The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 321 Suffolk County Council Childrens Fund
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
5. INVESTIGATION RESULT
5.9 There was no consultation with Wigglesworth or his representative body to obtain permission to deduct his pay. DCFO Smith said he was not aware of any responsibility on the Brigade to do so. The DCFO said he had no previous experience concerning the deduction of an inferior’s wages. The DCFO said that the letter sent to Wigglesworth was drafted by the Human Resources manager Sarah Davies. He confirmed that he had seen the letter written in his name before it was sent and fully agreed with it. Furthermore he strenuously denied that there was no attempt or intent to break the law or harass Wigglesworth. DCFO Smith said that the decision to deduct pay was considered carefully and advice sought from County personnel first. DCFO Smith did not know who it was at County personnel that provide advice as that was dealt with by Sarah Davies.
5.10 Since receiving professional legal advice, the deduction has been repaid to Wigglesworth. No letter of apology has been sent. DCFO smith said he had no intention of making an apology as he could see no reason to do so. Furthermore, he said that Brigade management acted with honesty and integrity at all times and the deduction was nothing more than a simple administrative mistake.
5.11 Wigglesworth raised a grievance about the deduction of pay on 4th June 1998. This was the same day as the near miss was issued. Wigglesworth said he invoked the grievance because it was blatantly and immediately obvious that the threatened deduction was unlawful. He said that the protocols within the grievance procedure would serve to prevent the unlawful act being substantiated and the requirement of legal action. However, on 11th June 1998 he received a letter from ACFO Ken Seager advising him that his grievance was suspended until the outcome of disciplinary action being taken against him. ACFO Seager’s explanation for the suspension was that the CFO would have to hear Wigglesworth’s discipline case and should not be tainted by hearing the grievance. Also the DCFO could not hear the grievance as he was named in it. ACFO Seager could offer no reason why the second ACFO could not hear the grievance. The grievance is still outstanding.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
5. INVESTIGATION RESULT
5.9 There was no consultation with Wigglesworth or his representative body to obtain permission to deduct his pay. DCFO Smith said he was not aware of any responsibility on the Brigade to do so. The DCFO said he had no previous experience concerning the deduction of an inferior’s wages. The DCFO said that the letter sent to Wigglesworth was drafted by the Human Resources manager Sarah Davies. He confirmed that he had seen the letter written in his name before it was sent and fully agreed with it. Furthermore he strenuously denied that there was no attempt or intent to break the law or harass Wigglesworth. DCFO Smith said that the decision to deduct pay was considered carefully and advice sought from County personnel first. DCFO Smith did not know who it was at County personnel that provide advice as that was dealt with by Sarah Davies.
5.10 Since receiving professional legal advice, the deduction has been repaid to Wigglesworth. No letter of apology has been sent. DCFO smith said he had no intention of making an apology as he could see no reason to do so. Furthermore, he said that Brigade management acted with honesty and integrity at all times and the deduction was nothing more than a simple administrative mistake.
5.11 Wigglesworth raised a grievance about the deduction of pay on 4th June 1998. This was the same day as the near miss was issued. Wigglesworth said he invoked the grievance because it was blatantly and immediately obvious that the threatened deduction was unlawful. He said that the protocols within the grievance procedure would serve to prevent the unlawful act being substantiated and the requirement of legal action. However, on 11th June 1998 he received a letter from ACFO Ken Seager advising him that his grievance was suspended until the outcome of disciplinary action being taken against him. ACFO Seager’s explanation for the suspension was that the CFO would have to hear Wigglesworth’s discipline case and should not be tainted by hearing the grievance. Also the DCFO could not hear the grievance as he was named in it. ACFO Seager could offer no reason why the second ACFO could not hear the grievance. The grievance is still outstanding.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 2:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home