Closing statement subject to change, dependent on conduct of hearing etc. 

As stated earlier, this disciplinary hearing is completely unfair due to the nature of how the allegation of malicious intent originally arose.

Neither Paul nor his Trade union have had sight of the [External Investigator 2’s] report, which we believe is germane to this allegation and we have therefore been totally disadvantaged in our ability to prepare a defence.

Also reference has been made to a private document that was inadvertently passed to [the County Engineer].

This was a legitimate discussion document between Paul and his trade union on possible strategies and should not be used to try to prove any other motive.

Paul has explained that there was no malice intended in this strategy, rather an attempt to robustly question [External Investigator 1] as to his findings, this would have been an attempt to enable Paul to get further evidence against [senior engineer] to prove his assertion that the full facts had been obscured.

This strategy was largely discounted, but in any case would have been a reasonable and legitimate tactic.

It in no way suggests malicious intent.

Therefore this allegation is totally denied and refuted and there is certainly no evidence put forward to prove otherwise.

There has been no evidence given today to prove that Paul behaved in an aggressive manner towards his manager.

We accept that the discussion became heated and voices may have been raised by both parties, this does not mean that either party is more to blame than the other.

[Street Lighting manager’s] version of events in his email and then his statement differ greatly and should not be relied upon.

In any event there was ample opportunity to investigate this matter and bring charges if required on this matter at the time it occurred.

The fact that this is being brought up now is a cynical attempt to bring unwarranted disciplinary charges against Paul and is unfair and unreasonable given that it is now some 9 months after the event.

There is no evidence that Paul’s conduct or behaviour has caused trust and confidence to breakdown.

Paul has consistently attempted to use the council’s policies and procedures to resolve his grievances.

If this has caused his managers to become upset then that is because they feel that they should be above the council’s policies and procedures,

Paul, on the advice of [senior manager], kept a diary, this now appears to have caused his colleagues some concern. That is not Paul’s fault.

Paul has raised grievances or Dignity at Work complaints following the council’s procedures… his colleagues and managers have become upset… is that Paul’s fault? 

Are these individuals above the rules?

Should they never be questioned or challenged?

If there has been any kind of behaviour resulting in a breakdown of trust or confidence, it is not the fault of Paul Cardin, who has always tried to stay within the rules and procedures of the council and is now suffering a severe detriment for exercising his right under these policies and procedures to raise matters of concern.

Paul is 33 years into his working career.  In more than three decades, he has never received any disciplinary sanctions or written warnings.  It is his 50^th birthday today, and he finds it devastating that he is possibly about to be dismissed from a job for the first time in his life. Given that he has done nothing wrong and has told the truth all the way through, it is all the more upsetting.  

It is true to say that no allegations about Paul’s poor performance or bad behaviour were made to him before his Dignity at Work complaint.

This suggests that for such allegations arising later were little more than a retaliatory gesture by those who felt threatened by Paul’s complaints. 

It appears that some of these people would not even stop short of bringing both his personal and professional life into question.

Paul is astonished at this lamentable conduct and the hostile reaction engendered, and is stunned to find that his career at Cheshire, and possibly his future in Street Lighting may be brought to an end following this meeting.

The comments against Paul might suggest that he is not a team player and has little regard for his colleagues.

It may be that not many have regard for the real Paul Cardin.

The truth is completely different in that Paul is a person that knows more than most about valuing teamwork and supporting colleagues.

Paul has served his country at war and has received a medal for this.

27 years ago, Paul helped to rescue injured survivors from HMS Sheffield following an exocet missile attack – 20 men were killed, 30 men were injured.  Paul then helped to rescue all surviving crew members from HMS Ardent after it was bombed several times – 20 men were killed, 30 men were injured.  Later, on 12^th June 1982, Paul was at his action station on HMS Yarmouth, waiting for an exocet missile to hit the ship.  In the event, it hit HMS Glamorgan, a few hundred yards away – 12 men were killed, and 16 men were injured.  Paul’s ship was close at hand, again ready to rescue survivors.  Paul has always maintained a close working bond with colleagues, and has carried this forward through every working role ever since.  [County Engineer] had been advised of Paul’s military experiences at the hearing of 15^th July 2008.  All of the information related to the war effort of HMS Yarmouth is available on the internet. If Cheshire West and Chester’s officers had chosen to research this information and brought it to the hearing, rather than selecting a single page of financial IVA details, they may have obtained a more balanced picture of who Paul Cardin is.

It is always hoped that employees attend work and give of their best and a happy and productive relationship on all sides is fostered and continues. 

However, it is also recognised that from time to time, this relationship is not perfect and that is why we have grievance and disciplinary procedures and policies.

Paul Cardin is a person who felt that he was experiencing some problems in the workplace and tried to use the prescribed procedures to resolve these matters.

He has acted in good faith and the belief that by pursuing the proper procedures these matters would be properly investigated and concluded in a fair manner.

If he has made any assertions that others have acted improperly, it was because he held a genuine and deeply held belief that this was so.

During this period Paul has suffered a great deal of work related stress, causing him to feel issues very acutely. He does however now feel that it is time to return to work, and hopes that this can be achieved by supportive management and mediation.

Paul has a wife and two pre school children, he is a decorated war hero and he is devastated to find himself in a position where he may soon be dismissed, He is a man that deals only in truth and integrity and is dismayed at the attempts to twist events to prove otherwise.

All of these allegations have been brought with little foundation and scant regard for due process.  It is clear that the allegations have been cobbled together in an unfair fashion and I am asking that you find these allegations unfounded and unsubstantiated and allow Paul, an honourable man and Falklands war veteran to return to work.

---