Potential Implications - Co Author's Doc 49
Both Miss Davies and DCFO Simon Smith were experienced and well-educated management practitioners in the Suffolk Fire Service. Most certainly they were fully capable of appreciating the de-limitation of Grey Book Section IV, Paragraph 5.
In consideration of the above it is reasoned that both Miss Davies and DCFO Simon were clearly aware that they had no authority for the action proposed of the circumstances outlined in Doc 49. There is no half-way house in this regard. The only other alternative being that both Miss Davies and DCFO Smith were negligent or incompetent and lack managerial capability. The latter is discarded.
In consequence, the intent signalled in Doc 49, to which Suffolk County Council would some months later admit to being unlawful, was a malicious and abusive act against Sub Officer Wigglesworth.
As for Miss Davies who was subject to a civil disciplinary code such pre-mediated abuse of a workplace colleague could amount to gross misconduct.
As for DCFO Simon Smith who was subject to the Fire service (Discipline) Regulations 1985. His deviant and abusive behaviour could be apportioned the status of either: *
Abuse of Authority,
Which offence is committed where a member of a fire brigade’s conduct towards another such member or a member of the public is oppressive or abusive.
DCFO Simon was beyond dispute acting without authority
Conduct Prejudicial to the Reputation of the Brigade,
Which offence is committed where a member of a fire brigade intentionally or recklessly and without reasonable cause acts in a manner which damages, or is likely to damage, the reputation of the brigade.
The action undertaken and on behalf of Suffolk Fire Service by DCFO Simon was subsequently admitted to be unlawful.
Neglect of Duty,
Which offence is committed where a member of a fire brigade-
(a) without reasonable cause fails to attend to or carry out his duty promptly and diligently; or
(b) by carelessness or neglect suffers any loss, damage or injury to occur to any person or property; or
(c) fails to report any matter which it is his duty to report; or
(d) fails to make an entry, which it is his duty to make, in any book or document; or
(e) fails properly to account for, or make a prompt and true return of, any money or property which comes into his possession as a result of his employment.
DCFO Simon Smith failed to prevent an unlawful act, for which he was responsible, taking place.
* Under the Fire Service Discipline (Regulations) 1985 only one charge, can be made against a specified act or behaviour.
Best take your pick from above.
s. 4-7)
ed scope.
Reason 1
‘….you told Assistant Divisional Officer Hayden that your Sickness absence was due to back pain arising out of an accident while you were at work on 1st May.’
Incorrect, the details of the accident were only discussed with ADO Hayden on 1st May. The circumstances of Sub Officer Wigglesworth’s sickness notified 6th May were never discussed with ADO Hayden. Sub Officer Wigglesworth never told ADO Hayden anything about the sickness notified 6th May, including the causation.
The Human Resources Manager, Miss Sarah Davies (now Meelan) and the DCFO Mr S. Smith (now Chief Fire Officer North Wales) did not seek or ask Sub Officer Wigglesworth for any confirmation of the material facts before drafting and delivering the letter dated 29th May 1998 (Doc 49).
Reason 2 (Authority – Because We Can)
See Doc 50;
5. Effect of neglect or default
If a member of a brigade refuses or neglects to submit him/herself to any medical examination required by the fire authority or if, in the opinion of the fire authority acting on medical advice, the member has –
(a) caused or substantially aggravated any infirmity by neglect or default; or
(b) refused or neglected to co-operate fully in any medical treatment which the fire authority considers necessary in his/her case;
he/she shall not be entitled to paid sick leave and his/her rights thereto will cease forthwith unless the fire authority decide to restore them wholly or in part.
In Suffolk and elsewhere throughout the UK Fire Service there was no known precedent for the use of Grey Book section 5 in the manner proposed by DCFO Smith and his Human Resources assistant Miss s Davies (now Meelan). As to why there was no precedent can, it is argued, be appreciated by a reasonable analysis of the section 5 remit.
Firstly, the remit concerns itself with an individuals medical examination and compliance in attending such an event. To this there is emphasis on a requirement for medical advice in the enforcement of any decision made under section 5. i.e. a person or persons who are recognised in the UK as medical professionals must underpin decisions invoked by section 5.
In effect, the application of Grey book section to the material circumstances alleged to surround Sub Officer Wigglesworth
deduction of pay would require a medical professional to view the pre accident scene at Lowestoft 1st May 1998. Whereby the medical professional would then say to Sub Officer Wigglesworth,
‘you must not lift that dummy or you may damage yourself.’
And neglect would then be occasioned if, the dummy was lifted by Sub Officer Wigglesworth in defiance of such expert advice.
Overall and despite the volume of knowledge and training appropriated DCFO Smith and Miss Davies, the Brigade’s so called Human Resource specialist, it is blatantly obvious that the application of Grey book section 5 sanctions upon Sub Officer Wigglesworth was bogus. Indeed, as proved later unlawful.
To be blunt both DCFO Simon Smith and his confederate Miss Sarah Davies knew that they were abusing their authority. A malicious act in the making.
As to how Grey book section 5 might lead to negative sanctions is simple to appreciate. In essence, and most likely an individual will attend a consultation with the Brigade Medical Officer. The Medical Officer will advise the individual what he/she must/must not do. Clearly if such advice is ignored and the individuals condition worsens or does not improve as expected then section 5 may be invoked.
