Thursday, March 26, 2020
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Friday, March 20, 2020
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Monday, March 16, 2020
Friday, March 13, 2020
Cyngor Gwynedd Council - And Behind Closed Doors ?
The social worker who won her Employment Tribunal against Cyngor Gwynedd Council worked at the Dolgellau and Pwllheli offices of Cyngor Gwynedd Council.
MP is Melvin Panther a Manager within the Children's Fostering Service.
MPH is Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Gwynedd Children and Families Department.
Excerpts from the Tribunal's Report include -
"The Tribunal did not believe MP’s evidence that in an email that only refers to the claimant by name and where each of the comments appears entirely and exclusively applicable to the claimant’s case, he was in fact referring to sickness absences throughout the team.
His oral explanation in evidence was contrary to the natural, logical reading of the email itself and he gave his evidence in an unconvincing way which was not credible in the circumstances.
These are allegations that MP was over zealous in his monitoring of the claimant’s attendance or absence from work with unnecessary referrals for Occupational Health advice specifically with a requirement for psychological assessment.
The claimant was also assessed independently by the Access to Work Scheme;reports by Mr Newton and Mr Todd regarding Access to Work made further recommendations that were supportive of the claimant. In one such report Mr Todd recommended that the claimant undergo a “psychological assessment”. In a subsequent report Mr Newton recommended “psychological assessment for dyslexia and dyspraxia”.
The claimant takes exception to what she perceived as a requirement for her to undergo psychological assessment which she says was pursued by the respondent specifically MP with a view to proving that she had a mental illness as opposed to the respondent’s being prepared to address her physical impairments with a view to making reasonable adjustments.
The claimant’s suspicion is that the respondent wanted a psychological assessment to prove that she was unfit to work and to give an opportunity for dismissal based on incapability by reference to health.5.12.2
SWC,on behalf of the respondent,felt that Mr Todd’s recommendation that the claimant should undergo psychological assessment was unusual and potentially inappropriate.
SWC queried the recommendation on 30 November 2011 at page 279 with an Occupational Health advisor. The respondent had reservations about undertaking a psychological assessment of the claimant and did not see it was relevant, appropriate or beneficial.
The respondent’s decision was to defer obtaining such an assessment. to obtain the second Occupational Health opinion from a Dr Baron as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such an assessment. No psychological assessment was undertaken.
She frequently and in fact regularly raised matters concerning working at Pwllheli with MP but she did not present any formal grievance.
Whilst MPH made the decision to suspend the claimant based on information she received from MP (and possibly also SWC) the decision was given to the claimant by MP in his role as line manager in the absence of MPH.
Following the claimant’s suspension,the respondent attempted to investigate the claimant’s performance and Heidi Rylance carried out a partial investigation,reporting at page 548 on the 12 October 2014. That report is critical of the claimant and of management of the claimant with a lack of guidance and support.
MPH considered that she was too closely involved to lead any investigation into the claimant’s grievances for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. She sought to involve an independent investigator.
She received feedback from a Ms S Maskell who reported on the difficulty due to complexity that would be encountered in undertaking an investigation into a grievance which was being seen as one against the entire department in which the clamant worked, up to and including MPH herself.
We accept MPH’s evidence that whilst Ms Maskell’s written notes indicated that there were concerns regarding management as well as regard to the claimant she effectively reported to MPH that the task was too difficult to handle and that she would not do so.
MPH then approached another independent consultant Ms B Allen who reported back that she would have to interview more than thirty-one individuals, that there was extensive documentation and that she did not have the time and resources to dedicate to the task. She refused the commission.
The respondent had qualms about the claimant’s continued employment even at the time of her suspension but as the period of suspension dragged on it concluded it did not want to have her back. The respondent’s management was not sure how to bring matters to a head and rather than grasp the nettle,or nip matters in the bud, they left it be for two and a half years whilst considering various options.
