The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 326 Rothwell Firefighter Vacancies
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
10. CONCLUSION
Deduction in Pay
10.1 The deduction of pay was based on the Human Resources Managers interpretation of “medical advice” in section 4 para 5 of the “Grey Book”. The interpretation held by the Human Resource Manager, and acted on by DCFO Smith, was misguided. The correct legal interpretation of medical advice means that given by a health professional. In recognition of this mistake the deduction was repaid to Wigglesworth. Notwithstanding DCFO smith and the Human Resources Manager both believed they were morally correct in making the deduction.
10.2 I found no evidence that the deduction was done deliberately or with the intent to cause Wigglesworth harm. Nor was there any intention to break the law or harass Wigglesworth. The DCFO and Human Resources Manager strongly deny there was any malice behind their decision to deduct Wigglesworth’s pay. Both consider they made a simple administrative mistake. I am of the opinion that the letter to Wigglesworth dated 29th May 1998 which threatened the deduction was reasonable and contained no indication of harassment.
10.3 If Wigglesworth’s grievance had proceeded as normal it is likely that the deduction would not have taken place. None of the officers interviewed could explain why the grievance could not have been heard by the second ACFO. I have found the response to this issue unsatisfactory.
10.4 As to the true cause for Wigglesworth’s absence in May 1998 it is worth noting he never volunteered any alternative to that assumed by Brigade Management. Indeed the alternative offered by Wigglesworth was only brought forward during this investigation. Also his statement to the Employment Tribunal made 1st August 1998 refers only to his injury at work. Wigglesworth said that the statement was a brief preliminary statement only. That said it is part of a legal process and I assumed it to be the correct version of events. In consequence I took the view that Wigglesworth’s running injury should be discounted.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
10. CONCLUSION
Deduction in Pay
10.1 The deduction of pay was based on the Human Resources Managers interpretation of “medical advice” in section 4 para 5 of the “Grey Book”. The interpretation held by the Human Resource Manager, and acted on by DCFO Smith, was misguided. The correct legal interpretation of medical advice means that given by a health professional. In recognition of this mistake the deduction was repaid to Wigglesworth. Notwithstanding DCFO smith and the Human Resources Manager both believed they were morally correct in making the deduction.
10.2 I found no evidence that the deduction was done deliberately or with the intent to cause Wigglesworth harm. Nor was there any intention to break the law or harass Wigglesworth. The DCFO and Human Resources Manager strongly deny there was any malice behind their decision to deduct Wigglesworth’s pay. Both consider they made a simple administrative mistake. I am of the opinion that the letter to Wigglesworth dated 29th May 1998 which threatened the deduction was reasonable and contained no indication of harassment.
10.3 If Wigglesworth’s grievance had proceeded as normal it is likely that the deduction would not have taken place. None of the officers interviewed could explain why the grievance could not have been heard by the second ACFO. I have found the response to this issue unsatisfactory.
10.4 As to the true cause for Wigglesworth’s absence in May 1998 it is worth noting he never volunteered any alternative to that assumed by Brigade Management. Indeed the alternative offered by Wigglesworth was only brought forward during this investigation. Also his statement to the Employment Tribunal made 1st August 1998 refers only to his injury at work. Wigglesworth said that the statement was a brief preliminary statement only. That said it is part of a legal process and I assumed it to be the correct version of events. In consequence I took the view that Wigglesworth’s running injury should be discounted.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 3:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home