2013 Paul Cardin national survey on compromise agreements

To External investigator

From:  Paul Cardin (Assistant Engineer, Environment Dept, Cheshire County Council)

Copy to: Union official 1 (UNITE union)

Report submitted to the official Dignity at Work Investigation – May 2008

Street Lighting Unit – Issues

September 2004 to April 2008

Up until fairly recently there were six employees in the Street Lighting Design Unit at Cheshire County Council.  Over the last few years, two left or redeployed, and have not been replaced.  Manager 2 took over as Chief Lighting Engineer.  Senior Technician Employee 2, Assistant Engineer Paul Cardin and Technician Employee 1 joined in September 2004.

Employee 2 developed a very close working relationship and friendship with Manager 1, the principal engineer (design) and our line manager.  For a long time, Manager 1 and Employee 2 arrived in the mornings and clocked on together, and would clock off together in the afternoons.  I believe Manager 1 displayed favouritism to Employee 2 through constant on the job training, and the apparent retention of the more interesting and challenging work, such as larger schemes and Section 38 and 278 lighting design work – the sort of work that could ‘keep your hand in’ as a design engineer.  In time, Employee 2 appeared to ‘veto’ the task of raising orders on the SBS Confirm inventory management system and also the more mundane tasks such as updating the system and the accuracy of the data.  At one point around early 2007, a stark imbalance in workload had developed between Employee 2 and me – I was dealing with a greater quantity, although we were both by now Assistant Engineers.  I also felt I was suffering through inequality of opportunity as regards the content of my work.   When not on site, Manager 1 and Employee 2 spent the vast majority of their time together in the office.  The close relationship allowed Employee 2 to constantly receive the benefit of Manager 1’s experience.  In the early days, they would visit site together, but more recently this became less frequent.    This situation and Employee 2’s uncooperative and difficult attitude with colleagues caused the atmosphere in the office to sour.  There was little guidance or strategy from senior management and the Chief Lighting Engineer seemed unwilling to recognise it, and to intervene and remedy the situation.

Following a timekeeping incident around Christmas 2006, there was a further suspicious incident related to Employee 2 on February 28^th 2007 which I made enquiries about – these enquiries were made in the context of my frustration over the workload and work content issues.  The incidents contained within my original Informal Dignity at Work Complaint have their origins in this incident and in the workload and work content issues.  Within the complaint, there were four related incidents of bullying and harassment, as I perceived it.

Chief Lighting Engineer Manager 2’s post was a casualty of the recent restructure, and he is leaving the authority in May 2008.

December 2006

Employee 2 appeared to be receiving the more challenging and interesting work and was apparently unwilling to carry out or undertake the following:

1. G39 electrical course – needed to isolate Manweb electrical equipment on site

2. To raise orders or be trained to raise orders on the SBS Confirm inventory system.  Last order raised in February 2005

3. Updating  Street Lighting data using these systems – SBS, Keylights, Geograd

4. Sharing Employee 2’s work diary on Outlook (although this is voluntary)

The work that Employee 2 received:

1. Section 38 and 278 Street Lighting Design work – shared with Manager 1.  I eventually carried out my first Section 38 lighting design scheme approaching four years after joining on 29^th April 2008

2. Larger, more detailed and demanding schemes, involving more technically involved  Street Lighting Design e.g. Chester Station floodlighting and surrounds.  Alderley Edge Bypass.  Lostock Triangle lighting design.  Black Diamond Street junction design.

3. Regular access to company representatives, the associated networking opportunities, career enhancement  and influence over which equipment is procured

4. Following a shake-up, the control and oversight of the Countywide Structural programme (minus the raising of SBS Confirm orders – which was passed to Lighting Superintendents)

The work that Employee 2 did not receive:

1. Smaller projects work such as pedestrian crossings, new road / junction layouts – with little or no Street Lighting design required.  Attendance at monthly partnership meetings with contractor (SBS Confirm orders need to be raised)

2. Column replacements.  (SBS Confirm orders need to be raised)

3. Bus shelter connections.  (SBS Confirm orders need to be raised)

4. Updating of the SBS Confirm system, using Geograd software

February 2007

Workload issues arose. I feel there was an inequality of opportunity being suffered by myself and Employee 1.  Employee 2 had been experiencing a lighter workload than me in two distinct areas.  At the time, I had many more tasks to carry out and deliver and regular meetings to attend. This looked to be related to the favouritism and protection provided by Manager 1.  There was a suspicious time booking incident involving Employee 2 on 28^th February 2007 and I sought advice from admin and later management.   I was never advised to register an official complaint in writing, and did not do this.  There was a breach of confidentiality when Employee 2 became aware of my actions and the atmosphere in the office became very sour.  The behaviour that followed which breached the Dignity at Work Policy, had its roots in this incident and in the workload and content of work issues.