On 24 November 2015 based on legal advice received,and having canvassed the claimant’s Union representative, MPH wrote to the claimant (page 583) suggesting a “without prejudice” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss “how your employment with Gwynedd Council could be brought to an end in what would be an acceptable manner to both you and us”.
That was the respondent’s agenda. MPH considered that the parties had reached an “impasse” and she was clear that the employment relationship had been “irreparably damaged”. MPH accepted and appreciated that the claimant may not be of the same view.
The SOSR agenda was investigated by Haf Ingman Jones and Stephen Wood and went to an SOSR hearing on 13 and 18 October 2016 before a panel comprising Aled Davis and E. Jones and A.Owen. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Aled Davies.
The panel was provided with a statement from MPH which appears at pages 625 –627 in which MPH stated at paragraph 4 “the working relationship has broken down to an extent that termination of employment is the only feasible way forward”;she felt the claimant had made clear to her that the claimant would not discuss matters with MPH.
This latter observation in MPH’s statement is a misattribution as it relates only to the claimant’s refusal to meet on a “without prejudice”basis to negotiate terms for terminationof employment.
The claimant remained ready,able,and willing to deal first with her grievances and then with a capability issue and to return to work if possible and if it was not immediately so possible she was prepared to enter mediation. Throughout the SOSR primary hearing and appeal hearing the respondent’s view that termination was the only feasible way forward did not alter;on that basis,it was clear that MPH was not prepared to enter the mediation suggested by the claimant.
The SOSR primary panel concluded that dismissal was appropriate in view of MPH’s unwillingness to mediate and what it considered to be the claimant’s pre-condition that she would succeed with regard to her grievances including with regards to allegations that she was bullied.
The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not insist on the respondent’s management upholding her grievance on all counts including bullying but she did wish,through the course of the mediation and or grievance procedure,for those complaints to be aired;she did not feel it was appropriate for the respondent to declare that her grievance was at an end when it had never been addressed.
The claimant’s only requirement was the respondent’s adherence to Occupational Health and Access to Work recommendations in accordance with its statutory duty. Up to the date of termination of employment the claimant’s approach remained consistent indicating her belief and understanding that the relationship was surviving and could survive provided the respondent fulfilled its managerial responsibilities.
Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
We are not to, and have not, substituted our judgment for that of the respondent. A reasonable employer would follow its standard procedures in a timely fashion. The respondent did not do that,
The decision to dismiss the claimant in these circumstances was discrimination arising from disability."
The Report in full can be found here -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf
What else goes on behind closed doors ?
Sshh....
Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Behind Closed Doors.:
MP is Melvin Panther a Manager within the Children's Fostering Service.
MPH is Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Gwynedd Children and Families Department.
Excerpts from the Tribunal's Report include -
"The Tribunal did not believe MP’s evidence that in an email that only refers to the claimant by name and where each of the comments appears entirely and exclusively applicable to the claimant’s case, he was in fact referring to sickness absences throughout the team.
His oral explanation in evidence was contrary to the natural, logical reading of the email itself and he gave his evidence in an unconvincing way which was not credible in the circumstances.
These are allegations that MP was over zealous in his monitoring of the claimant’s attendance or absence from work with unnecessary referrals for Occupational Health advice specifically with a requirement for psychological assessment.
The claimant was also assessed independently by the Access to Work Scheme;reports by Mr Newton and Mr Todd regarding Access to Work made further recommendations that were supportive of the claimant. In one such report Mr Todd recommended that the claimant undergo a “psychological assessment”. In a subsequent report Mr Newton recommended “psychological assessment for dyslexia and dyspraxia”.
The claimant takes exception to what she perceived as a requirement for her to undergo psychological assessment which she says was pursued by the respondent specifically MP with a view to proving that she had a mental illness as opposed to the respondent’s being prepared to address her physical impairments with a view to making reasonable adjustments.
