was’ therefore, (we consider fortunately), never also materialised for its one-and-only ‘invited’ employee.
We believe this to be a chilling and disturbing insight into this man and a glimpse of what was to follow in his remaining term of employment.
This event was also reported to Management due to its nature. We do not believe it was even entered on file.
Mr E, who had become alarmed and had been notified by other employees about the behaviour of Starbuck toward female members of staff – and one in particular which Mr E believed to be rather naive in some respects, made enquiries regarding his alleged membership of the Natural Medicines Society directly to them. This was due to the fact that he was alleging that he was a ‘Homeopathic Practitioner’, and was offering to ‘treat’ personally selected female members of staff for various ailments – some which were of an explicitly intimate nature.
In the telephone call which Mr. E made to them in 1996 it was quickly evidenced that his membership and homeopathic practitioner credentials were fake. The Natural Medicines Society stated that they: “…had never heard of Alan Starbuck, nor is membership of the society a professional qualification”.
This was reported directly to management – and the business card, which we still have possession of and is shown below, was shown to Management to evidence our concerns.
The 'Natural Medicines Society business card'.
Mr KE explained the nature of Starbuck’s attitude towards female employees, which he believed was predatory, and was also evidenced and supported by numerous other complaints which were made regarding Starbuck’s behaviour in and outside of the workplace – especially his sexual conduct towards female colleagues. Despite all of these complaints being made to management – directly to the manager, management never, at any time took any apparent action.
In fact, in one conversation which can clearly be recalled by Mr E with the Technical Assistant Mr Cooper – with mobile wardens Mrs X and her male co-worker also being present, concerning Starbuck’s behaviour, Cooper stated to us that “…management knew things about Starbuck which we don’t know” and that “…he should not be working here”.
We openly accuse South Tyneside Council of placing its employees in unnecessary danger.
We also recall that shortly after Starbuck commenced employment with South Tyneside Council, a telephone call was received by the CCU Manager from none other than Durham Constabulary CID directly in relation to Mr. Starbuck. It was never fully established as to the content of the telephone call, but during the time the call was taken, one member of staff was actually sent out of the Manager's office and the door firmly closed behind him.
Further to this, Mr Cooper also stated to members of staff that Norma Richardson, for reasons unknown – we are highly suspicious of this – if any “problems” were to arise with Starbuck, it would not be the CCU Manager who would deal with the matter, but Richardson “directly and personally”. Richardson never did deal with Starbuck, despite numerous complaints until the eventual police investigation regarding the CCTV incident of 1999 and it would be fair to note that even during that fiasco, Richardson had already attempted, with the Warden Services/CCU UNISON representative and supported in her claims by her male accomplice; to lay blame upon the (by this time) former South Tyneside Council employee Mr. E – by then working for North Tyneside Council as Duty CCTV Controller.
You should note that Starbuck was employed directly by this ‘new management team’. They had been in the job for only a year and this was to be the biggest, most catastrophic management blunder which would affect staff relations and working conditions alike.
In his three year employment term, Starbuck caused absolute pandemonium and destroyed friendships and working relationships on a personal and permanent level.
Things would never and could never be the same again.
The fallout of his actions are acutely felt to this day, and is in a large part responsible for the creation of this website.
The root cause and blame however, must remain with the management team employed by South Tyneside Council; those who had hired and those who had fired.
As a result of one of the continuous claims from a female relief employee that she was being pursued by Starbuck at work and on occasional social evenings out with staff members – Mr. E was directly invited - by ‘Mrs. X’ - to accompany her to an arranged night out in South Shields town centre which was to be held on Thursday 6th September 1996.
Prior to this, Mr. E never previously attended any such work-related social gatherings.
There would be approximately six people out on the evening in question.
The events which unfolded in the town centre were captured by the council-run CCTV system by employees that were on shift on the evening of Thursday 6th September 1996.
It clearly evidences what occurred that night.
Mr E had been asked by Mrs. X to accompany her to the arranged outing in order to, and we quote: “…to keep Alan Starbuck off {her} back”.
This, as it turned out, was not exclusively the reason.
What ensued from that night as a result was a very close personal friendship between Mr E and Mrs X, which lasted until mid August 1997. That relationship has been destroyed. It has been fraught and sometimes acrimonious ever since, despite best efforts to amicably settle differences, not assisted by the fact that other staff members – in particular the Warden Service Unison representative and Mrs X's co-worker joined into the affray which followed later – and have continued until at least July 2007.
The close friendship between Mr. E and Mrs X was to infuriate and incense Starbuck, who in turn was to cause immense personal problems between Mr. E and Mrs X, destroying that friendship and in turn would destroy a career and a livelihood.
Within just over one year of this social evening taking place, Mr E’s career at Warden Services would be ruined.
Meanwhile, back in the workplace – where there had always been a fair share of inter-staff spats, cliques, and disagreements, it was now fragmenting quite seriously into polarised ‘camps’.
For another example, certain members of staff who were opposed to the Team Leader positions were making working life difficult for the Team Leaders. Team Leaders in turn were not receiving backing from their management in decision making and staff discipline. They were in fact, caught in the middle. They were becoming the departmental ‘whipping boys’. This situation of ‘hands-off’ management was also protecting guilty staff from the management. If the staff did something wrong, it was the Team Leaders fault. If management did something wrong, it was the Team Leaders fault.
This was a no-win situation for those in Team Leader positions.
Even in training given to the Team Leaders in April 1996, and please note, the training was merely an Introductory Course; some of the advice given by the course lecturers was not to carry out management tasks in a strict disciplinarian style, but to take appropriate responsibility for your duties, allow common practices to continue, still allow a degree of flexibility with the staff and to simply ensure that the work required was done. We were all informed that change is best done slowly and in ‘tiny steps’. We were neither to impose immediate change nor to change the general dynamics of the service.
“If it isn’t broken – don’t try to fix it”.
However, problems which used to be resolved expediently and verbally were now getting seriously out of control. Rumour-mongering and distrust between work colleagues was rife.
Starbuck, who was complicit in legions of the reported difficulties, was now causing an explosive atmosphere between members of staff at the Warden Services/Central Control Unit, and arguments and disagreements were getting out of hand. These were all being repeatedly reported to Management.
On one occasion which Mr E can clearly recall, he stated to the CCU Manager that the situation in Warden Services/Central Control was now so out of hand; on some shifts it was “like entering Beirut”.
It was later discovered that the Manager himself also used this expression, originated by Mr. E, to new and incumbent staff.
