Manorbier Community Council has issued a notice that it intends to hold a council
meeting on the 8th December 2008 to receive a report on Tribunal Case. It must be
assumed, although it does not indicate so on the notice, that this is in connection with the
case brought by the clerk for unfair dismissal that has yet to be concluded after nearly three years. It seems
strange that Manorbier Community Council chairman Cllr Hughes has decided to inform
members of the community council after this website challenged him last week to fully
inform councillors about the employment tribunal case. Cllr Raymond Hughes has been in his
position since May 2008 and one can only wonders why he has taken so long to bring this to the
attention of members of the council.
The council meeting held on 1st December 2008 appointed a new clerk to replace the former
clerk who is seeking redress from the council at the imminent Employment Tribunal hearing to be held in
Cardiff. One questions the reason for the decision to appoint a new clerk before keeping
councillors up to date on the ongoing tribunal hearing and the council's
position or advice given by their legal advisors.
Both Cllr Hughes and Cllr Gourlay informed Cllr Calver that the new clerk position would be a
permanent subject to a six month probationary period and both Laurence
Harding, Monitoring Officer from Pembrokeshire County Council, and Lowless and Lowless had advised
them that this was a correct and proper course of action after they had studied the case
brought by the clerk. Several council members seemed to take Cllr Hughes advice that this would
be temporary as they would be appointing on a six month probationary period. Cllr Calver
tried to explain that there was a difference between being taken on a six month contract
and being taken on permanently with a six month probationary period used to assess the clerks
ability. A reason would have to be given for a dismissal should the council wish to dismiss
the newly appointed clerk and if the previous clerk were to be successful at the tribunal case, as surely it would
be proper, correct, reasonable and fair by any employer to reinstate an employee should
the tribunal decide she has been unfairly dismissed. Cllr Calver informed the council that
he would not be taking part in any deliberations on the appointment of a new clerk and
requested that it be recorded in the minutes.
Several questions need to be answered in regard to this case and existing councillors
cannot claim immunity from any responsibility just because the dismissal took place
before their election or appointment to the council. It would be expected by the taxpayers of
the Manorbier area for the present councillors to ask the following:-
|
1. What action has been taken by the chairman Cllr Hughes and/or the present council
since its formation in May 2008 in relation to the tribunal case and have councillors been kept fully informed
by their solicitors and the chairman.
2. What reasons were given for dismissing the clerk and be satisfied that they agree
with the decision of the previous council members to continue defending the tribunal action against the clerk which could be expensive for the taxpayers of the Manorbier area.
3. What was the advice given by Lowless and Lowless when they were initially
consulted by the earlier community council regarding the employment tribunal case.The cost of that advice should also be made evident.
4. In the advice given by Lowless and Lowless originally what was the amount they
estimated it would cost the council in any settlement should the clerk seek redress
through the employment tribunal and their estimated fees for carrying out any work.
5. What advice was given by One Voice Wales to Ex Cllr Wales in relation to the
decision to dismiss the clerk and why his promise that their advice, although verbal,
would be confirmed in writing to the council but never was.
6. What advice did ACAS give to the council in regard to the dismissal of the clerk back in March 2006.
7. If there has been any extra additional cost to the council by the actions of Ex Cllr Neads and
Wales in their decision and accepted advice to the previous council to dismiss Lowless and
Lowless when they were first engaged, with the reason given "that they could do a
better job". (It must also be remembered that at the initial hearing held in Carmarthen the
chairman strongly advised both Cllr Wales and Cllr Neads that in his opinion the council
needed proper representation and advised both of them seek legal representation for
the council). This website is unaware if councillors have ever been advised of these remarks when discussing the case to
date and of the financial consequences of
these actions.
8. Have Manorbier Community Council been fair in their treatment of an employee
by their actions in delaying the employment tribunal hearing into the application
for unfair dismissal. The three day hearing which was due to be held in Cardiff
over twelve months ago, which would presumably have decided the case, was
delayed because on the non attendance of Ex Cllrs Wales and Neads. Cllr Neads
had asked the employment court to postpone the arranged hearing on the Friday before
and again on the Monday morning of the hearing and on both occasions had been refused. On the day of the hearing both Ex Cllr Wales and Neads failed to turn up with Cllr Neads advising the tribunal that he could not attend because "an overseas none domiciled resident was flying into the country and needed his expert advice". The then council chairman, Mr Wales, made no explanation of his failure to atttend and although the case was postponed by the tribunal chairperson it had involved great cost both in court time of the allocated three days and also the services of Mrs Davies's barrister. The tribunal chairperson informed that the court would be seeking proof evidence from both Mr Neads and Mr Wales for the reasons of their non appearance at the court and their failur to represent the Manorbier Community Council.
9. In relation to the case being brought by Ex Cllr Griffiths against Ex Cllr Wales
over his allegation that she perjured herself in the court case regarding the non
payment of an ICT Marketing invoice, what can be assumed by her statement in
an open public session at a council meeting that she had "assisted
Cllrs Neads and Wales in their efforts to dismiss the clerk".
Website Comments
Manorbier Community Council both in the recent past and in the present council seems
live in the land of secrecy with many skeletons in the cupboard
which will eventually come out. This website will ensure you are kept fully informed.
This website a while ago stated that "we would in some time in the future make you
aware of the skeletons from the past including the village appraisal" (it must be remembered
that Cllr Calver proved beyond doubt that out of a total of approximately 300
questionnaires handed in, he could easily show that at least sixty nine were photocopied
forgeries and many more suspected of also being forgeries). We must look up the document
signed by Cllr Morgan which the judge ruled authorised the completion of the contract
with ICT marketing. There is also the question of the judges ruling that their was a
suggestion of photocopying questionnaires in the records of the Manorbier Community
Council which if it had been carried out would be tantamount to fraud. Also an e-mail exists
from County Hall with a suggestion to photocopy questionnaires.
BACK
|