The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 297 Buxton Firefighter Vacancies
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE MRS LINDA HOMERS ATTACHMENT TO LETTER SENT 7TH OCTOBER 1998
HARASSMENT ISSUES – MR A D WIGGLESWORTH
The action by the deputy Chief Fire Officer to deduct pay was unlawful and the construction of the letter was harassing.
Prior to that incident leading to the back injury had been construed by Mr Hayden as due to negligence and as resulting in the absence from work. In fact, no-one asked why Mr Wigglesworth was absent and he believes it was other activities after the training incident that led to the time off.
Complaint from Mr Wigglesworth.
No-one asked why he was away but simply jumped to the conclusion that it was to do with the previous incident.
No involvement of the FBU prior to the letter deducting pay.
Further complaint
The request to go to a medical was at short notice, unusual in the context of the Brigade (where others wait months to get a medical).
Further complaint
Mr Hayden’s allegation of negligence covering the injury is contrary to the evidence. There were no Brigade orders in existence when Mr Wigglesworth injured his back. The requirement to have an assistant was made impossible by Mr Hayden himself calling away the assistant.
Further complaint
Misuse of accident/near miss form. This matter is covered in Fire Service Newsletter Issue 8 where Mr Wigglesworth considers the practice is sanctioned by the Brigade.
Final area of concern
The charges laid within the discipline code are themselves a form of harassment, and the investigation into them has not been carried out in a normal “inquisitive way”, but in a more adversarial way.
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL CHIEF EXECUTIVE MRS LINDA HOMERS ATTACHMENT TO LETTER SENT 7TH OCTOBER 1998
HARASSMENT ISSUES – MR A D WIGGLESWORTH
The action by the deputy Chief Fire Officer to deduct pay was unlawful and the construction of the letter was harassing.
Prior to that incident leading to the back injury had been construed by Mr Hayden as due to negligence and as resulting in the absence from work. In fact, no-one asked why Mr Wigglesworth was absent and he believes it was other activities after the training incident that led to the time off.
Complaint from Mr Wigglesworth.
No-one asked why he was away but simply jumped to the conclusion that it was to do with the previous incident.
No involvement of the FBU prior to the letter deducting pay.
Further complaint
The request to go to a medical was at short notice, unusual in the context of the Brigade (where others wait months to get a medical).
Further complaint
Mr Hayden’s allegation of negligence covering the injury is contrary to the evidence. There were no Brigade orders in existence when Mr Wigglesworth injured his back. The requirement to have an assistant was made impossible by Mr Hayden himself calling away the assistant.
Further complaint
Misuse of accident/near miss form. This matter is covered in Fire Service Newsletter Issue 8 where Mr Wigglesworth considers the practice is sanctioned by the Brigade.
Final area of concern
The charges laid within the discipline code are themselves a form of harassment, and the investigation into them has not been carried out in a normal “inquisitive way”, but in a more adversarial way.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 12:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home