The following section of the report goes into more detail, with dated incidents and references to documents that contain further relevant information, such as agreed meeting notes, emails, diary excerpts and scanned document images:

5^th March 2007

I reported my workload issues to Manager 2 and asked him to temporarily remove some of my tasks to enable me to better carry out the extensive upgrade work to SBS Confirm, although I felt I needed to retain a small lighting element.  I had also asked Manager 1 for Lighting Reality (lighting design) training in my most recent Staff Appraisal and this was ‘still under consideration’.  Employee 2 had already undergone this (the course is now withdrawn). I produced a list of around 25 current tasks and duties I was currently involved in.  This was passed to Manager 1, who acted on 9 of them.

7^th March 2007

Manager 1 called me into Manager 2’s office and made a lot of unfounded allegations regarding both mine and Employee 1’s work.   He also admitted to being protective towards Employee 2.   He said that Employee 2 was considering raising a sexual discrimination complaint against an unnamed person.  The next day, a colleague, Employee 4 agreed to accompany me to any meetings with management and to seek advice from a senior colleague.  I raised the issue of workload with Manager 2.  He asked me to supply him with a list of all the work I had on currently, which I did later.

12^th March 2007

I went to see Manager 2 (Chief Lighting Engineer) as I was unhappy with the Manager 1 meeting and was taking it to the next stage.  I asked him for a date for a meeting, telling him I’d be accompanied by Employee 4.  He advised me I’d ‘better be squeaky clean’, which I took as a threat.  This became one of the complaints in an Informal Dignity at Work complaint and was upheld in February 2008 as a breach of the Dignity at Work Policy.  However, according to the Strategic Manager who conducted the enquiry, it did not constitute bullying and / or harassment.

14^th March 2007

Manager 2 tried to use my wife’s illness as a bargaining counter, attempting to get me to attend a future meeting unaccompanied.  There were no witnesses.  This became one of the complaints in an Informal Dignity at Work complaint and was later denied by Manager 2.  

22^nd March 2007

In his office, with no witnesses, Manager 2 accused me of ‘snooping’, stewing on a perceived injustice and being engaged in a personal vendetta against Employee 2.  He also said the focus might move to my conduct if Employee 2 proved to be in the clear.  The ‘snooping’ issue became one of the complaints in an Informal Dignity at Work complaint and was upheld in February 2008 as a breach of the Dignity at Work Policy.  However, according to the Strategic Manager who conducted the enquiry, it did not constitute bullying and / or harassment

28^th March 2007

I attended a meeting with Manager 2.  I was accompanied by Employee 4.  I voiced my concerns about poor communication, workload imbalance, favouritism – resulting in inequality.  I asked for everyone to be trained up to raise orders on SBS Confirm, for everyone who needed it to do the G39 course, more on job training from Manager 1 and for Manager 1 to spread a wider range of work around all staff to help people become more experienced in varied tasks.  These issues have never been properly acknowledged or addressed to date.  Management largely dismissed my complaints, classing the present distribution of work as meeting “business needs”.  However, I feel this runs counter to the Street Lighting Unit Plan issued in June 2006, where the stated objective was to “Promote team working with involvement of staff at all levels of development”.

2nd April 2007

Manager 1 admitted to favouritism and protection towards Employee 2. He said that Manager 3 had finally been informed on the subject of Employee 2’s timekeeping.  He admitted he was wrong to attack me on 7^th March.  He admitted to poor communication and management.  He said he hadn’t spoken to Manager 2 since the meeting of 28^th March, but seemed to be referring to much of what I raised at that meeting.

 4^th April 2007

Manager 2 called me into his office and asked me whether I’d be proceeding with the issues I’d raised.   I replied yes.   I don’t believe he’d told Manager 3 about the timekeeping issue and was trying to resolve it ‘in house’.  He reacted very poorly and referred to me as ‘snooping’ again, and implied I would come under scrutiny and it may not benefit my career.   