Despite Management being aware of the matters and having the names of the troublemakers, at no time did he ever take action against the persons identified or complained of.
The stolen keys scandal of 1996.
Also during 1996, the Warden Services/CCU union representative,(and a woman who is notorious in the workplace for involving herself in matters which do not concern her); through gross negligence of duty, faced a disciplinary hearing and placed the welfare and security of hundreds of elderly, disabled and infirm residents in jeopardy.
Part of a Mobile Warden’s duty was to attend several sheltered accommodations in the Resident Warden’s absence, on an evening, to check the security of the building and to ensure no resident was in difficulties in communal areas of the sheltered complexes. Each sheltered accommodation has an approximate number of 30 dwellings, containing either single/widowed elderly residents or elderly couples. Some shelters, however, encompass considerably more dwellings, and therefore far more residents than the average of approximately 35 residents per sheltered complex.
Warden Services, for reasons of emergency access, hold ‘skeleton keys’ which allow access through the main doors of these buildings, as well as access to every dwelling within.
In the wrong hands, therefore, this would be a dream come true for a burglar – or even worse for someone with more malevolent intent.
The skeleton keys had been placed upon a numbered key system – fortunately some years earlier - introduced, not by management, but by one of us, a Mobile Warden, Mr. J. Stokoe.
However, despite this, it was a firmly written rule and part of the essential procedures manual that a Mobile Warden must keep these keys upon their person for security reasons at all times, and must also ensure that the vehicles used by the warden were also always left secure.
On the night of the incident, the employee in question, in complete violation and dereliction of all laid-down procedure manual instructions, did neither of these essential and basic duties.
Whilst visiting McIntyre Hall, a sheltered complex in Hebburn, Tyne & Wear, she not only left the keys on open display in the van, but also failed to lock the vehicle. This was without a doubt a gross dereliction of duty. Not a mistake, but indolence and ineptitude on a monumental scale. Had simple procedures been followed, this event simply could not have happened.
Above: McIntyre Hall, Hebburn – from where the unsecured keys were stolen.
The unlocked van was accessed by a thief and the skeleton keys were taken from it. Potentially, this placed a large proportion of elderly residents in the Hebburn area at immediate security risk. Their health, welfare and safety had been inexcusably compromised.
Did YOU have elderly relatives living in sheltered accommodation in Hebburn during 1996? Because the simple fact is this. Had the thief established which numbered keys fitted their respective sheltered complexes, a thief, or someone with intent to harm, could have basically walked into any such shelter and ransacked the communal areas and any dwelling within at their disposal. It could have even been a far worse scenario than theft. Lives were placed at unfathomable risk.
Bearing in mind that a Mobile Warden would cover anything between 5-7 shelters per evening, it is a reasonable approximation to state that the employee’s actions on that evening placed the welfare and security of between 175-245 residents in immediate jeopardy.
At a stroke, she had placed the lives of hundreds of residents, and potentially thousands of pounds worth of property at immediate and unnecessary danger.
Management were informed immediately via telephone calls. The next morning, emergency repairs were commenced by the public works department to replace the locks of all of the affected shelters – and a rumour from management at that time placed the total cost of this operation at somewhere around £20000. Twenty thousand pounds – of essentially taxpayers’ money. Your money.
Despite our growing distrust of the new management regime; we can recall no other employee that, when privately asked, neither sympathised with their union representative's self-induced predicament nor disagreed with management’s intention to hold severe disciplinary procedures.
But what was more alarming was still to come.
Management were on the warpath over this. Investigations and interviews were held. The situation which had created was a direct breach of the most fundamental of the service’s security and working procedures.
With little or no support from her colleagues, apart from only her very closest allies, everyone, including immediate management – strongly presumed that the investigations which were taking place would result in, what we believe to this day, should have been the immediate dismissal of this indolent walking liability.
However, what higher management did not take into consideration can be summed up in two simple words - POLITICAL CONNECTIONS.
Political connections, which of course, being a Labour run authority, also mean the servile lap-dogging of the associated public service union, UNISON.
UNISON is well-known for its ‘Unison-Labour Link’, which is in effect a political arm of the union - in other words, the gratuitous political arse kissing of the Labour Party.
The union representative, a Labour Party member, received full backing and protection from her union, UNISON (and of course her local branch secretary) and according to rumour from herself, two named local Labour councillors. One such named councillor, George Porter, appears since to have fallen off the face of the local political map, whilst another has gone on to far greater political position.
However, as we do not deal with hearsay or theories on this website, (as some people do) we will comment no further. We will let the readers of this website draw their own conclusions.
Alarmingly, management could not dispose of this human liability. As she once directly quoted to one of us herself; “Membership of the Labour Party has its benefits”.
Apparently so.
Apparently at South Tyneside Council, dereliction of duty is rewarded with job security.
The employee in question still works as a Mobile Warden to this day. South Tyneside Council is still under local Labour Party control although their political grip is loosening on an annual basis.
Resultant to this debacle and in true cowardly-management style, the fallout did not hit the individual responsible, but everyone. New rules and procedures were imposed immediately. All vans were now fitted with a floor safe, (at further cost to the service) in which any keys being carried must now be kept at all times. Stringent existing procedures were also reinforced with regard to the use and security of vehicles.
Through the inexcusable behaviour of one downright idiot, everyone suffered.
This debacle brought about the unwanted attention of higher management directly to Warden Services doorstep – and now it was our turn for a ‘service overhaul’.
Change for the worst was coming – management had been given every excuse they’d waited for.
The Final Months.
We will describe only the main events leading up to Mr E’s dismissal, but it is extremely important that we reveal and explain what occurred in the final months of his employment. It would set the scene and the working tone for all remaining staff members and would see a dramatic and somewhat unhealthy transformation in the management ‘Team’. Frederick McQueen, the Head of this department, appeared to relinquish all of his responsibilities onto his female understudy and give the “yes” vote to anything she did or said.
McQueen may have been the named Head of Department – but make no mistake – it was Norma Richardson who was running it to her own standards. In our opinion she was out of control and answerable to no-one.
We are now dealing with the countdown months to Mr E’s dismissal, and our account begins again in approximately April/May 1997.
Behind the thin veneer of appearing to cope, many staff; especially Team Leaders, were overseeing their new roles and tasks without any problems and balancing their work-life relationships successfully; but nothing could have been further from the truth. No less than 3 Team Leaders were experiencing problems in their private lives and with working relationships at the workplace. It was becoming difficult to cope – and for some of us the thought of having to go to work was becoming increasingly stressful and an unwanted though necessary part of life.