The claimant’s suspicion is that the respondent wanted a psychological assessment to prove that she was unfit to work and to give an opportunity for dismissal based on incapability by reference to health.5.12.2
SWC,on behalf of the respondent,felt that Mr Todd’s recommendation that the claimant should undergo psychological assessment was unusual and potentially inappropriate.
SWC queried the recommendation on 30 November 2011 at page 279 with an Occupational Health advisor. The respondent had reservations about undertaking a psychological assessment of the claimant and did not see it was relevant, appropriate or beneficial.
The respondent’s decision was to defer obtaining such an assessment. to obtain the second Occupational Health opinion from a Dr Baron as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such an assessment. No psychological assessment was undertaken.
She frequently and in fact regularly raised matters concerning working at Pwllheli with MP but she did not present any formal grievance.
Whilst MPH made the decision to suspend the claimant based on information she received from MP (and possibly also SWC) the decision was given to the claimant by MP in his role as line manager in the absence of MPH.
Following the claimant’s suspension,the respondent attempted to investigate the claimant’s performance and Heidi Rylance carried out a partial investigation,reporting at page 548 on the 12 October 2014. That report is critical of the claimant and of management of the claimant with a lack of guidance and support.
MPH considered that she was too closely involved to lead any investigation into the claimant’s grievances for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. She sought to involve an independent investigator.
She received feedback from a Ms S Maskell who reported on the difficulty due to complexity that would be encountered in undertaking an investigation into a grievance which was being seen as one against the entire department in which the clamant worked, up to and including MPH herself.
We accept MPH’s evidence that whilst Ms Maskell’s written notes indicated that there were concerns regarding management as well as regard to the claimant she effectively reported to MPH that the task was too difficult to handle and that she would not do so.
MPH then approached another independent consultant Ms B Allen who reported back that she would have to interview more than thirty-one individuals, that there was extensive documentation and that she did not have the time and resources to dedicate to the task. She refused the commission.
The respondent had qualms about the claimant’s continued employment even at the time of her suspension but as the period of suspension dragged on it concluded it did not want to have her back. The respondent’s management was not sure how to bring matters to a head and rather than grasp the nettle,or nip matters in the bud, they left it be for two and a half years whilst considering various options.
On 24 November 2015 based on legal advice received,and having canvassed the claimant’s Union representative, MPH wrote to the claimant (page 583) suggesting a “without prejudice” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss “how your employment with Gwynedd Council could be brought to an end in what would be an acceptable manner to both you and us”.
That was the respondent’s agenda. MPH considered that the parties had reached an “impasse” and she was clear that the employment relationship had been “irreparably damaged”. MPH accepted and appreciated that the claimant may not be of the same view.
The SOSR agenda was investigated by Haf Ingman Jones and Stephen Wood and went to an SOSR hearing on 13 and 18 October 2016 before a panel comprising Aled Davis and E. Jones and A.Owen. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Aled Davies.
The panel was provided with a statement from MPH which appears at pages 625 –627 in which MPH stated at paragraph 4 “the working relationship has broken down to an extent that termination of employment is the only feasible way forward”;she felt the claimant had made clear to her that the claimant would not discuss matters with MPH.
This latter observation in MPH’s statement is a misattribution as it relates only to the claimant’s refusal to meet on a “without prejudice”basis to negotiate terms for terminationof employment.
The claimant remained ready,able,and willing to deal first with her grievances and then with a capability issue and to return to work if possible and if it was not immediately so possible she was prepared to enter mediation. Throughout the SOSR primary hearing and appeal hearing the respondent’s view that termination was the only feasible way forward did not alter;on that basis,it was clear that MPH was not prepared to enter the mediation suggested by the claimant.
The SOSR primary panel concluded that dismissal was appropriate in view of MPH’s unwillingness to mediate and what it considered to be the claimant’s pre-condition that she would succeed with regard to her grievances including with regards to allegations that she was bullied.