12^th April 2007

Manager 2 handed copies of the Dignity at Work Policy to me and Employee 2.

25^th April 2007

There was a meeting today attended by Manager 3, Manager 2, myself and Manager 4 (a manager who accompanied me). This was not a great success and I felt the issues I raised were not properly acknowledged or given the importance they deserved.  At this meeting, Manager 2 attempted to justify associating me with ‘snooping’ by saying that other employees would view me as a ‘snoop’.  This was witnessed by Manager 3 and Manager 4.  Manager 3’s write up included no reference to this.  It did however make some promises about improving the situation, within the constraints of time and ‘business needs’.

I believe if the long term disparity in variety of work issued is justified by ‘business needs’, this runs counter to the stated objective in the Street Lighting Unit Plan issued in June 2006 – no departure from or withdrawal of this planned objective was ever advised.  There was also a promise to review training, particularly SBS Confirm, which never seemed to be acted upon.  It appears that none of the recommendations made at this meeting were ever carried through by the Chief Lighting Engineer.  

I’d referred to feeling stressed at this meeting.  Soon after it, Manager 3 asked me if I wished to be referred to Occupational Health.  I accepted this as a positive action.

21^st May 2007

I received a referral to Occupational Health today.

29^th May 2007

At my Appraisal Interview with Manager 1, I’d raised the subject of SBS Confirm and the extra IT work involved in overhauling the system.  I stressed that 2 days a week carrying out work that was unrelated to my job description was intolerable and would jeopardise my future Street Lighting prospects.

4^th June 2007

At a meeting with Manager 2 and Manager 1, I requested an upgrade to Senior Engineer as recognition for the advanced work I was involved in.  Manager 2 said there was no such position available and referred me to Manager 3, who would seek advice in turn from Manager 2.  Manager 2 said he was not inclined to say ‘yes’.  Manager 2 then made a slur on my performance which was included in a later Informal Dignity at Work Complaint, but not confirmed as a breach of the Dignity at Work Policy.

5^th June 2007

I went in to see Manager 2 again, referring again to the request for an upgrade.  He insisted that the work was covered in my job description.  He confirmed that my refusal to do the work would entail disciplinary action.

6^th June 2007

I went off work today feeling completely stressed out.  By coincidence, Occupational Health rang today saying there was a cancellation and I could come to see them tomorrow.

7^th June 2007

I explained the whole situation to Dr. A prior to my return to work.

He advised me I should attend Council sponsored counselling sessions.

13th June 2007

My GP, Dr. B diagnosed ‘Anxiety and Depression’ and signed me off for 2 weeks.

Further sick notes were issued by My GP and I was off work for approx. 3 months.  I also had 6 counselling sessions.

22^nd August 2007

Still off work.  Went in for resolution meeting with Manager 3, Manager 2 and HR rep 1.   Union official 2 from the Unite Union represented me.  There seemed to be reluctance from management to acknowledge the issues I brought to the meeting.  I came to this conclusion because the draft meeting notes did not completely reflect what happened at the meeting. I emailed Manager 3 later to request that he include FULL DETAILS, as were discussed in the meeting, for the following:  (An updated version was received later) 

Favouritism and protection – by Manager 1 towards Employee 2 – notified Manager 3 that this has been in contravention of Cheshire County Council’s Valuing Diversity – Widening Access Standards.

Training required for all personnel to raise orders on SBS Confirm

Attendance of all personnel who require it on a G39 course

SBS Confirm upgrade and job description issues

Sexual Discrimination complaint by Employee 2 – referred to by Manager 1

I referred to a letter from Dr. A of the OHU, requesting an addressing of the issues and warning against a return to work with unresolved issues – which could lead to further ongoing symptoms and future sickness absence being affected.

29^th August 2007 

I returned to work today.  I had a meeting with Manager 2 and Manager 1 first thing.  I asked them to arrange for someone else to do the Stress Risk Assessment on the grounds that it wasn’t appropriate for Manager 2 and Manager 1 to do it. Manager 5 carried it out (see Documents FIFTY ONE, FIFTY TWO and FIFTY THREE)

I was told at this meeting that I’d be losing 10 days’ leave which was arranged before my sickness absence but taken during it.  I contested this and months later in November 2007, had it overturned.

I worked reduced hours for the next four weeks, starting on 20 hours and gradually increasing to a 37-hour week.

