Manorbier.com

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL by the Manorbier Community Council Clerk for unfair dismissal commenced at a Pre Hearing Review held in Carmarthen on 27th June 2007. The pre hearing review is a method by which the Employment Tribunal uses to determine if a claim has any merits. The chairman determines whether the claim is of a spurious nature and therefore not likely to succeed at a full hearing. The options open to the chairman being to strike out the claim by the Clerk entirely, demand a ( financial contribution ) typically a deposit of £500 from the Clerk if he thought the claim unlikely to succeed or to allow the claim to proceed to a full tribunal. The chairman after a short deliberation considered the case as having merit and directed that it be forwarded to a full tribunal located in either Cardiff or Carmarthen and be scheduled for a two to three day hearing. Mrs Marshall representing Mrs Davies outlined the basis of the claim under three main headings. 1. Whistle blowing to the police by the Clerk over the ill fated village appraisal. 2. Unfair dismissal ( failure of Manorbier Community Council to carry out recognised employment procedures ). 3. Refusal of Manorbier Community Council to pay outstanding wages which was considered by the hearing chairman to be a breach of contract. Mrs Marshall was forthright in her presentation to the hearing and fully focused on the purpose of the pre hearing review. Cllr Neads under the direction of Cllr Wales responded for the staffing committee of the Manorbier Community Council. (At a previous council meeting Cllr Neads had indicated that he could do a better job than the solicitors and subsequently to Cllr Neads volunteering to formulate and present the Manorbier Community Council case the services of the solicitors, Lowless and Lowless, who had been engaged and instructed by the council to defend the claim were terminated.) The hearing chairman gave legal guidance to Cllr Wales and Cllr Neads on employment tribunal protocol. Cllr Neads started to defend the council's case in detail and after a short while he was stopped by the chairman as he was digressing from the prime focus and procedure he had just outlined, the recognised procedure in a pre hearing review. If the objective of Cllrs Wales and Neads was to have the case struck out the prospect after an extended lunch time recess was diminished. During his extended lunch time recess the chairman had considered the representation of Cllr Neads and Wales and concluded that they had not satisfied him that it should be struck out or there was any need for a financial deposit to be lodged by the Clerk. He decided there was merit in having a full tribunal hearing. He also advocated that Cllr Wales and Cllr Neads should seek professional representation for future hearings. Cllr Neads replied that it was only a small council with limited funds and they had just had an expensive court case. Website Comments Manorbier Community Council (MCC) seems to be on another collision course financially with legal fees. It must be remembered that the original advice from Lowless and Lowless was that if the Clerk was successful in her claim the financial liability to the council would be in the region of £250 to £500. Lowless and Lowless before being dismissed by Manorbier Community Council had already invoiced them for £2000 for their work carried out as directed by the staffing committee. The staffing committee being composed of Cllrs Wales, Neads and Griffiths and following the resignation of Cllr Griffiths, Cllr Coleman replacing Mrs Griffiths and taking on responsibility. The most serious aspect of this case is that some members of Manorbier Community Council are unaware as they have not been fully informed of firstly the full details of case and secondly the extent of the work carried out by Lowless and Lowless for their £2000 fee. One councillor has asked on many occasions for information about the employment tribunal case and has been denied that information by the Proper Officer under instructions from Cllr Wales the council chairman. This employment tribunal hearing could have serious financial consequences for both the MCC and all charge payers in Manorbier and therefore any decisions relating to this case should have been discussed by full council. Cllr Wales had proposed that he be delegated full responsibility to liaise with Lowless and Lowless on this case as he was on the case with ICT marketing which had major financial repercussions for the council. It should be noted that perhaps as it was mentioned in the pre hearing review part of the Clerks claim is that several councillors including those defending the claim by the clerk had a vendetta against her they should have considered their involvement in a staffing committee dealing with firstly the dismissal of the Clerk and secondly her appeal.