The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not insist on the respondent’s management upholding her grievance on all counts including bullying but she did wish,through the course of the mediation and or grievance procedure,for those complaints to be aired;she did not feel it was appropriate for the respondent to declare that her grievance was at an end when it had never been addressed.
The claimant’s only requirement was the respondent’s adherence to Occupational Health and Access to Work recommendations in accordance with its statutory duty. Up to the date of termination of employment the claimant’s approach remained consistent indicating her belief and understanding that the relationship was surviving and could survive provided the respondent fulfilled its managerial responsibilities.
Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
We are not to, and have not, substituted our judgment for that of the respondent. A reasonable employer would follow its standard procedures in a timely fashion. The respondent did not do that,
The decision to dismiss the claimant in these circumstances was discrimination arising from disability."
The Report in full can be found here -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf
What else goes on behind closed doors ?
Sshh....
Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Cyngor Gwynedd Council Fail.: Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Behind Closed Doors.:
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Chelsea Manning hospitalized after attempting suicide in federal detention - World Socialist Web Site
Lawyers for the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning have
confirmed that the 32-year-old was rushed to a hospital on Wednesday
after an attempted suicide while incarcerated in a federal detention
center in Alexandria, Virginia.
Manning has been subjected to solitary confinement and punitive daily
fines for one year as of today, for refusing a subpoena to testify in a
secret grand jury against Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian
Assange.
Assange is currently being held in London’s maximum security Belmarsh
Prison as he awaits possible extradition to the US, where he faces up
to 170 years in prison for charges under the Espionage Act for
publishing documents exposing imperialist war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan that had been leaked by Manning in 2010.
More - Chelsea Manning hospitalized after attempting suicide in federal detention - World Socialist Web Site
confirmed that the 32-year-old was rushed to a hospital on Wednesday
after an attempted suicide while incarcerated in a federal detention
center in Alexandria, Virginia.
Manning has been subjected to solitary confinement and punitive daily
fines for one year as of today, for refusing a subpoena to testify in a
secret grand jury against Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian
Assange.
Assange is currently being held in London’s maximum security Belmarsh
Prison as he awaits possible extradition to the US, where he faces up
to 170 years in prison for charges under the Espionage Act for
publishing documents exposing imperialist war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan that had been leaked by Manning in 2010.
More - Chelsea Manning hospitalized after attempting suicide in federal detention - World Socialist Web Site
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Sunday, March 08, 2020
Thinking and doing: The myth of electability
Thinking and doing: The myth of electability: In the creation of myths we have some great names: Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles. But to this we must add a new name, and one that is not ...
But, do the facts support the myth? Since
1983 there have been 10 general elections in the UK. The highest
percentage of votes received by the winning party was 43.6% (by
Johnson’s Tories in 2019). The average vote share to win is 40%. In
other words, in order to win a UK General Election you only have to
convince 44% of voters at most, and usually less than that.
1983 there have been 10 general elections in the UK. The highest
percentage of votes received by the winning party was 43.6% (by
Johnson’s Tories in 2019). The average vote share to win is 40%. In
other words, in order to win a UK General Election you only have to
convince 44% of voters at most, and usually less than that.
Vote share Tory/Labour 1983-2019
| Tory | Labour | Combined | |
| 1983 | 42.4 | 27.6 | 70.0 |
| 1987 | 42.2 | 30.8 | 73.0 |
| 1992 | 41.9 | 34.4 | 76.3 |
| 1997 | 30.7 | 43.2 | 73.9 |
| 2001 | 31.6 | 40.7 | 72.3 |
| 2005 | 32.4 | 35.2 | 67.6 |
| 2010 | 36.1 | 29.0 | 65.1 |
| 2015 | 36.8 | 30.4 | 67.2 |
| 2017 | 42.3 | 40.0 | 82.3 |
| 2019 | 43.6 | 32.2 | 75.8 |
| Average | 38.0 | 34.4 | 72.4 |
The myth fostered by psephologists, and
widely believed by Labour members, is of an electorate constantly in
flux, but on closer examination this turns out to be highly unlikely. To
be clear , seventy per cent of voters are either Labour or Tory and
they tend not to vote for the other party. Swing voters may exist but
not in the numbers we have been led to believe.
widely believed by Labour members, is of an electorate constantly in
flux, but on closer examination this turns out to be highly unlikely. To
be clear , seventy per cent of voters are either Labour or Tory and
they tend not to vote for the other party. Swing voters may exist but
not in the numbers we have been led to believe.