31^st August 2007

Following an earlier phone call, I sent an email to Manager 4 (Strategic Manager who accompanied me to the meeting of 25^th April) to advise her that she had witnessed Manager 2 attempting to justify the language he used re: ’Snooping around’.  I told her I’d lodged an informal Dignity at Work Complaint and it was likely that she would be interviewed as part of the process.  Despite her being a witness to this, she was not selected for interview as part of the informal procedure.

4^th October 2007

The first Informal Dignity at Work Complaint meeting was held today.  Manager 3 chaired it.  I was represented by Union official 2.  I outlined four separate incidents, all involving my manager, Manager 2:

Accused of ‘snooping’

Threatened that I had better be ‘squeaky clean’

Coercion / blackmail attempted

Slurs made on my performance

Plus detail of other ongoing issues.  Many corrections were suggested by me or my rep to update the minutes of the meeting of 22nd August 2007 – due to omissions or mistakes.  Draft notes for today’s meeting were received a few days later.  These made several omissions and were replaced by agreed notes.

6^th December 2007

The second Informal Dignity at Work Complaint meeting was held today.  Corrections and insertions were again made by myself and later agreed with Management. Manager 3 chaired the meeting.  He presented the findings of his investigation.  Manager 2’s response to the allegations was outlined.  One was a point-blank denial – to the blackmail / coercion allegation.  Three were qualified admissions – to ‘squeaky clean’, ‘snooping’ and the ‘slurs on my performance’.  Manager 3 said he was unaware of any sexual discrimination complaint by Employee 2.

Many corrections were suggested by me to update the minutes of the meeting of 4^th October 2007 – due to omissions or mistakes.  I was represented at this meeting by Union Rep 3 of Crewe Unite Union.

18^th January 2008

Manager 3 began to wind up the process by sending an email arranging a further meeting, but stating that the last meeting was ‘essentially the end of the informal Dignity at Work procedure’. He was also not prepared to call a meeting of Street Lighting colleagues, which conflicted with the County Engineer’s written request at the start of the process.

25th January 2008

The third Informal Dignity at Work Complaint meeting was held today.  Corrections and insertions were again made by myself and later agreed with management. Manager 3 chaired the meeting. Union Rep 5, retired UNITE officer represented me. Manager 3 acknowledged that ‘snooping’ and ‘you’d better be squeaky clean’ were ‘not the best words to use’. Union Rep 5 advised that whatever context the comments were made in, it was inappropriate language, can never be justified or excused, and runs counter to the Dignity at Work Policy. On the timekeeping issue, Union Rep 5 stressed that I had never made a formal written complaint, nor had I been advised to do so.  Union Rep 5 also highlighted that there had been a breach of confidentiality, when Employee 2 became aware of the situation, causing the atmosphere in the office to deteriorate and the battle lines to be drawn.

Many corrections were suggested by me to update the minutes of the meeting of 6^th December 2007 – due to omissions or mistakes.

18th February 2008

The fourth Informal Dignity at Work Complaint meeting was held today.  Manager 3 chaired the meeting and announced at the outset that management were not taking any notes at this meeting.  Union Rep 5 was representing me and replied that we would be taking our own notes.

Manager 3 insisted that Manager 2 did not mean to bully or harass me, and reminded me that if my outcome was not reached, I could go formal.  Manager 3 mentioned the County Engineer’s email of 4^th October 2007. I had previously stated that this gave me a facility to go to the formal process if I was not happy with the treatment of ‘any elements covered by the informal process.’  Manager 3 referred me to the title of the email and said it referred to the ‘leave’ issue.  I countered that I read it differently, insisting that it quoted ‘any elements’ and not just ‘leave’.  I repeated that at some stage I may require details of which elements were covered.  I asked whether Manager 3, when conducting his enquiries, had broadened them out into any other areas.  Manager 3 replied that he had not and had concentrated on the four allegations alone and nothing else (see also: email of 24^th January 2008). Union Rep 5 also explained that the other issues of workload, inequality and poor communication were related to and had pre-empted the Dignity at Work complaint.  Union Rep 5 said the Dignity at Work issue could not be treated in isolation because it had its origin in these related issues. 

I recapped the inequality issues that were still unaddressed despite being raised many times in the past year.  Manager 3 said that they’d been ‘dealt with’.  I said I felt frustrated because I had been asking for particular lighting design training and the opportunity to become involved in a broader range of work for over 2 years, both informally and at Staff Appraisals but without success and also see penultimate bullet point). I went into further detail on all of the outstanding issues.  