The dissident member of staff, Starbuck, was causing regular verbal altercations between staff; his modus operandi being to spin a yarn to a selected member of staff, then to approach the other named employee and apportion all of the blame onto his original targeted employee. This was causing chaos and was destroying working life and private social relationships between employees out of work hours. His list of reported deeds is listed later in this site.
Such actions were to permanently affect one such working and social relationship to its complete destruction, and cause a job loss in the ensuing fallout. This was between Mr E and ‘Mrs X’. This will be covered further in this section.
Not only that, but Richardson, with her continuous rafts of ‘new ideas’ was driving the staff to distraction with her ridiculous ‘improvements’ to the service.
One such ‘new idea’ was to add yet another duty to the already overwhelmed Team Leaders and staff with the potential introduction of an entirely new duty. The duty to be able to take direct housing repair requests and to process them from the Central Control Unit.
You must remember that the council was already quite capable of doing this duty, as of course, like any other authority it had its own large housing department, complete with housing officers, repair clerks, administration, etc.
However, Richardson decided that this huge and already well established department could be improved.
All we can now hear is the Team Leader lecturer’s words; “If it isn’t broken…”
The computer system used by the housing offices to log repairs was known as the GRS system; GRS meaning General Repairs System.
This was 1997 you must remember; and the input system of the GRS was extremely user-unfriendly and complex. However, Richardson pressed on with her mission. At taxpayers’ expense, the system was routed to the central control unit and the relevant computer hardware and database installed. This operation must have cost several thousand pounds in installation and electronic equipment.
As she attempted to ‘roll out’ training – and we use that term loosely; for use of the system, Team Leaders were regularly called away from their daily duties, with no backup being provided to continue with their actual duties – still to be completed – to try to come to terms with this new and unwelcome system.
In short, after about 3 months of mismanaged training, and realising that the system could not operate in tandem with the Warden Services workload and system; the idea was simply abandoned. For three months, a system, fully installed, sat in the control room with just a green cursor continuously blinking on a screen which nobody operated. No work was ever carried out on it. What expense. What a waste. What management idiocy.
Personal Problems.
You must first be aware that it is an employers legal duty to assist, wherever possible any employee who is experiencing problems in either their working or personal life. This has recently been regulated further in Health and Safety at Work Law by requiring an employer where reasonably practicable, having to assist in obtaining a manageable ‘work/life balance’ and a Duty of Care to the employee.
Well, at South Tyneside Council during the years 1995 - 2003 you could forget any of that. An individual was seen as being completely expendable and in one shocking incident – even the value of their very life; their actual human existence - was inconsequential. This is covered in detail further in this chapter and in the chapter ‘Dismissal’.
South Tyneside Council proudly display on all of their stationery the logo ‘Investors in People’. For them, it should be viewed as a badge of shameless and deceptive falsehood. 
Above: Investors in People? We think not.
The People Themselves.
There were, during mid 1997, no less than 3 team leaders experiencing work/personal problems, as were other members of full time Mobile Wardens and relief staff.
One Team Leader, who had been with the service since it began and had worked for the council prior to that; was now suffering from an illness which was seriously affecting his health, well-being, judgement and concentration. He would later retire on ill health grounds – just short of a major investigation into his (quote) behaviour at work.
His “Behaviour at work” – that sums the management up totally. The man was genuinely very ill and had problems as a result. They did not show concern or offer help or ‘guidance’; just disciplinary measures.
Then Mr E, who was having some difficulties with personal matters at home, personal friendship problems with his former close friend, Mrs X, and of course work-related problems which obviously and unavoidably included Mrs X in the workplace too. This difficulty was magnified by the constant interference and lies of Starbuck.
But yet another male Team Leader was also suffering from a number of highly complex personal problems, which were causing him severe depression symptoms.
Mr. E recognised this as he could identify similar factors which were ongoing in his own life, and therefore offered help at work and moral support and friendship; which was well-received and gratefully accepted. Both of them in fact ended up supporting each other as a means to get over their personal difficulties and became good friends as a result.
However, on one such nightshift in approximately July 1997, at which Mr E was on duty that night, the situation took a disturbing turn which required an immediate decision and action from him.
Night shift work was more often than not a non-event. If it was midweek, there would be nothing to see on the towns CCTV camera streetscape, genuine alarm calls from the elderly were few and far between during night hours and normally any telephone calls had ceased since approximately midnight.
So, it was some surprise, though not entirely unusual, that at approximately 03.30 hours on what Mr E believes from memory to be a Wednesday nightshift in July 97 that the telephone suddenly broke the silence of the nightshift.
It would not be extraordinary for the police to telephone to request tapes to be retained or maybe for the social services duty social worker to ring – but this night was totally different and was highly unexpected. There was no rule-book answer to this situation.
The call was from an off duty Team Leader – a young man who had been experiencing extreme personal problems in his private life.
Mr E was shocked and taken aback at his telephone call and the content of it.
Since Mr E had last seen and spoken to the Team Leader in question – we shall call him ‘Mr Y’ for confidentiality reasons; his general depression symptoms, which he had appeared to be controlling reasonably well despite his predicaments, had nose-dived.
In short, the telephone call Mr E was receiving was a “goodbye” call – thanking him for being a friend, for being supportive, but continued that he couldn’t go on as he was and was going to end it all. He stated that he had a bottle of tablets in front of him. He also specifically requested that the telephone call was not to be logged in the workplace log book – as all important work-related or emergency calls usually were.
Mr E realised that something had to be done immediately. This was a cry for help. There were two very competent members of staff on duty that night and the evening was extremely quiet, so Mr E asked a member of staff to stand in as duty controller in this emergency situation and left immediately for Mr Y’s home, less than quarter of a mile from the workplace and literally only 2 minutes away by car. He explained to the staff on duty that the call was urgent and also took one of the works Motorola two-way radios with him, so he was in constant contact with the unit.
For the benefit of confidentiality we will simply say that Mr Y was indeed in an extremely depressed state and there were indeed tablets in front of him. Mr Y had desperately needed comfort and support. Mr E stayed with Mr Y for about an hour – maybe longer – until he was certain that ‘Mr Y’s welfare and well-being was restored.
Mr E then returned to the unit, where he informed the other friends of ‘Mr Y’ that all was well, and gave only basic detail to them – again for reasons of respect and for confidentiality.
The reader may be surprised – even disgusted to learn that - at Mr E’s dismissal interview held in November 1997; this incident was actually used as a ‘charge’ against him.