The Independent in 2016 published a piece which confidently asserted that: “Britain
is turning into a nation of swing voters as increasing numbers of
electors shop around at general elections before deciding which party to
support.”
is turning into a nation of swing voters as increasing numbers of
electors shop around at general elections before deciding which party to
support.”
More - https://davemiddletons.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-myth-of-electability.html
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Monday, February 10, 2020
Sunday, February 09, 2020
Monday, February 03, 2020
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Monday, January 27, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Doing As You Say-Cyngor Gwynedd Council-Ombudsman Wales.
With regard to the
recommendations from two Ombudsman for Wales Investigation reports into
Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department.
The Chief Executive, Dilwyn O Williams, confirmed to Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee, held on the 14th November, 2019, that all recommendations had been met and goes on to mention a 'miscommunication' with the Ombudsman - amongst other things.
We rang the Ombudsman for Wales seeking clarification of the officer's comments.
The Ombudsman for Wales informed us that that statement from the Chief Executive regarding compliance was not correct - at that time - but could comment no further until viewing the webcast.
Nearly two months have passed since the meeting between the Ombudsman and the CEO, in Cardiff, to discuss (non) compliance in regard to recommendations regarding assessments and retraining of officer's. Already long overdue.
The Ombudsman for Wales has, we notice, without delay issued special reports when other Councils have failed to address recommendations and improvements.
****************************
Another Ombudsman's Investigation into Gwynedd SS Adult Department, dated 2018 - Case number - 201700388 led to the following recommendation -
Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met.
A recent FOI request to the Ombudsman for Wales has provided evidence that the Council, at that time openly admit to not yet carrying out this review, thus NOT ensuring that the Council was and is even now meeting the requirements of the SSWA 2014 , MHM 2010 and the ASD SAP.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken.
This case - involved untrained council officer's behaving in a way that caused injustice(s) to and impacted on the human rights of a 'high functioning' autistic adult with mental health issues, features in the Ombudsman's casebook on Equality and Human Rights 2019/20 -
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://www.ombudsman.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/104483-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Casebook_Eng_v03.pdf
Whilst this case is reported by the Ombudsman for Wales, it is concerning that this Report, published in 2018, has still not (to our knowledge) been presented to either Full Council, Cabinet or even the Care Scrutiny Committee.
Ultimately, responsibility for the organisational culture within the Council lies with the Monitoring Officer and also with elected members.
"The Monitoring Officer has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the Councils operates in a lawful manner and that it does not do anything which could amount to maladministration."
From - "Do we have to accept it, Dilwyn", one councillor asked in response to the recent Wales Audit Improvement Report, critical of Gwynedd Council and how it dealt with its Youth Service cuts, through to Councillors and Cabinet Members who have no wish to examine evidence of maladministration.
Cabinet Members who fail to present critical reports of their departments for scrutiny.
Senior managers who bully and overwhelm an Independent Investigating Officer to remove critical references and recommendations for improvement of the Children's Department in her final, final, final report.
The Council's own report of their data breach that manipulated our evidence to whitewash its failings and create essentially an inadequate report. An earlier blog gives more detail -
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html
A social worker who misled an Independent Investigating Officer and Independent Person, during the Stage 2 Complaint investigation into her inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs - we have evidence that senior managers and also the Director of Gwynedd Social Services were aware of this and re-wrote their response letter accordingly to cover this up.
