A2/2006/0233 Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 452 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE TN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL (HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK)

Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2

Thursday, 23 rd March 2006

BEFORE:

LORD JUSTICE KEENE

LAWRENCECLAIMANT /APPLICANT

- v -

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

(DAR Transcript of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190

Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.

J U D G M E N T (As Approved by the Court)

Crown copyright©

1

1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: The applicant in this case seeks permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 25 January 2006, the tribunal being presided over by HHJ Clark. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT, decided at what was a preliminary hearing of Mr Lawrence's appeal to dismiss that appeal, which he had brought against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South. The Employment Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal brought against his former employer, the Department of Trade and Industry, DTI. Mr Lawrence had been employed by the DTI since 1999. In October 2001, he took up a new post within the department. There then arose a number of problems between him and his line manager and his team head, problems which eventually resulted in a disciplinary hearing and a severe reprimand for the applicant. That took place on 8 August 2003.

2. Mr Lawrence was instructed that he had to comply with staff appraisal report, SAR, procedures and he was given a written warning that:

"Future failure to carry out official instructions may result in a charge of gross misconduct ... which could lead to summary dismissal."

3. Mr Lawrence appealed the disciplinary penalty but his appeal was dismissed on 5 November 2003. However, he subsequently sought to raise a number of issues dealt with in the disciplinary proceedings. This led to what can only be described as protracted correspondence between himself and various officials in the DTI and indeed, the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell.

4. On 28 November 2003, Mr Lawrence was instructed to complete his SAR and return it within ten working days, that is to say by 12 December 2003. He did in fact e-mail his completed SAR on that date, but it was unsigned. He was asked to sign and return it. He sent a further e-mail on 22 January 2004 saying that he was awaiting a response from his trade union representative before signing it. Later that month, he declined to make hotel bookings that he had been asked to make for other members of his team, saying that that now fell outside the job description which was applicable to him.

5. On 6 February 2004, he was suspended pending an investigation. He eventually sent back his signed SAR on 13 February 2004, that is to say some two months after the specified time. He was charged on 19 February 2004 with gross misconduct, the charge focusing on his failure to carry out instructions about the SAR, his refusal to carry out reasonable requests including the request about making travel arrangements, and what was described as his persistently vexatious behaviour. After a disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed and an internal appeal failed; so did an appeal to the Civil Service Appeals Board.

6. The Employment Tribunal which dealt with Mr Lawrence's complaint reminded itself that the test to be applied was whether the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses available to an employer. It recorded that it was accepted by both parties that procedural fairness was not an issue in the case; see paragraphs 2 and 28 of its

2

reasons. It found that there was evidence that the individual charges against Mr Lawrence were made out and that his behaviour:

" ... represented disobedience of a reasonable instruction against the backdrop of months of protracted meetings, negotiations and correspondence in which the claimant was asked to comply."

7. In considering the proportionality of the decision to dismiss, the tribunal said:

"He was disrupting the work of the section. He was nullifying any attempt at teamwork and taking grossly disproportionate amounts of management time and energy from the top to the bottom of the department."

8. Consequently, the Employment Tribunal held that it was open to the employer to believe that the charges were made out and that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and was therefore fair. Mr Lawrence then appealed to the EAT complaining that the tribunal below was biased, that it had failed to consider his case that the respondent, the DTI, was guilty of procedural unfairness and that the procedure adopted by the Employment Tribunal was irregular and unfair.

9. In its decision the EAT pointed out in respect of the substantive charges that it was not for the Employment Tribunal to decide whether or not those charges were made out, but only whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that they were made out. That, of course, is well-established law. The EAT held that the tribunal below could have properly concluded that that test was met. The EAT examined the allegations of procedural irregularities on the part of the Employment Tribunal; it did so in paragraphs 17 to 21 of its decision. It found no irregularity or unfairness. It rejected the allegation of bias and, finally, it concluded that the tribunal's decision could not be said to be perverse.

10. In his grounds of appeal to this court and his skeleton argument, Mr Lawrence seeks to raise very much the same matters which he raised before the EAT. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism, but merely to enable me to keep my judgment relatively short. Both in writing and orally this morning, he argues that he wished to raise the issue of procedural irregularities in his disciplinary proceedings as a point before the Employment Tribunal, but was prevented from doing so.

