Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – That Councillor Wendy Meikle be elected Chair of the Committee for the duration of the meeting.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

No declarations of interest were made.

No public questions were submitted.

RESOLVED - That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 6 to prevent the disclosure of information relating to an individual. It would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose this information to the public because disclosure of the personal information would not be fair to the appellant and therefore be in breach of Data Protection.

The Committee met to consider an appeal against dismissal from an employee of Corporate and Support Services.

The appellant was unrepresented and did not attend the meeting on medical advice. The appellant had been contacted by the committee clerk on 9 November 2011 and was offered the opportunity for the hearing to be postponed in order to allow the appellant to attend, however the appellant declined and wanted the appeal to be heard in their absence.

Management attended the meeting and presented evidence and explained their reasoning that led them to their decision to terminate the employee’s employment.

The Committee received document bundles, and read all the evidence submitted by both parties.  After paying attention to the evidence and questioning the oral testimony given by management and following careful consideration of the appellant’s written testimony and grounds of appeal, the Committee decided to adjourn the appeal hearing. This was to seek a further medical opinion from the Council’s Occupational Health provider of the likely effect of the appellant’s medical condition on the appellant’s conduct and behaviour in the workplace and to give the appellant the opportunity to comment and a further opportunity to attend and present the appeal in person. 

At 11.52am it was

RESOLVED - That the meeting be adjourned.

The meeting reconvened at 10.00am on Thursday 9 February 2012.

The Committee received further documents detailing the medical referral and the Council’s Occupational Health response.  Management again attended in person, the appellant, after responding to the invitation, did not attend. The Committee considered the written response from the Council’s Occupational Health provider to the questions asked and heard management’s further response following its receipt.

RESOLVED – The Committee considered the dismissal appeal, oral presentation and all the written documentation that was submitted and that they had commissioned. They heard management’s testimony and reasoning that led to the decision to terminate the appellant’s employment and read the appellant’s appeal, evidence and response.  Having listened to all that was said and having read all the documentation the Committee found that:-

1. Whilst the employee had been invited to attend the appeal on a number of occasions to present his appeal in person, he had declined to do so citing medical reasons. 
2. Following the Committee’s decision that a further medical opinion of his condition should be sought they concluded that the medical opinion obtained did not support the appellant’s appeal in so far as it indicated that the effect would be generalised across all of his daily activities and not only his time recording and there was no evidence of a deterioration in his other day to day activities.
3. After considering all the evidence and mitigating factors placed before them by the appellant they concluded that the appellant had systematically falsified the records of attendance hours on timesheets to the appellant’s own benefit and the detriment of the Council in that hours were paid for which were not worked. 

The Committee was satisfied that a proper and adequate investigation had been carried out into the appellant’s misconduct and that having engaged with the appellant’s grounds of appeal they then formed a genuine belief that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations against the appellant were proven and that they amounted to gross misconduct for which summary dismissal was the appropriate sanction.

The Committee therefore upholds the management’s decision to dismiss the employee for gross misconduct.