Union Rep 5 discovered that team briefings were not minuted and that work programmes, how work was apportioned, and colleagues’ responsibilities were never discussed.  She regarded this as very surprising.  Union Rep 5 proposed that monthly team briefings could become the forum for addressing these matters.  The briefings could also be minuted to ensure better compliance in the future.  Manager 3 suggested seeing me (and Union Rep 5) monthly for the next four months to monitor the progress of inequality issues.  

It had been planned to bring Manager 2 into this meeting, but he’d left early and the meeting was brought to a premature close.

25th February 2008

This was a continuation of the meeting held on 18th February 2008.  Manager 3 chaired the meeting. Corrections and insertions were again made by myself and my rep and later agreed with management.  

Manager 3 acknowledged that the Dignity at Work Policy had been breached by Manager 2 in relation to my allegations of 12 and 22 March 2007 (‘snooping’ and ‘squeaky clean’ statements).

Manager 3 confirmed he’d meet with me and Union Rep 5 on a monthly basis, for four months, the purpose being to monitor if I feel I am being treated fairly and equitably and able to rebuild my trust in management.  I believe that Manager 3 should update this formal investigation with any interim findings.

Manager 2 adopted a defensive and critical position and made uncalled for comments against me in attempting to justify his behaviour.  He defended Manager 1’s methods of training.   Union Rep 5 voiced Union Rep 5’s (and my) concerns that this attitude was eroding confidence in any further progress being made.

Manager 3 would put in place the actions from the meeting of 25th February as if Paul Cardin was happy with the outcomes from the informal procedure.   He would review the Street Lighting team building development at the end of March.  By the end of April, this review had not been communicated to me.  It’s uncertain whether this has taken place.

14^th March 2008

This was the date arranged for the first team briefing to be attended by Manager 3. Manager 3 attended, announcing he was here to observe.  A new way of working was put forward by Manager 1, which divided the county along east / west lines.  The work would be split between east (Employee 2) and west (Paul Cardin). Manager 1 later mentioned ‘training’ and asked for input around the table.  I took this opportunity to comment on one of the issues (on job training) I’d been raising for the last year, but without success.   Employee 2 got up at this point and left the meeting.  I said I felt that people weren’t working as a team.  Manager 1 accused me of not wanting to be part of the team.  I said that Manager 1 should be guided by the Diversity Rules.  Manager 1 said he didn’t know what these were and had never heard of them.  I said that Manager 1, as a manager should be aware of them.  Manager 2 intervened, accusing me of trying to intimidate Manager 1.  I said that I had only requested fairness but felt like I was being treated as a problem.  Manager 3 did not support me, and asked me not to ‘dwell on the past’.  The Dignity at Work Guidance Notes state the informal process should work for “recognition, understanding and acceptance” of the issues.  As Manager 3 had seemed not to comply with the County Engineer’s wishes, and not arranged a meeting with staff concerned, I felt that this team briefing was an opportunity to aim for these aspirations.

But following this incident, we seem to be further away than ever.  I expressed my agreement and acceptance of the new East / West method of working, saying I thought it a positive move.

17^th March 2008

Today, the first monthly progress meeting was held in Manager 3’s office, attended by Manager 3, Union Rep 5 and myself.  Union Rep 5 expressed her deep concern following my report on last Friday’s meeting.  It appeared that managers were in denial and unwilling to acknowledge their past failings.  This had lapsed into what could be described as further bullying and harassment by my line manager at the meeting and a possible further breach of the Dignity at Work Policy.  Manager 3 acknowledged some of what was said and that it was wrong.  He said that prior to this meeting he’d held formal meetings with these managers and representatives from personnel, where advice had been issued on how to proceed.  Union Rep 5 advised, following consultation with me, that we were now on the brink of calling an end to this part of the process and moving to the formal procedure.

19^th March 2008

I sent an email to Manager 3 and a copy to the County Engineer confirming that the informal process had been completed without my outcome being achieved.  I was therefore moving to the formal procedure.  Manager 3 responded, accepting this and said I could expect to hear from HR in the near future, and that the measures he’d put in place would continue as planned.

14^th April 2008

Street Lighting Office pm.  My line manager, Manager 1 made some allegations regarding my timekeeping of around 2 years ago and my mileage claims.