11. There are, it seems to me, two problems in that submission. The first is that, as the tribunal chairman notes in his affidavit of 6 October 2005, page 101 of the bundle, there had been a preliminary hearing which had defined the issues at the Employment Tribunal and this limitation to the substantive issues had been confirmed at the start of and during the hearing itself. Secondly, in my judgment it is an argument which has no merit in itself. The procedures involved in the disciplinary process conducted by the DTI were thorough and they included, ultimately, both an internal appeal and an appeal to the Civil Service Appeals Board. There was never any real prospect of this argument succeeding.

3

12. Next, Mr Lawrence complains specifically of certain aspects of the tribunal's procedure; for example, only being allowed to read some of his witness statement; the fact that his closing argument was handed over by the chairman to the respondent's counsel; and the way in which the Employment Tribunal dealt with the bundles of documents. For example, he points out that his own written argument had been related to the way in which his bundle had been produced.

13. These are points which were all dealt with by the EAT on the appeal and in my view were dealt with adequately there. Mr Lawrence has to show that the EAT erred in law if there is to be any prospect of a successful appeal to this court. I cannot see that the EAT erred in law in how it dealt with these matters about the Employment Tribunal's procedure. The Employment Tribunal has to be in control of its own procedures and as long as it acts fairly, it can decide how to run its proceedings. None of the matters which Mr Lawrence raises seem to me to indicate that the tribunal acted unfairly. To take one example, there was no reason why the respondent should not see the applicant's closing argument in the course of the hearing. That did not mean, of course, that Mr Lawrence was unable to respond to the respondent's submissions, once those had been made. There is no chance of showing that in the present case the Employment Tribunal acted unfairly in any of the ways alleged.

14. Some of these points are then used by the applicant in support of the argument which is presented about bias on the part of the tribunal. I have read the whole of the Employment Tribunal's decision, plus the applicant's criticisms of it and the specific allegations of bias which are asserted. There is no prospect of demonstrating bias in this case, because there is simply no credible evidence that that existed. I well understand that Mr Lawrence may dislike the outcome of his unfair dismissal claim, and he personally may regard the Employment Tribunal as having been biased against him, but of course that is not enough. I have to apply an objective test and I am bound to say that to an objective observer, there is no basis for regarding the way the Employment Tribunal dealt with this matter as showing bias.

15. I turn to perversity. Mr Lawrence argues that the Employment Tribunal's decision on fairness, the fairness of dismissal, was perverse. He contends that the charges against him were not made out and, indeed, that the evidence against those charges was overwhelming. To take one example, he points to the delay on his part in sending in the completed and signed SAR and he argues that that delay was justified because the department itself was not following the proper procedures.

16. I have no doubt that Mr Lawrence is by now well aware that perversity involves a very high threshold and is a very difficult proposition ever to establish on the part of a decision maker. It has to be shown in this case that no reasonable Employment Tribunal could have found that the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation that the charges against the applicant were proved. It is not a question as to whether I, if I were the employer, would have taken that view, or whether the Employment Tribunal, if the employer, would have taken that view. Given the fact that the applicant had been expressly instructed to return his SAR within ten days, and

4

that he failed to do so, and that he had already had a written warning, as I have indicated earlier, I cannot see that there is any chance of this court regarding the Employment Tribunal's decision as being a perverse one.

17. Finally, reference is made to some fresh evidence which was put before the EAT in the form of a letter from the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell. The applicant, as I say, put this letter before the EAT and that body refers to it in its decision. However, the EAT saw the letter as being of very limited relevance to the issues. It is dated 21 December 2005 and appears at page 26 of the bundle. In the substantive paragraph, the second paragraph, Sir Gus says this:

"It is very difficult to comment in general terms without knowing the specific circumstances of the case. HR directors work very closely with Permanent Secretaries who have ultimate responsibility for all resources, including human, of their departments. It is therefore unlikely that there would be such obvious disagreement between the two other than perhaps on the points of employment law."

18. That letter is patently expressed in very general, not to say anodyne, terms. Mr Lawrence refers to the statement that it would be unlikely that there would be obvious disagreement between HR directors and permanent secretaries. That, however, is an extremely general statement and is not directed to the facts of this case. It seems to me that the EAT were entirely right to regard the letter as of being of no real significance when considering the issues which arise in this case.

19. In my judgment, there is no properly arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal's decision, or in that of the EAT. In those circumstances, it follows that there is no real prospect of a successful appeal and this application consequently must be dismissed. Nonetheless, I am grateful to Mr Lawrence for the courteous and succinct way in which he has advanced his arguments this morning.