It is our humble opinion that this should not have been a charge, but a commendation.
See ‘Dismissal’ section for full investigation and interview reports.
New equipment, technologies and common practices.
Also during early 1997, and after several trial-runs of alternative computer systems, a new database and equipment was installed by the authority to replace the ancient and unreliable decade-old ‘Honeywell DPS6’ computer system.
This was from a firm called ‘Jontek’ and although essentially an off-the-shelf system, it was user-friendly and more than capable of dealing with the tasks required by the service.
Again, Team Leaders were asked to develop and tailor the system to suit the needs of the service. In reality, this meant that out of six Team Leaders, only 3 dedicated Team Leaders were actually carrying out such tasks. By the end of 1997 only one of those Team Leaders would remain – and he himself would leave his position within only 18 months as a result of the CCTV Case of 1999.
The new computer system also incorporated an inter-office email message system; not internet linked, but exclusively for use within the office environment. As part of general training it was stated by the CCU Manager that these emails could be used for any purpose, as it would help staff to get used to the new technology.
This was to later feature in Mr E’s dismissal hearing whereupon his Manager denied saying the email system could be used for general or personal use.
Within only a few months of the new computer system arriving, a female staff member – an honest and reliable member of staff – was severely disciplined by Richardson for the ‘hanging crime’ of inserting a floppy disk into the computer unit during a nightshift to check upon some educational study work. The computer system was wholly capable of receiving temporary information through a removable drive without affecting the running of the computer systems. This was discovered during one of Richardson’s ‘audits’.
Why an audit was required at this stage or with such regularity defies explanation. It was not a requirement of ISO 9002 for such regular audits.
It is our firm suspicion that it was therefore for one purpose only; to spy on staff and to hand out disciplinary procedures ad-hock.
It was stated at the disciplinary hearing that disciplinary measures were required in this case as a virus may have been contained in the floppy disk and destroyed the tenant database of the computer system. What utter and complete garbage. There was also no mention anywhere in the ‘new improved’ procedures manual or instructions that such actions was forbidden. It was however quickly added soon afterwards; another knee-jerk reaction from incompetent management.
It became swiftly apparent that the decent, the outspoken or generally honest staff were becoming management targets for disciplinary measures, whilst the arseholes of the outfit (sorry, but there is no better descriptive word) and the ultra-meek - in other words the ‘yes, sir’ people were being left entirely alone. Most certainly, the troublemakers and protagonists were being given a wide berth by management.
New CCTV systems and monitoring equipment were also being installed at the same time. Again, Management stated to Team Leaders that the equipment should be encouraged to be used, such as allowing staff to rotate the cameras, zoom in, and use the image capture facility (to print a ‘still’ image of an event), as it would assist in the staff competence and understanding of the system.
This was another factor which was denied by the Manager at Mr E’s disciplinary interview.
It was in this time of the overdue arrival of the new equipment that Mr E was also personally and directly approached by his Manager, who requested that Mr E, because of his former duties and knowledge as a Mobile Warden – and had received several commendations for his work - would also develop a list of essential Mobile Warden duties which are expected to be carried out per shift. Mr E’s work was later to be incorporated into the revised procedures manual. It took management almost two years to return this essential workplace instruction and procedure manual back into the control room.
However, no matter how good the new equipment may be; when management is going rotten from the top, the working environment will continue to deteriorate – and it did just that.
This was more than evidenced in late August 1997 when a relief member of staff, Ms KD, alerted Team Leaders; in particular Mr KE, Mr BF and Mr GB, that staff time sheets were being ‘doctored’ to supply more working hours to certain relief staff members, namely Mr Starbuck.
Evidence was gathered by taking photocopies of the original timesheets at the beginning of the working week, yet by the end of the week, the original time sheet in the works log book had been tipp-exed in several places to cancel or reduce relief staff shifts in favour of Starbuck. He was also witnessed actually in the act of amending the time sheets.
This was reported directly to CCU Management by Mr KE and Ms. KD, who also demonstrated their evidence to him.
Nothing was done.
By an almost miraculous and remarkable ‘coincidence’, during this exact same time as Mr E was actively pursuing complaints to management on behalf of staff, Team Leaders KE, WR and Mrs EB all received a highly threatening letter from Community Services Assistant Manager (Head of Community Services Frederick McQueen’s ‘Number 2’), demanding answers as to why “work on their identified shifts had not been completed”. The allegations, which were entirely false and bereft of any evidence, had been directly made by the Management Assistant, Paul Anderson. So where was their head Manager in all this? He was the man meant to be in overall charge. Was he involved in this spurious complaint? Did Anderson go over his head? No-one knows to this day. All we do know is that the predetermined complaints procedures and the chains of command were being regularly broken to suit managements own required needs and wants.
The accusations levelled directly at three of the Team Leaders infuriated both Mrs EB and Mr KE. Outraged at this falsehood, Mr E stated his determination to insist upon a meeting with Richardson; to go over his Manager’s head if necessary. He did just that. A meeting was held with Richardson at 3pm in August 1997 at her office in the Central Library Building, Prince Georg Square, South Shields.
Mrs EB came along in his defence and to also personally complain about such management tactics.
At the meeting, Mr E and Mrs B provided evidence that the accusations were false. Mr E demanded a written apology from Anderson, to be prominently posted in the central control room. Richardson refused this, stating; “There are a lot of problems in central control as there are a lot of strong characters working there”.
Mr E continued that management were ignoring the troublemakers within the unit, were falsifying time sheets to the benefit of a selected few and were destroying staff morale.
Richardson still declined to take any voluntary action.
Mr E left the meeting, which had proven to be a waste of time, by stating that if she was not prepared to do something about it, he would make a formal complaint to the union (UNISON).
He never got the opportunity to do this.
We believe this incident to be the action upon which management decided to personally target Mr E – at whatever cost.
Within five weeks of this meeting; Mr E was under suspension and by November 1997 he would be dismissed.
The Final Days.
It was in August 1997 that the staff of the Central Control Unit at South Tyneside Council eventually realised – all too late – that their administration had initiated an unprovoked and direct ‘assault’ against them.
The first casualty of this management-led employee ‘rout’ was a Team Leader who had been with the service since it began.
Over recent years, his state of health had been a growing concern to his friends at work; but upon the final months it was clearly evident that more professional help and support was required.
His changes of capability at work were noticed by all; even management. Yet, they offered no help whatsoever.
