The SFE - Doc 92 Needham Market Fireman
Analysis Doc 91
Incoming address given:
Sub Officer Wigglesworth
Training Department
Normanshurst
Originally it would appear that the letter was meant for hand delivery on 11th June 1998 by Miss Sarah Davies. Subsequent events led to the letter being sent in brown envelope to X’s home address.
…………….I refer to my Regulation 7 notice dated 10 June 1998, and your memorandum dated 4 June 1998 addressed to the County Fire Officer invoking the grievance procedure in relation to the actions of the Deputy County Fire Officer.
A clear acknowledgement that the grievance was invoked and submitted on 4th June 1998. In consequence, the grievance was up and running before the collateral act of disciplinary action.
…The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have decided that the grievance procedure in this case shall be suspended for the duration of the investigation which I have commenced, and shall remain suspended at least until the investigation is complete and any resultant actions are concluded.
Purpose and responsibility (I) for the suspension is stated. Assistant Chief Fire Officer omits to suggest that any other party has advised him to adopt the course of suspension and the breach of employee contractual rights. Suspension will last until the investigation is complete and the investigations resultant actions are concluded.
This decision is made in your best interests for two reasons. First, the terms of the caution I have issued in your case may prevent you being able to fully pursue your grievance because anything said or written by you whilst under caution could be used as evidence in any disciplinary hearing.
The denial of X’s contractual rights is in his best interests! ACFO K Seager claims pursuit of the grievance with regard to Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith’s unlawful behaviour could be used as evidence in a disciplinary hearing. Yipee!
Secondly, it is imperative that the County Fire Officer himself has no prior knowledge of he facts of this case since he may be required to hear any charges against you which result from the investigation. This means that an important part of the grievance procedure, i.e. reference to the County Fire Officer, cannot proceed whilst the disciplinary matter is outstanding.
Such reasoning was, due to a employment tribunal application re the unlawful deduction, rendered redundant.
Finally, the action communicated in the letter dated 10th June 1998 (Doc 91), attributable to ACFO Seager was an act that breached X’s contractual employee rights. That being the right to invoke the Suffolk County Council Grievance procedure. In effect, an act of Abuse of Authority by Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager.
Incoming address given:
Sub Officer Wigglesworth
Training Department
Normanshurst
Originally it would appear that the letter was meant for hand delivery on 11th June 1998 by Miss Sarah Davies. Subsequent events led to the letter being sent in brown envelope to X’s home address.
…………….I refer to my Regulation 7 notice dated 10 June 1998, and your memorandum dated 4 June 1998 addressed to the County Fire Officer invoking the grievance procedure in relation to the actions of the Deputy County Fire Officer.
A clear acknowledgement that the grievance was invoked and submitted on 4th June 1998. In consequence, the grievance was up and running before the collateral act of disciplinary action.
…The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have decided that the grievance procedure in this case shall be suspended for the duration of the investigation which I have commenced, and shall remain suspended at least until the investigation is complete and any resultant actions are concluded.
Purpose and responsibility (I) for the suspension is stated. Assistant Chief Fire Officer omits to suggest that any other party has advised him to adopt the course of suspension and the breach of employee contractual rights. Suspension will last until the investigation is complete and the investigations resultant actions are concluded.
This decision is made in your best interests for two reasons. First, the terms of the caution I have issued in your case may prevent you being able to fully pursue your grievance because anything said or written by you whilst under caution could be used as evidence in any disciplinary hearing.
The denial of X’s contractual rights is in his best interests! ACFO K Seager claims pursuit of the grievance with regard to Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith’s unlawful behaviour could be used as evidence in a disciplinary hearing. Yipee!
Secondly, it is imperative that the County Fire Officer himself has no prior knowledge of he facts of this case since he may be required to hear any charges against you which result from the investigation. This means that an important part of the grievance procedure, i.e. reference to the County Fire Officer, cannot proceed whilst the disciplinary matter is outstanding.
Such reasoning was, due to a employment tribunal application re the unlawful deduction, rendered redundant.
Finally, the action communicated in the letter dated 10th June 1998 (Doc 91), attributable to ACFO Seager was an act that breached X’s contractual employee rights. That being the right to invoke the Suffolk County Council Grievance procedure. In effect, an act of Abuse of Authority by Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 12:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home