The SFE - Doc 75 Thetford Fire Station
Analysis Doc 74 Divisional Officer Colin Hodges notebook
10th June 1998
………………………………... By way of confirmation of what I was investigating I indicated that I was aware that Sub/O W had now submitted a grievance using the grievance procedure and I clarified that we were not investigating the grievance or the issue relating to statutory sick pay…………………
DO Hodge seems to infer the grievance is subsequent to the near miss event? This is interesting as some time later (2000/01) ACFO Ken Seager would argue that X’s contractual right to make use of the formal grievance, and counter its suspension, was compromised by the chronology of the near miss vis-à-vis the grievance. i.e that the grievance was registered after the near miss and the latter had precedence. The fact is that both were invoked on the same day 4th June 1998.
As to where or whom influenced DO Hodge as to the chronology of the grievance and near miss can only be speculated at. That said DO Hodges minder in this case was ACFO Kenneth Seager.
………………………and I clarified that we were not investigating the grievance or the issue relating to statutory sick pay.
In essence, this refers to DCFO Simon Smiths unlawful deuction. Perhaps the words “WE ARE NEGLECTING” the issue relating to statutory sick pay would be more accurate?
………………………. I informed Sub/O W that I had a number of people I wished to interview prior to interviewing him but suggested Thursday afternoon (11 June) might be an appropriate time to carry out the interview. This he declined saying it was he felt too short notice.
The interview was declined on account of FBU representative Firefighter Hyde not being available to witness the event. Sub/O W was quite prepared for the interview to be carried out there and then as was intimated in the telephone call from DO Hodge on the preceding evening.
10th June 1998
………………………………... By way of confirmation of what I was investigating I indicated that I was aware that Sub/O W had now submitted a grievance using the grievance procedure and I clarified that we were not investigating the grievance or the issue relating to statutory sick pay…………………
DO Hodge seems to infer the grievance is subsequent to the near miss event? This is interesting as some time later (2000/01) ACFO Ken Seager would argue that X’s contractual right to make use of the formal grievance, and counter its suspension, was compromised by the chronology of the near miss vis-à-vis the grievance. i.e that the grievance was registered after the near miss and the latter had precedence. The fact is that both were invoked on the same day 4th June 1998.
As to where or whom influenced DO Hodge as to the chronology of the grievance and near miss can only be speculated at. That said DO Hodges minder in this case was ACFO Kenneth Seager.
………………………and I clarified that we were not investigating the grievance or the issue relating to statutory sick pay.
In essence, this refers to DCFO Simon Smiths unlawful deuction. Perhaps the words “WE ARE NEGLECTING” the issue relating to statutory sick pay would be more accurate?
………………………. I informed Sub/O W that I had a number of people I wished to interview prior to interviewing him but suggested Thursday afternoon (11 June) might be an appropriate time to carry out the interview. This he declined saying it was he felt too short notice.
The interview was declined on account of FBU representative Firefighter Hyde not being available to witness the event. Sub/O W was quite prepared for the interview to be carried out there and then as was intimated in the telephone call from DO Hodge on the preceding evening.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 11:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home