In fact, in mid August 1997, the attack upon the staff began with the investigation into the ‘behaviour’ of this Team Leader. Bear in mind; this was directly following the threatening letter received from Richardson regarding Management Assistant Paul Anderson’s bogus allegations of “not completing shift work”; to which Team Leaders Mr KE and Mrs EB met with Norma Richardson.
From information received, it was evident that as far as management was concerned; his health was not an issue to them, only their precious ‘service’. It was becoming clear that the investigations against him were only going to end with one result – his dismissal.
Mr R continued to come to work, but his general condition, not assisted by the stress of an ongoing investigation, deteriorated even further.
Arrangements were now in place to have him called to face several interviews by higher management and the Personnel Department.
On the final day that Mr R was seen by his colleagues, he called into work in such a state that the Warden Services/CCU UNISON representative persuaded him, for his “best interests” to leave for home immediately. This display of concern was not made available to other staff members we could mention at ensuing dates.
However, Mr R left for home, and never returned to work. He was retired on ill health grounds, therefore escaping the clutches of what would have been a traumatic investigation process; without a doubt resulting in his summary dismissal.
The kick in the teeth at losing this opportunity to make ‘examples’ of long-serving employees from such management investigations must have enraged the management team; as, within weeks, Richardson in particular was about to ‘put the boot in’ to no less than three other staff members.
Community Services Management had lost their opportunity to investigate, interrogate and dismiss their first target; so they would have to locate another - and they established that new objective within days.
At Mr R’s shock and sudden departure, all remaining Team Leaders were asked to work additional shifts – this all on top of some serious difficulties within the workplace with staff arguments and of course a number of personal problems for at least two of the remaining five Team Leaders.
Two of the remaining Team Leaders, Mr KE and Mr GB, were now suffering from stress-related symptoms both as a result of problems in the workplace and personal difficulties. Work, and the very fact of being at work, was now causing immense personal difficulty. Mr GB announced that he would prefer to relinquish his position of Team Leader and return to Mobile Warden duties – to simply become a member of staff again. Life was becoming complicated and difficult for all.
On both counts, a proportion of KE and GB’s workplace problems had a singular root cause – yet again, Alan Starbuck.
In fact it was Starbuck’s unrelenting behaviour that resulted in the first major relationship explosion, which would produce the first successful dismissal.
It would change lives permanently.
Once-close relationships were now highly-fraught. This would emanate in a series of verbal altercations at work between Mr E and ‘Mrs X’ to name only a few and eventually got so bad that something had to be done to rectify it; to preserve if nothing else, a sustainable working relationship.
Mr E, like Mr GB, was now considering his options and stated to several staff members that he was giving “serious consideration” to applying for redeployment within the authority; preferably to a local housing office. He felt that he had to get out. The work and working relationships were becoming so fraught and too awful to endure any longer.
The work and friendship relationship between Mr E and ‘Mrs X’ was now becoming difficult and explosive – all a result of Starbuck’s rumour-mongering and lies. We really cannot stress enough as to how bad this consistent verbal sniping got.
And as it turned out – it was all for a singular purpose; Starbuck was insanely resentful of the close relationship between Mr E and ‘Mrs X’.
Starbuck’s obsession upon this matter would end up with devastating consequences for some of those involved. Whether, as Starbuck incessantly claimed, that he had received encouragement from the female concerned is still subject to widespread conjecture to this day, but that nonetheless does not mitigate his behaviour.
His behaviour was a result of his personal obsession to have an intimate sexual relationship with his female targets. It may sound crude; but that was exactly what this was all about. There are no other words for it and we will not disguise it as anything less – it’s the brutally honest facts of the subject.
He had before now already claimed to several staff members that he had indeed already had sexual relations with a small number of female employees; but then again, he claimed a lot of things, as we will further reveal. However, we are fully aware that he was not lying on all aspects of his personal encounters.
Management were repeatedly informed of Starbuck’s constant menacing behaviour by numerous male and female members of staff; yet did absolutely nothing.
So, as one can imagine, working and social relationships were becoming increasingly strained and the workplace had become for many, an unhappy place to be. So much for ‘Morale-Boosting Management’, then.
It was due to this progressively negative ongoing situation that our colleague, Mr E, made what can probably be regarded as his biggest, yet his solitary mistake.
In a determination to ‘clear the air’ once and for all and also due to the fact that he was now extremely unhappy with his working life, current aggressive management attitude and the poor working conditions it was creating, he considered himself unfit for work – due to stress related problems – and left an email message to another Team Leader, Mr BF stating that in all probability he would not be in for his next shift.
NB: The Law of the UK and employment law allows any employee to self certify their own sickness and/or illnesses for the first 4 working days. A General Practitioner’s certificate of sickness is not required by Law and cannot be enforced nor demanded by an employer.
The self-certification sickness would heavily feature in Mr E’s dismissal hearing, whereupon the Deputy Manager, Norma Richardson, would take it upon herself to disregard Mr E’s claim of illness and decide it was false – therefore accusing him of ‘misuse of the sick pay scheme’.
Anyway, Mr E was aware that there was to be a social evening out in South Shields amongst a number of employees, including Starbuck and ‘Mrs X’. Although now officially ‘on the sick’, Mr E decided that there was only one way to get to the root of the problems both personally and at work, and that was to hopefully resolve the situation by confronting Starbuck on this night out.
Incidentally, being ‘on the sick’ does not legally require home detention nor restrict an individual’s movements. It is a claim solely to declare that the individual considers themselves as “unfit for work” – WORK being the operative word.
The 'Social Night Out' – Friday 22nd August 1997.
As described above, Mr E was now officially on sickness leave from work for stress-related matters. That statement did not infer nor allude in any way to his employer that he was housebound as a result.
The evening out, which proved to be the ‘last straw’ for Mr E, can be summed up in the following personal account of events.
The time had arrived for all staff members who were going out on that night to meet up. Upon arrival at the first venue, opposite the Town Hall at a public bar formerly named ‘Oscars’, it was immediately evident that there was a volatile atmosphere between relationships which were now strained to breaking point.
Mr E and Mrs X, who had been extremely close friends, were now in opposite companies and on a friendship/relationship level appeared to be poles apart. It was evident that something had been said by someone – and our suspicions reach beyond 'the usual suspect' in this particular case. The friendships were unnaturally strained and deeply uncomfortable. Someone was afraid that something was going to be said – that something was going to “come out” during the evening. And it did.
Despite Mr E attempting to ‘break the ice’ on a number of occasions, it continued to get worse. There are still independent and willing witnesses to this account.
In short, the night thankfully ended and people went their own ways home.