Order: Applications refused.

5

3.4.5.

IN PRIVATE Application No.

A2/2006/0233

FRIDAY 31 ST

MARCH 2006

KARL LAWRENCE APPELLANT

- and -

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY RESPONDENT

IT IS ORDERED that the application by the said Appellant for permission to

present a Petition of Appeal to the House of Lords against the order made by The

Right Honourable Lord Justice Keene on the 23rd March 2006 be dismissed on the

grounds that.

(1) by virtue of Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 no appeal lies

to the House of Lords against the said order.

(2) this is not in any event a case where permission to appeal to the House of

Lords should be granted.

6

JUDICIALOFFICE HOUSE OF LORDS

LONDON SW1A 0PW

Telephone: 020-7219 3111 Facsimile: 020-7219 2476

www.parliament.uk HOLJUDICIALO FFJ CE@parliament.uk

28 March 2006 Dear Mr Lawrence,

Karl Lawrence v Department of Trade and Industry

Further to your correspondence, your Order from the Court of Appeal in the above matter dated 23 March 2006 has been examined.

In accordance with Practice Direction 1.15 (copy of latest Practice Directions applicable to Petitions for Leave to Appeal enclosed), I must advise you that your petition is inadmissible. This is because the Court of Appeal refused you permission to appeal to that Court from a lower court - see Practice Direction 1.14(a).

This letter confirms that, for the purpose of determining whether you have satisfied the requirement laid down by Article 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all domestic remedies have been exhausted in this matter. You will therefore be able to make an appeal to the Strasbourg Court.

Nonetheless, if you wish your case to be placed before an Appeal Committee, you should prepare a petition for leave to appeal, and submit two copies with a copy of the Order and the fee of £570.00 to this Office. Should you require further information to assist you in this, please contact the Judicial Office.

Yours sincerely

Irene Bowles Office Manager

Mr K Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfleld Street Bermondsey London SEl OSB

7

Court 66. App No.: A2/2006/0233

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Bayfield StreetBermondsey London SE I 0SB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Lord Justice Keene C/o Ms C Brown Civil Appeals Office Room E328 Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL

Date: 25th March 2006

Re.: K. Lawrence v Department of Trade & Industry

Dear Sir,

I attended a hearing, 23rd March 2006, on leave to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which took place in Court 66 in front of you. The application for permission to appeal was refused. However, I am now seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords and it was brought to my attention that I would need to have your permission to further this case in the United Kingdom. I am here by asking you to grant me permission to take this case to the House of Lords. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Karl Lawrence

8

r,<,tQ ., . " t2~ Her Majesty's Court of Appeal

24 MAR 2006 6.THURSDAY 23RD MARCH 2006

r,<,tQ ., . " t2~ Her Majesty's Court of Appeal

24 MAR 2006 BEFORE LORD JUSTICE KEENE - and - DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY ON READING the Appellant's Notice sealed on the 7th February 2006 filed by the Appellant applying for permission to appeal and permission to rely on further evidence from the order of The Employment Appeal Tribunal (His Honour Judge Peter Clark) dated 25th January 2006 AND ON HEARING Mr Karl Lawrence in person IT IS ORDERED that

9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

6118 /06ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYI\1ENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

EAT058705SM

BETWEEN

KARL LAWRENCE

. COURT 66 Application No

A2/2006/0233

APPELLANT

1. this application for permission to appeal is refused 2. this application for permission to rely on further evidence is refused

[The Court Sat from 10:32 to 11:20]

10

In the: European Court of Human Rights

B

November 1999

February 2003

February 2003

manobjected,

11

legitimately, on the grounds that I had a Formal Grievance procedure and an official complaint to senior management (see Document 42, p128, from para 6, bullet point and 73, p203, para 6) pertaining to AL and therefore this should exclude him, preventing any chance of bias or unfairness.

May 2003 I received a written apology from AL concerning the Bullying and

Harassment charge/complaint made (by me) 17th February 2003

(see Document 60, p163).

24th June 2003 Ken Morris (senior management), Jane Law (HR), Dil Joshi

(union) and I, attended a meeting to resolve the spreadsheet issue

and the SAR process. At this meeting, it was concluded that AL

would, before considering the SAR report, explain (see Document

57, p158-159) or give justification for his derogatory remarks. I

noted the meeting, and each attendee received a copy and no one

objected to the contents of their copied-note.