A Monitoring Officer who mentions that there will be 'implications' and 'consequences' to a complainant, if that complaint is to proceed in the way they wish, then repeatedly failing to respond and explain to the complainant what those 'implications and consequences' would be when asked.
A disabled social worker, who claimed disability discrimination and bullying by her senior managers within the Children's Department was suspended for two and a half years. The Employment Tribunal found against Gwynedd Council.
The Tribunal Report can be found here -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf
How many Cyngor Gwynedd employees has this Council suspended for protracted periods of time and why ?
It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the Union representatives on such matters.
Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.
The Chief Executive, Dilwyn O Williams, confirmed to Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee, held on the 14th November, 2019, that all recommendations had been met and goes on to mention a 'miscommunication' with the Ombudsman - amongst other things.
We rang the Ombudsman for Wales seeking clarification of the officer's comments.
The Ombudsman for Wales informed us that that statement from the Chief Executive regarding compliance was not correct - at that time - but could comment no further until viewing the webcast.
Nearly two months have passed since the meeting between the Ombudsman and the CEO, in Cardiff, to discuss (non) compliance in regard to recommendations regarding assessments and retraining of officer's. Already long overdue.
The Ombudsman for Wales has, we notice, without delay issued special reports when other Councils have failed to address recommendations and improvements.
****************************
Another Ombudsman's Investigation into Gwynedd SS Adult Department, dated 2018 - Case number - 201700388 led to the following recommendation -
Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met.
A recent FOI request to the Ombudsman for Wales has provided evidence that the Council, at that time openly admit to not yet carrying out this review, thus NOT ensuring that the Council was and is even now meeting the requirements of the SSWA 2014 , MHM 2010 and the ASD SAP.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken.
This case - involved untrained council officer's behaving in a way that caused injustice(s) to and impacted on the human rights of a 'high functioning' autistic adult with mental health issues, features in the Ombudsman's casebook on Equality and Human Rights 2019/20 -
Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://www.ombudsman.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/104483-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Casebook_Eng_v03.pdf
Whilst this case is reported by the Ombudsman for Wales, it is concerning that this Report, published in 2018, has still not (to our knowledge) been presented to either Full Council, Cabinet or even the Care Scrutiny Committee.
Ultimately, responsibility for the organisational culture within the Council lies with the Monitoring Officer and also with elected members.
"The Monitoring Officer has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the Councils operates in a lawful manner and that it does not do anything which could amount to maladministration."
From - "Do we have to accept it, Dilwyn", one councillor asked in response to the recent Wales Audit Improvement Report, critical of Gwynedd Council and how it dealt with its Youth Service cuts, through to Councillors and Cabinet Members who have no wish to examine evidence of maladministration.
Cabinet Members who fail to present critical reports of their departments for scrutiny.
Senior managers who bully and overwhelm an Independent Investigating Officer to remove critical references and recommendations for improvement of the Children's Department in her final, final, final report.
The Council's own report of their data breach that manipulated our evidence to whitewash its failings and create essentially an inadequate report. An earlier blog gives more detail -
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html
A social worker who misled an Independent Investigating Officer and Independent Person, during the Stage 2 Complaint investigation into her inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs - we have evidence that senior managers and also the Director of Gwynedd Social Services were aware of this and re-wrote their response letter accordingly to cover this up.
A Monitoring Officer who mentions that there will be 'implications' and 'consequences' to a complainant, if that complaint is to proceed in the way they wish, then repeatedly failing to respond and explain to the complainant what those 'implications and consequences' would be when asked.
A disabled social worker, who claimed disability discrimination and bullying by her senior managers within the Children's Department was suspended for two and a half years. The Employment Tribunal found against Gwynedd Council.
The Tribunal Report can be found here -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf
How many Cyngor Gwynedd employees has this Council suspended for protracted periods of time and why ?
It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the Union representatives on such matters.
Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Tuesday, January 07, 2020
Monday, January 06, 2020
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Monday, December 30, 2019
Friday, December 20, 2019
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)