But before Mr E left, another staff member called him over to explain conversations which had been overheard (to Starbuck amongst others) and later directly stated to themselves “in confidence” on that evening – and was a complete fabrication of the events which were and still are, beyond comprehension.
It appeared that, for reasons which Mr E cannot fully understand to this day, that Mrs X had informed other members of staff that “Mr E would not leave her alone”. This was absolutely untrue. There were other comments and statements made which we are completely aware of, but that will suffice for the relevance of this account.
The statement “…would not leave her alone” is remarkably coincidental to a statement made by the same person only 11 months earlier on 6th September 1996 – at that time the alleged perpetrator being Mr Starbuck.
Understandably angered and shocked at these remarks, Mr E left for home. But now there was something quite malevolent about the atmosphere of the night out and at what had been said behind his back; and as far as Mr E was concerned it HAD to be verbally dealt with. This was no longer just a simple situation out of order; it was entirely out of hand. In effect, gossip was now turning into slander.
Once at home and later (admitted by Mr E) to be to with his personal and sincere regret, Mr E telephoned Mrs X at her home address. Alcohol – never a good ingredient in an argument - only exacerbated the situation. A furious telephone argument erupted and with hindsight, it was the final nail in the coffin of a once close friendship. Nothing would ever be the same again. The consequences of someone’s lies – and not that of merely a single individual - would be catastrophic.
The night had unhappily ended with disastrous results.
But for some, it was everything they had wanted to achieve – and more.
The Day After. Saturday 23rd August 1997.
It was now the weekend. Saturday 23rd August 1997 – Mr E’s official day off work on his particular rotating shift pattern. Mr BF was the Team Leader on duty on that dayshift and plainly recalls the proceedings in question. Also on shift and present in the control room was Ms KD – also fully aware of the events which unfolded.
At approximately 10am that morning, Mr E’s home telephone rang, but after a short while the unknown caller hung up. When Mr E was able to get to the telephone – and using the 1471 recall ID number – he established that a telephone call had been made from a sheltered accommodation, Durham Court, in Hebburn.
<<Durham Court jpg>>
Understandably curious at the telephone call made, he re-dialled Durham Court’s telephone number. The Resident Warden at that time, Mrs CG, replied and was surprised to hear Mr E on the telephone.
Mr E explained that he had received a call from the shelter, but had not got to the telephone in time. Mrs G stated that she did not make the call, but informed Mr E that a Mobile Warden, Mrs X, had only recently left the shelter after completing the morning board call there as it was the Resident Warden’s day off work.
At that, and after exchanging a few pleasantries, they ended the conversation.
At approximately 11.00, Mr E’s telephone rang again. The call was from the Central Control Unit of Warden Services, South Tyneside Council.
At this point we should state that all telephone calls, for the sake of safety and security, are recorded on a Racal voice recorder both to and from the control room. This even included any private calls which employees had to make during working hours.
Mr E was greeted with the words “It’s me”. The voice, which Mr E recognised immediately, was that of Mrs X.
And so began yet another lengthy and furious argument, regarding the events of the previous night out. Neither side would listen to each other’s arguments nor reconcile. The circumstances rapidly deteriorated beyond any possible appeasement.
We have in our possession audio recordings of the actual telephone altercation, made from the control room on 23rd August 1997 in our archives. This was obtained from South Tyneside Council’s own records database in 2002.
The root cause of the altercation, as ever, was regarding Mr Starbuck and his verbal sniping.
This time it had hit its target head-on. It had worked. If his goal was to destroy a friendship, then he had achieved that objective with remarkable accuracy.
At the end of the telephone call, which was not a pleasant experience for either party, Mr E realised that something now had to be done. Situations were not getting out of control; they were way beyond control. Neither side were prepared to compromise nor ‘talk things through’, so mediation was required, either voluntarily or mandatory.
If nothing else, these two employees would have, at some point, to have to work with each other again. Mr E considered that prospect an impossible situation without some prior mediation and intervention.
So, it was with some trepidation and personal doubt that Mr E contacted his workplace later that day to speak to the duty Team Leader, Mr GB.
It was now late afternoon. Mr E explained what had occurred that morning, to which Mr B was already aware of only a limited proportion of details of that event. However, Mr B was fully conscious of the previous night’s incidents – from both sides.
It was decided during this telephone conversation that, most certainly, for the sake alone of having to work together again; that independent mediation was necessary.
So, with doubt still in his mind, Mr E requested that a note be left for the manager to retain the relevant audio tapes of Saturday 23rd August 1997 until Mr E returned to work.
It was Mr E’s intention to ask his Manager to call himself and Mrs X into his office and discuss the difficulties – and more importantly – what and who had caused such a serious deterioration in working and social relationships.
Mr E did not see Mrs X for approximately the next 7 days, or cannot recall any such contact.
Mr E’s dayshift –Monday 1st September 1997.
On Mr E’s return to work on Monday 1st September 1997, Mr E's Manager did indeed ask him what the problem was concerning the detainment of the audio tapes. By this time, and mainly through the help of third parties, the rift between Mr E and Mrs X appeared to be settling down, though was still fragile and potentially volatile.
An example of this, given to us at that time by Mrs X's male co-worker, was as Mr E’s impending birthday was approaching, he had rather mockingly stated to Mrs X “When are you getting K his Birthday Card?” Mrs X, according to her colleague had allegedly replied “He can f***ing whistle for that”.
With regard to the retained tapes, Mr E then stated to his Manager that everything had been sorted out, and it was no longer necessary to retain them.
The Manager alleged at that time that he had not listened to the audio tapes in question. This would later be proven to be fallacious.
Mr E cannot fully recall how the next couple of weeks passed; whether he was on holiday or at work has completely vanished from memory. With hindsight, we believe this to have been the onset of serious stress-related problems.
However, matters were now about to erupt beyond all belief and comprehension.
Monday 29th September 1997 – Management Interview Letters from Community Services Management.
It was now Monday 29th September 1997. Events of the last few weeks had begun to cool down, but nothing whatsoever had been resolved as to the known cause of it all.
People were going to work and trying to make the best of it. A once happy workplace was now for some an awful place to be – to have to be.
That morning, at approximately 09.00hrs Mr E’s home telephone rang.
He answered – and recognised the caller. It was Mrs X. She was in an upset state and was crying. She explained that she had received a letter – hand posted through her letterbox that morning requiring her to attend a Management Interview at South Tyneside Council’s Central Library Building in Price Georg Square, South Shields at 10.30 the very next morning.