3rd July 2003 my Union rep and I attended a meeting, but the arrangement

reached on 24th June 2003 meeting, that AL would explain why he

made his derogatory remarks, was completely dishonoured. Ken

Morris (KM) and AL refused to play a part in the arrangement

reach on the 24th June 2003. The union rep, then, called an end to

the meeting given their refusal to honour the arrangement reach

prior.

Sir Robin Young (permanent secretary) was informed of this

situation via email 3rd July 2003.

15th July 2003 I am charged with misconduct for not progressing my SAR.

22nd July 2003 I attended a disciplinary hearing; I provided the hearing with the

above evidence yet the charge was found against me. To this day

no one has explained away the arrangement reached between

senior management and HR and the Union.

1

November 2003

November 2003

December 2003

December 2003

December 2003

12

15th December 2003 Sir Robin Young (RY) responded (see Document 43, p130 - 131 ) to

my petition, which seek a review to my case.

December 2003

December 2003

December 2003

December 2003

January 2004

January 2004

January 2004

January 2004

13

February 2004

14

7th April 2004 I am dismissed by Rosemary Heyhoe (HR head of Operations) for

Gross Misconduct (see Document 62, p165-168), it consisted three

charges:

1. Failure to carry out specific instructions, by not completing

the 02/03 SAR;

2. Refusal to carry out request to make travel and hotels

bookings; and

3. Being vexatious, continue to raise issues

The Penalty Letter of 7th April 2004 reflects nothing of the

notes/minutes of that disciplinary hearing, taken by the union and

Ms Heyhoe’s own note takers (see Document 63, p169, and 64,

p170-176). She has admitted these discrepancies. But has never

apologised for doing so.

30th April 2004 I lodge an appeal against the decision.

2nd June 2004 I attended an appeal hearing, presided over by Shirley Pointer

(head of HR).

8th July 2004 my appeal is dismissed.

25th October 2004 my appeal to the CSAB (Civil Service Appeal Board) is heard.

16th November 2004 the CSAB dismissed my appeal.

January 2006

February 2006

February 2006

15

Appellant's Notice Notes for guidance are available which will help you complete this form. Please read them carefully before you complete each section.

For Court use only

In the Appeal Court

Seal

I Appeal Court I Reference No.

Date filed I

7.

Name of court: Employment Appeal Tribunal -------------- Case or claim

number

I

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM]

Names of claimants/ applicants/ petitioner

Karl Lawrence. Names of defendants/ respondents

I

! Department of Trade and Industry I .. .

In the case or claim, were you the (tick appropriate box)

claimant

defendant

applicant

respondent

petitioner

other (please specify)

Your (appellant's) name Karl Lawrence

Your solicitor's name N/ a (If you are legally represented)

Your (your solicitor's) address

7 Albury Buildings, reference orBoyfield Street, contact name Karl Lawrence

London SE1 0SB contact telephonenumber 0207 928 7394

DXnumber

N161 Appellant's Notice (10.00) Printed on behalf of The Court Service

16

X

8.

Respondent's name

Solicitor's name

Department of Trade and Industry

Treasury Solicitors _______________________________________________________________________________________________(if the respondent is legally represented) 9.

Respondent's (solicitor's) contact address one

Kemble Street, London WC2B 4T3

Details of other respondents are attached [ ] Yes [x] No

Section 4Section 5

reference or contact name

contact telephone number

DXnumber

Alexandra Wilson

1020 7210 3000 (GTN21 0) 1123242

Kingsway

Do not complete if appealing to the Court of Appeal

Days Minutes Hours How long do you estimate it will take to put your appeal to the appeal court at the hearing?

Who will represent you at the appeal hearing? [x] Yourself[ ] Solicitor [ ] Counsel

10.

Section 5

Was the order you are appealing made as the result of a previous appeal? Yes [x] No [x]

Name of Judge

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Date of order(s)

25 th January 2006

. If only part of an order is appealed, write out that part (or those parts)

I seek to have the whole of the order appealed.

Was the case allocated to a track? Yes [ ] No [x]

If Yes, which track \VU3 the cu:;c allocated to? [ ] small claims track. [ ] fast track [ ] multi-track

Is the order you are appealing a case management order? Yes [x] No [ ]

I Section 6 I Permission

Has permission to appeal been granted?