15^th April 2008

Street Lighting Office am.  I approached Manager 1, asking him to provide evidence of the incidents he’d referred to yesterday.  He could not, stating that management had decided not to proceed a couple of years ago.  I asked him why he’d raised it.  He said he’d been defending himself.  He moved on to a deeply personal attack.  I defended myself by saying that he was completely out of order as my complaints had always been about management issues and flawed procedures and never personal.  The statements he made were an abuse of his position, highly personal and I believe in breach of the Dignity at Work Policy.

I continued to work through the afternoon, but felt ill at ease and did not achieve much.  When I got home, I felt immensely relieved to be in a ‘safe location’ and rang up Manager 3.  He was not available and I left a message on his answerphone.

17^th April 2008

Manager 3 rang me and said he had Manager 1 with him in his office.  He asked if I could attend.  I asked if it was ok to bring a colleague with me as an observer.  He agreed with this.  I asked Employee 5 to attend with me.  The meeting went ahead and Manager 3 played the message I’d left on his answerphone.  He then asked me to provide the details.  I provided from memory those that appear on, without the asterisks ***.  Manager 3 turned to Manager 1, who denied the incident, saying ‘no comment’ and ‘it’s a nice story, but I can’t recollect it’.  Manager 3 wrote up the meeting and emailed this to me on 21^st April.  I made amendments to some errors and added in red some details that were omitted and returned it.  Manager 3 advised in a later email dated 22^nd April as follows:

“I will have a look at your suggested changes to the notes and amend as necessary. I will circulate the final version to you and Manager 1. Again they will be available to the investigation.

Your email of 17 April will be made available to the investigation.”

The revised version had not been received by the end of the day on Friday 2^nd May 2008.  It is important that an updated copy is received prior to this investigation commencing.

Later this day, Manager 3 called me and Employee 5 back to his office.  He asked me about my statement regarding feeling very threatened.  I explained that I’d found it very difficult to work following the discussion with my line manager of 15^th April and requested a move to another part of the office.  Manager 3 promised to look into it.  I completed the (temporary) move on Monday 28^th April.

6^th May 2008 – Summary

The four incidents of bullying and harassment within the Dignity at Work complaint have their origins in the issues of timekeeping, unequal workload and unequal work content.  Therefore, these inequality of opportunity issues are inextricably linked to the Dignity at Work complaint.  

The County Engineer’s email of 4^th October 2007 regarding ‘any elements covered by the informal procedure’ provides the facility to have the informal procedure examined and all elements that were covered investigated

The Dignity at Work Policy was confirmed as breached (twice) during the informal procedure, however I believe it was breached again by my line manager during the incidents of 14^th March 2008 and 14^th April 2008.  There were witnesses to the 14^th March incident

Management’s May 2007 justification of “business needs” is in conflict with the Principal Driver stated in the Street Lighting Unit Operational Plan 2006 – to “promote team working with involvement of staff at all levels of development”.  However, if this priority of the Transforming Cheshire vision is not current, withdrawn or shelved, it has not been notified to staff

Management did not interview Manager 4 as part of the Informal Procedure.  However Manager 4 had witnessed Manager 2 attempt to justify his use of the term “snooping” (one of the four issues directly raised) at the meeting of 25^th April 2007.  Manager 3 also witnessed this, but did not record it in the meeting notes dated 4^th May 2007.   This was an important failing

Before the Informal Dignity at Work Meeting of 18^th February 2008, Management announced a decision not to take notes.  The notes for this meeting were taken by myself and my representative and may bear closer scrutiny

Management interviewed Employee 1 as part of the informal procedure, but did not interview Employee 2 – a ‘prime mover’ at the centre of the events that led up to the bullying and harassment incidents

Abuse, threats, bullying and harassment (as indicated in my outcome) have taken place and need acknowledging

My line manager has admitted protecting and favouring one individual.  I tried many times to get a broader range of work, but without success.  One individual was favoured for meetings with external parties.  My line manager’s unfair treatment of others is therefore in breach of the Valuing Diversity – Widening Access Rules

For me, there has been a total loss of trust and confidence in my employer.  The dignity of this workplace has been severely eroded.  I do not feel able to work with my line manager until both my outcome and the council’s requirements of “recognition, understanding and acceptance” are achieved.  I also hope to see mine and senior management’s mutual plan to build a foundation for trust succeed

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com