The letter, which was sparse in its information or as to the reason why she must attend the interview, was signed by Norma Richardson.
Mr E asked her for whatever details she had in relation to the letter, but there was little information that Mrs X could give him. As they were now both again on speaking terms – though admittedly now only on a very fragile working relationship – Mr E asked her to give him a few moments and he would ring their Manager, then the local UNISON office to establish what on earth was going on. No complaints had been made that either party were aware of and any management intervention which had been requested earlier in late August 1997 had since been revoked.
Literally as Mr E was finishing his telephone call with Mrs X, a letter was also hand delivered through his own letterbox.
Mr E was beside the front door of his home so opened the door immediately to see who it was.
It was the Technical Assistant – William (Bill) Cooper who was making his way back out from Mr E’s driveway.
Mr E stopped him. Firstly he opened the letter, which was hand - delivered only (no postage stamp). It appeared to be exactly the same letter as Mrs X had received. Once again, a management interview; the only difference being that Mr E’s interview was to be at 10.00 the next morning.
Upon reading the letter, Mr E, who had detained Mr Cooper, asked “What’s all this about? Mrs X has also received one. What’s going on here Bill?”
Cooper, now near his car, replied “I’ve got no idea mate”, and left promptly.
*Please note and reconsider the use of the word “mate” when reading the ‘Dismissal’ and ‘Further Interview’ sections*.
After receiving no information from Cooper, Mr E telephoned Norma Richardson – the author of the letters - directly. He asked her what the letters were with regard to and what they were about. Furthermore, he asked why Mrs X had also received a letter and explained how distressing it had been for her. Richardson’s only reply was as mocking as it was curt. “Then you’ll both have to wait until tomorrow, won’t you?”
Mr E then telephoned the local UNISON office. Mr Ian Daley, the former branch secretary prior to Mr Butler, stated that they had just been “made aware” of the interviews, but strongly advised Mr E that it would be beneficial to speak with Mrs X and to eradicate any further difficulties they had between each other.
Mr E, who had requested Mrs X to give him a “few minutes” while he tried to establish what was occurring, telephoned her home. This was all within 10 minutes or so of their previous – and only telephone call. The telephone rang several times before Mrs X’s husband answered.
“She’s gone to {the unison rep's}” was the reply. From past experience of the union stewards interventions into matters, Mr E knew that this was a remarkably dangerous and unhelpful direction to take. This woman consistently confuses her own thoughts and opinions up with fact. And she had done it yet again.
Mr E asked Mrs X’s husband to convey a message to Mrs X to contact him immediately upon her return. It was urgent. From advice directly given from UNISON only moments before, (who were apparently more aware of the impending details of the interview than Mr E and Mrs X were); it was vitally imperative that both parties settled any personal differences before the interviews.
Mr E tried at least a further 4 times that day to contact Mrs X but was only met with weak excuses such as she was “not in”, or was “in the bath”, etc.
Eventually, he gave up. It was evident that Mrs X – for whatever reasons, ‘advice’ or instructions she had been given – she was not prepared to make contact.
The Unison representative for Warden Services/CCU, as we were to discover much later, (directly from Mrs X herself); had instructed her "not to contact Mr E by any means”.
This was in comprehensive violation of UNISON’s own official advice from the branch office in South Shields.
Mr E then made telephone calls in his own right to secure union representation at the upcoming interview.
The UNISON representative allocated to Mr E was Ms Sue Key, from UNISON’s South Tyneside local government branch office in Westoe Road, South Shields.
His departmental workplace ‘shop steward’, had made no offer of assistance at any time regarding this interview, although she was now fully aware of the situation. Over the coming weeks and months it would become plainly obvious as to why.
Tuesday 30th September 1997 – The Interviews of Mr E and ‘Mrs X’.
Mr E’s Interview.
Mr E met with his UNISON representative, Ms Sue Key shortly before the interview time. The interview was held at the Central Library Building in South Shields, which also accommodated Norma Richardson’s office.
At 10.00am all parties entered a vacant office room. Across the table to KE and his union representative were the Warden Services Manager and Richardson.
The interview commenced.
From nowhere – Mr E found himself facing no less than TEN separate charges.
Some of these charges – and remember, this was September 1997 – were from early 1996! Over a YEAR old! They had never been brought up prior to this – ever.
The main charges at this time were as follows, and had also been further split into sub-categories.
The Main 'Charges'.
1) Abuse of the Sick Pay Scheme
2) Misuse of Time and Equipment
3) Improper use of “E” mail and CCTV photos
4) Personal Calls
5) Unauthorised use of Warden Vehicles
6) Unauthorised Absences
7) To appear in subsequent interview – ‘Suspension’ – allegation of breaking the suspension rule. This will be explained later.
KE and Ms Key left the building at approximately 10.25, after first being informed that he was now suspended, must not enter any council building, nor converse with any employees. We believe this Draconian measure would now seriously infringe an individual’s Human Rights.
An interesting point of note. At the end of the interview, upon the notice of suspension, Mr E reminded his Manager that by rights KE would have been on nightshift on this very night, and for the following 6 days. His Manager responded that the shifts “…have been covered”.
Evidently, the outcome of this interview had been pre-empted.
Upon K.E leaving the library building main entrance, Mrs X walked in though the doors of the Central Library building, accompanied by the CCU Unison steward, for her interview.
Mr E informed Mrs X upon leaving that he had been suspended.
The union steward, standing beside Mrs X exclaimed “Oh my God! You can’t talk to him!”
But believe us, that was not in shock or sympathy at Mr E’s suspension – it was with shock as to what may come at the interview with Mrs X with the CCU union representative present.
But they needn’t have worried. Mr E, accepting the full official advice of his union, had intentionally and successfully “played down” the altercation between himself and Mrs X and had as such removed any potential further actions against her. UNISON had advised Mr E to “Play things down” and that is exactly what he did – to the letter. Ms Key will be able to verify this. He had presumed that the same would occur at the subsequent interview.
Mr E was not to receive entirely the same consideration at the next interview which was about to take place.
Mrs X’s Interview.
The Interview of Mr GB.
At the same time as these interviews were taking place, another Team Leader, Mr GB, was also required to attend a Management interview regarding his ‘conduct at work’. The charges levelled against him were ludicrous.
To summarise, his suspension and interviews ended after approximately eight weeks with his demotion from his position of Team Leader. He returned to his former duties.
The Second Management Interview of Mr E – October 1997.
The second management interview. Richardson had surpassed herself. She was now adding sub-headings onto a list of utterly unbelievable and incredulous ‘charges’ – some over a year old – some regarding Common Working Practices – which other staff were undertaking on a daily basis and some to this present day.
