Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

No substitute members were reported.

To declare interests on any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 26 January 2007 (attached).

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2007 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To note the procedure for the conduct in determining staff appeals (attached).

The Panel noted the agreed procedure for its conduct in determination of staff appeals.

Exclusion: To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Confidential Items Commencement: Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:

(1)        All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.

(2)        At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.

(3)        Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision.

Background Papers:  Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)            disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item.

            RESOLVED:

That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the item of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated and the exemption is considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

Agenda                                                                      Exempt Information

Item No            Subject                                             Paragraph Number

6                      Staff Appeal No 01 – 2007/08                    1 and 2

To consider a restricted report and case papers (attached).

The Panel considered an appeal by an employee of Finance Services against a decision by the Head of Finance Services acting under delegated authority to dismiss her.

The appellant was in attendance along with Mr M Harding from the RMT Union to present her case. The Council’s Case was presented by C O’Boyle, Director of Corporate Support  Services and Solicitor to the Council, who called J Twinn (Assistant Head of Finance) and B Palmer (Director of Finance and ICT) as witnesses. Mr Harding called the applicant and Mr K Sandwell (an acquaintance of the applicant) as witnesses.

The Panel was advised on details of employment law and policies relevant to the appeal by  J Cox, Acting Head of Human Resources at Rochford District Council.

Following consideration of submissions from both parties and appropriate cross-examination, the Panel determined the appeal in Private session.

RESOLVED:

That it is the unanimous decision of the Panel that, on the basis of the evidence presented on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the Council, in writing and orally, the appeal against dismissal from the service be not upheld for the following reasons:

(a)            that the argument that the Council did not follow its own procedures correctly be dismissed as it was clear that the Council’s Disciplinary/Capability Procedure and Staff Appeals Panel Hearings Procedure were followed throughout this process;

(b)               that honesty and integrity is a key attribute for an officer of the Council, especially for an officer dealing with benefit claims and related issues. The appellant did not address the core issues of the case but raised matters, at length, which the Panel considered irrelevant to the case and which did not provide credible reasons for the actions of the appellant. This was despite relevant questioning by the Council’s representative and the Panel. Thus the evidence was uncontested;

(c)            that the Panel found that all of the points considered by the Head of Finance in his letter of dismissal dated 2 July 2007 had not been answered by the appellant nor denied by the appellant. Indeed the appellant accepted she had breached the e-mail policy, filled in part of her sister’s Housing Benefit/Council Tax application form without signing to indicate this and that she had incorrectly filled in her date of birth on 17 medical certificates;

(d)            that the Panel heard no satisfactory explanation for her conduct.

(e)            that the proven allegations amounted to Gross Misconduct under the Council’s Disciplinary/Capability Procedure.

(f)            The Panel noted that the act of suspending the appellant was a neutral act to enable an investigation to take place.