Yes [ ] complete box A No [x] complete box B

if you are asking for permission or it is not required 11.

A

Date of order granting permission _________________

Name of judge _______________________________

Name of court

B [ ] I do not need permission

[x] I

appellant ( solicitor ) seek permission to appeal the order(s) at section 5 above.

Are you making any other applications? If Yes, complete section 10

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Is.the appellant in receipt of legal aid certificate or a community legal service fund (CLSF) certificate?

Yes [ ] No [x]

Does your appeal include any issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998? Yes [x] · No [ ]

I Section 7 I (the appellant) appeal(s) the order(s) at section 5 because: Please find attached my grounds for appeal

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SMIn the Appeal Court

BETWEEN: - KARL LAWRENCE APPELLANT

- and -

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY RESPONDENT

Section 7 Grounds of Appeal

AFFIDAVIT

Commencement of Affidavit:

I, Karl Lawrence (D.O.B: 28th July 1951) of 7 Albury Buildings, Boyfield Street, London SE1 0SB, make oath and say: -

Perverse

I the appellant appeal the order at section 5 because:1. The three charges which led to my dismissal was not properly considered bearing in mind

that I used the two test cases: Bhs v Burchell (1980) and Iceland Frozen Food Limited v Jones (1982) to show, and demonstrate (in the parameters outline by these two case law), that a reasonable employer could not have concluded dismissal was the appropriate step to take given the evidence presented (and was available) to the Respondent/employer (in terms of the necessary investigations that would be needed to be conducted) and the Employment Tribunal. Please refer to skeleton argument(s) submitted to EAT:

a. Sir Robin Young (Permanent Secretary) and Secretary of State Ms Patricia Hewitt gave leave to maintain communication with them (on an “Open office Policy” basis);

b. It will also be seen that the officer who was nominated to write up my SAR (Staff Appraisal Report) report had two outstanding complaints against him (one to do with Bulling and Harassment); brought by myself;

c. Two pieces of evidence presented were dismissed as irrelevant by the Chairman:i. Mr Ian McKenzie’s (Head of Unit) email of the 10th March 2004, which

shows that my duties/tasks were substantially reduced; andii. An email that shows that the DTI HR did not carry out an investigation

requested by Sir Robin Young.

2. Even though this documented-evidence clearly supported my case in defence, the Chairman did not exercise his obligation, and his responsibility, to ensure the Human Rights Act 1998, or the European Convention of Human Rights: being entitled to a “fair trial/hearing” (Article 6), was complied with; but rather to ignore it. The EAT should have been minded of this, but they were not.

3. The Chairman, Mr Downs, of the Employment Tribunal (ET) only considered by case before him on substantive issues and refused to consider my objections that it should also be on procedural unfairness grounds. My IT1 and accompanied papers sent to the ET clearly stated that my defence would be on procedural unfairness grounds; plus, in my opening argument submitted to the bench this was clearly stated. But notwithstanding all of this the Chairman insisted the hearing would only consider substantive issues and not procedural unfairness.

In contrast, the Respondent’s written submission to my Grounds of Appeal, dated 2nd Nov 2005, acknowledged that I had the right to set aside the Order, case management order. But the Chairman, completely ignoring my inexperience in such matters, never brought this option to my attention. Thus his obligation to ensure the Human Rights Act 1998, or the European Convention of Human Rights: being entitled to a “fair trial/hearing” (Article 6) was completely ignored.

As can be seen from the above, therefore, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) could not have taken these points into consideration.

4. It was made clear to the Employment Appeal Tribunal that I was only allowed to read a few sentences from two paragraphs of my statement; while the Respondent’s witnesses (three) were allowed to read their statements from start to finish (this was not disputed by ET). This actually showed a bias toward the Respondent, yet the EAT saw this as good practice (thus Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, or European Convention of Human Rights, being entitled to a fair trial/hearing, was not satisfied).

5. I made two submissions, an opening and a closing argument(s), to the ET. I submitted the opening argument(s) to the bench and was told by the Chairman that at the appropriate time I would be allowed to read aloud my opening arguments. The Chairman did not comeback to me. I submitted my closing argument(s) on the final day to the bench, and before hearing the Respondent’s closing argument(s), which is the case, the Chairman handed over my closing argument(s) to the Respondent’s barrister. Thus I was denied the opportunity to deliver my closing argument(s) and in the process the Respondent was made aware of the contents of my closing argument(s) before the Respondent had delivered their closing argument(s). This actually showed a bias toward the Respondent (thus Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, or European Convention of Human Rights, being entitled to a fair trial/hearing, was not satisfied).

