Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that the following substitutions had taken place:

(i)            Councillor Mrs Pond for Councillor Gode; and

(ii)            Councillor Mrs Richardson for Councillor Farr.

To declare interests in 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 27 November 2006 (attached).

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2006 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

7                      Staff Appeal No 03 – 2006/07                    1 and 2

Restricted report attached. Case papers from the appellant and the Council have been circulated separately to Panel members.

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

The appellant was in attendance and presented his own case. The Council’s case was presented by C O’Boyle, Head of Legal, Administration and Estates and Solicitor to the Council, who called N Taylor (Area Housing Manager (North)), J Akerman (Chief Internal Auditor), A Hall (Head of Housing Services) and P Maginnis (Human Resources Manager) as witnesses. T Tidey (Head of Human Resources and Performance Management) advised the Panel as required, on details of employment law and policies relevant to the appeal.

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 service without notice or payment in lieu of notice be not upheld for the following reasons:

            (a)            the allegations of fact that the appellant:

            (i)            misused Council time by not being at work during some of his contracted hours on 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 October 2006;

(ii)            did not provide a truthful explanation when asked to account for his whereabouts by officers of the Council concerning the above dates; and

(iii)            did not agree the above absences from work with his Manager either prior to or after the above dates as required by the Council’s managing absence policy;

(b)            as a consequence of the appellant’s action described in (a) (i – iii) above, the Panel have found that these constitute a fundamental breach of trust between the appellant and the Council, and that his actions brought the Council into disrepute;

(c)            in reaching this decision, consideration was given to the mitigating factors that the appellant presented, which were:

            (i)            that the appellant was concerned about his previous high level of sickness absence, and that the absences described above would reflect badly on his sickness record.  However, the Panel noted that there was no record that the appellant‘s sickness level had ever been raised by management as a concern; and

(ii)            that the appellant had stated in mitigation that at the investigative interview with officers of the Council, he had experienced panic and therefore lied about his whereabouts on the above dates.  Notwithstanding this, it was not considered acceptable for the appellant to lie because of panic and that it would have been better to tell the truth;

(d)            consideration was also given to the comments of P Maginnis, A Hall and N Taylor that in the light of the appellant’s actions, they could no longer trust the appellant as an employee; and

(e)            finally, consideration was given to the allegations made by the appellant about alleged racial or religious discrimination on the part of J Akerman, Chief Internal Auditor, in his conduct with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.