But her Crowning Glory must have been a new ‘charge’ – that of “breaking the conditions of the suspension”.
This, even now, is almost too incredible to believe.
Upon Mr E’s suspension on 30th September 1997, news had spread quickly amongst his friends and work colleagues; many of whom regularly telephoned his home to show their support and to offer encouragement. Numerous telephone calls – too many to mention - were made to Mr E’s home, by most of the staff working there. Some telephoned from their own homes, whilst others used the work telephone - in fact the only telephone which was not automatically recorded on the Racal Voice Recorder – the Social Services Emergency Duty Team telephone.
However, one member of staff, Mr John Fleck, made a mistake whilst on duty by telephoning Mr E from work using the recorded control room telephone.
Incredibly, management held this incident against Mr E himself. Although management had proof positive that it was an employee telephoning from the workplace TO Mr E’s home – he was faced with a further charge of “breaking the conditions of his suspension”.
We have the actual audio recording of this telephone conversation, made in October 1997 in our archives. This was obtained from South Tyneside Council’s own records database in 2002 – along with other rather interesting telephone calls which will feature later.
Extremely disturbingly, since Mr E’s suspension had taken place, management had been actively scrutinising the voice recorder and telephone logging system in an attempt to discover who had been keeping in touch with Mr E. This exceptionally worrying clandestine behaviour from a local authority would have done the Russian KGB proud.
Dismissal: 14th November 1997.
The original dismissal documents can be found on the side navigation bar of this section of the site – (See: ‘Dismissal Interview’). The document has been uploaded in its entirety. *To be uploaded when available*
Ask anyone about the stress and trauma of a dismissal interview and they will undoubtedly agree with the following description. Once the unfortunate individual has heard the words “You are dismissed” – then any subsequent vocabulary goes unintentionally, though completely unheard. You can see lips moving and hear sounds but the brain is unwilling or unable to assimilate any further data. It is akin to a temporary form of ‘brain freeze’.
It is after the “You’re dismissed” statement that they go on to inform you of your rights of appeal. Therefore, this legal requirement of employment rights information is principally useless to the unfortunate employee at that stage.
KE had given over eight years of loyal service – an employee who, over the years had received several commendations for his work and all without a solitary complaint or disciplinary procedure on his record.
It was all wiped out in one day.
At 18.30 precisely, Mr E’s career was ended. The meeting was over. Sue Key, the UNISON representative, left the room first. She paused outside of the office waiting for Mr E to emerge. To sum up and to give full credit where it is due, Ms Key’s representation over the matters had been wholly commendable. A professional negotiator would not, nor could not have altered the course that had been pre-empted and taken by management. Their outcome had already been predetermined. In other words, the die had been cast long before the final interview. It had followed Richardson’s script to the letter.
Mr E was the next to leave the room, followed closely by his Manager, out into the corridor, where the latter physically slumped against the corridor wall, only inches away from McQueen’s office door. In genuine honesty, the Manager himself appeared to be in disbelief and shock at the events.
Third to emerge out of the office was Richardson herself. As she departed the room, she gave a fleeting sideways glance towards Mr E. There was a restrained grin on her face. She was carrying her ‘execution notes’ – a ream of A4 size papers which must have been by estimation some 4 inches thick.
As she hurriedly made her way past Mr E, down the corridor and towards her office, diary notes partially recount the occasion of that moment;
“I was in a form of profound shock. I already knew what Richardson had been after – she had spelled it out clearly enough in her disciplinary ‘investigation reports’ - and she had achieved it. I couldn’t take in what had just transpired. I couldn’t accept that allegedly sensible, supposedly intelligent people had conducted this kangaroo court in such a manner. The facts just didn’t add up. Richardson’s arguments didn’t stack up. They were beyond rational comprehension. Every response myself or Sue (UNISON) made – which was completely refuting Richardson’s claims, even with evidence - were completely disregarded in favour of her own personal grasp on reality.
As she passed me in the corridor my eyes followed her every inch of the way. I clearly remember feeling fury and hatred on a level that I’ve never experienced before or since. I will never forget the rage and revulsion that I had and still have for that woman. I still detest her with a passion. Loathing is too small a word.”
Above: Personal diary account extracts from Mr KE. (Nov 97)
Footnote regarding the dismissal meeting.
The South Tyneside Council Warden Service was and still is a uniformed service. Nowadays it is a more casual and rather untidy affair, but in the years 1986-1997 a uniform of a navy blue blazer, two white shirts, two pairs of navy blue trousers and a tie, all with the South Tyneside Council crest and logo upon them were provided (infrequently) by the council. Care of the garments was entirely the employees’ responsibility, which included cleaning costs, etc.
At K.E’s dismissal hearing and at the end of the day-long meeting which had gone from 09.00 – 18.30hrs, the Head of the Department, Mr Frederick McQueen made an astonishing statement. The quote is as follows and is taken directly from the conference minutes:
“I must ask you to surrender all Council property in your possession including anything which may identify you as an officer of the Council.”
What this meant in effect was that the council wanted the return of all old uniform items. This had never occurred before, so why?
To our knowledge this instruction has never been repeated either before or since K.E’s dismissal. If you know any differently, please let us know.
We are currently attempting to trace a follow-up letter from Norma Richardson, sent in mid December 1997, where, despite Mr E now being sacked – therefore no longer an employee – Richardson used the word “instructed” or the phrases “you are instructed” or “you were instructed” no less than six times in a very curt, half page letter.
The council appeared to be labouring under the illusion that being an employee, or former employee somehow equals their wrongly assumed ‘ownership’ of you as an individual.
Mr E received numerous telephone calls and visits from his former work colleagues in the following days and weeks – including telephone calls and a face to face meeting with Mrs X herself. The vast majority of the staff was hugely opposed to Mr E’s sacking and some made their verbal opinions clear to management. This was despite some of the staff – grown adults - now being clearly terrified as to what their own management were willing and capable of doing.
Also, an evening out was arranged by some of the staff as a ‘leaving do’.
But now life had to move on. New employment had to be secured, bills had to be paid.
Within two weeks of his dismissal K.E was working again. Many of his former work colleagues and friends from South Tyneside Council were still in regular contact with him.
Contact at: info@corruptcouncils.co.uk
We are confident and it is our aim that we can still conclude some of these outstanding matters amicably.
Negotiation does work.
Copyright  2008 CorruptCouncils.co.uk - All Rights Reserved