6. On the second day of the Employment Tribunal hearing, midway through the hearing, the Chairman made a remark which can only be considered as prejudicial: “I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions”. As explained in the documents presented to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, this statement was made because my submitted statement, to the ET, did not conformed to Tribunal conventional-numbering system. I reported this remark at the conclusion of the hearing to the Regional Chairman. This related correspondence was brought into evidence at the EAT.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal accepted my version but concluded the Chairman was in his right to make such a statement, and without referring to the fact that the Chairman gave a completely different reasoning for making the statement. It is important to make clear at this point that I showed the EAT that the reason the Chairman gave, in his Affidavit, for making the remark was inconsistent, I would have had to have read my statement and then he would be able to ask questions on it. But at that point I had not read my statement. It is quite clear, then, that the EAT realised the inconsistence in the

Chairman’s affidavit and therefore accepted my version. But by doing so the EAT has compounded one inconsistency with another. There is no doubt from the foregoing that a presumption of guilt was made. And in any case making such a statement would be completely contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (or the European Convention of Human Rights).

7. My bundles were not used in the panel’s, ET, deliberations – even though it was used throughout the hearing, in all cross-examinations (including myself). This was not satisfactorily addressed by the EAT. Also, because the bundles were not used it would become impossible to locate and draw up on my references in my statement and elsewhere. Thus the lay members (and Chairman) would not have had the benefit of the reference(s) during the deliberations; none would be obtainable without the bundles. Thus by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (or European Conventions of Human Rights), I was deprived of a fair and unbiased hearing. The EAT did not pick up on this discrepancy (in law).

8. I submitted, to the EAT, “new evidence”, 29th Dec 2005, obtained from the Cabinet Office, from Sir Gus O’Donnell (Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service). This evidence, via his letter to me dated 21st December 2005, shows that the Permanent Secretaries have “…ultimate responsibility for all resources, including human, of their departments.”; and that the only grounds for “…disagreement between …” HR and Permanent Secretaries would be “…on point of employment law”. Yet the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed this new evidence, which would have shown that the dismissing officer, Ms Rosemary Heyhoe, could not have been in a position to overrule his, Sir Robin Young’s, (and Secretary of State Patricia Hewitt’s) decision allowing members of staff to maintain communication with them. This communication came under the heading “Open Office Policy”, which Sir Robin Young and Patricia Hewitt promoted on the 1st July 2003 at the DTI HQ conference centre under the heading “Raising the Barriers Conference”.

ANTHONY GOLD, 169 WALWORTH ROAD,LONDON SE17 1 RW

6th February

I Section 8 My skeleton argument is:-

[ ] set out below [X] attached [ ] will follow within 14 days of filing this notice

1 (the appellant) will rely on the following arguments at the hearing of the appeal:- Please find attached my skeleton argument(s).

12.

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM

In the Appeal Court

BETWEEN: -

I Section 8

KARL LAWRENCE

- and -

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

Skeleton Argument(s)

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

I the appellant will rely on the following arguments at the hearing of the appeal: -

Introduction:

This appeal will raise a number of points, The points of law shall be dealt with on the basis of Bhs v Burchell (1980) and Iceland Frozen Food Limited v Jones (1982); as well as pointing out deficiency in applying Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (now in forced in the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country).

The Case Law will dwell on the three charges (brought by the Respondent to justify dismissal) to demonstrate that a reasonable employer who had carried out an investigation (as demanded by at least one of these case law) would never consider that the merits of the investigation (bearing in mind the evidence available) warranted dismissal; it will likewise show that the Employment Appeal Tribunal failed to take account of the Employment Tribunal Respondent's failure to employ these test cases effectively or chose to deduce a perverse conclusion.

Article 6 will dwell on the way the Employment Tribunal dealt with my case before it, as well as the failure of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to pick up on the gross deficiency of the Employment Tribunal in its handling of the case and to ensure that Article 6 of the European Conventions of Human Rights were adhered to: right to a fair trial hearing.

