The SFE - Doc 51 Eye Fire Station

Analysis of Reasoning for Deduction in Sub Officer X’s Pay Notified in Doc 49

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.