Perverse 1. The EAT failed to remedy the deficiencies employed by the Respondent and the

Employment Tribunal (BT):

a. I am maintaining: Given the evidence that was available to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in support of the points of law raised, as set out in the skeleton argument(s) (refer to: Document 12) presented to the EAT: the charges should not have lead to dismissal and that at least the EAT should have pick up on the unfairness of the employer and the Employment Tribunal, and that

b. There was overwhelming evidence presented in support of each charge as outline in the skeleton argument(s) and tracked by the Chronology of events (refer to: Document 6) presented to the EAT.

2. The three charges in respect of the two Case Laws above:

13.Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM

a. The vexatious charge should never have been included it is completely without foundation. I will be relying on Documents 43, 44, 45, and 46 (of the bundle). I will also be relying on evidence that was ruled as irrelevant by the ET Chairman, Document 47 (of the bundle). I will be bring to the attention of the court the "new evidence" presented to the EAT but was thrown out. And, I will be pointing out that Sir Robin Young who was directly involved and who, along with SoS Patricia Hewitt, invited me, along with all minority member of the DTI staff, to approach them with complaints or concerns in the workplace, was invited to attend the Employment Tribunal to give evidence, pertaining to this charge, but the request made via the witness order was rejected. This is a direct failure to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6 - fair hearing/trial.

b. The SAR report not unlike the Vexatious charge above was conducted in a perverse way. My Chronology of events documents that period: March 2003-February 2004. The main area of contention for completing the SAR report was that I had objected, legitimately, on the grounds that I had a Formal Grievance procedure and an official complaint to senior management against Andrew Lapworth (line manager) and therefore he should have been excluded from writing up my SAR report in the interest of fairness. I will be relying on Documents 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 77 (of the bundle).

c. The Refusal charge fail to take account of two pieces of evidence: my email to Andrew Lapworth (line manager) reminding him of changes he had made to my duties (to which he had not responded) and Ian McKenzie's (unit manager) email, 10th March 2004, supporting my position on this issue/point. However, the ET Chairman ruled Ian McKenzie's email irrelevant. I will be relying on Documents 48 and 61 (of the bundle).

3. The conduct of the ET Chairman and the way he handled evidence put before the hearing was incompatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention: that one has a right to a fair tria1/hearing:

a. From the outset the Chairman refuse to consider the case on the grounds of procedural irregularities even though the ETI and accompanied papers, and my statement based its argument on procedural irregularities of management and HR. Given my defence was based, exclusively, on procedural unfairness/irregularities, I should have been given the option to varied the Order, but instead the Chairman insist the hearing would be on substantive issues in the face of my objections. The EAT dismiss this point of law: one has a right to a fair tria1/hearing. I will be relying on Documents 15, 17, 18, 19, 26, and 75 (of the bundle).

b. In the Respondent written submission to my grounds of appeal, it is stated I did not "sought to have the order set aside" (Document 15, of the bundle). I could not have done so because I did not know I could

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM

have made such a request. The Chairman should have brought this option to my attention rather than insisting there was no other option but through the Case Management Discussion Order.

c. My statement was stricken out but for a couple of paragraphs (and I did not completely read those paragraphs); while the Respondent's witnesses read their statement from beginning to end. I will be relying on Document 73 (of the bundle).

d. I submitted my open arguments and was never allowed to read it. At the closing of the hearing, I submitted my closing arguments but it was passed to the Respondent even though I had not heard the Respondent's closing argument, again I was deprived of reading my closing arguments. I will be relying on Document 75 and 76 (of the bundle).

e. The Chairman made inappropriate remarks, which presumed my guilt: "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions". When shown that his assumption was misplaced he made no attempt, whatsoever, to apologised. I will be relying on Document 23 (of the bundle).

f. My bundle was not used in the panel's deliberation - even though it was used throughout the hearing. Hence all reference that was made to the bundle the panel members would not have had the benefit of reviewing because those references e.g. in my statement, could only be located via the bundle because of the structure of the bundle. I will be relying on Document 13 and 24 (of the bundle).

g. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the Employment Tribunal did not apply Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones test fairly (if at all) in accordance with equity and the substantive merits of the case, because if this test had been done, using the facts of the case, available to both the respondent and the Tribunal, it would have become apparent by way of Bhs v Burchell test (virtue of an investigation), which is incumbent on the Respondent to apply, that this test failed to support the Respondent in his "belief' and in his/her "investigation" to prove that belief Therefore, "the Employment Tribunal [would be] free to substitute its view for that of the employers' ... “

4. The case law that I will use in my defence will be the two elements that are applied in (all) unfair dismissal cases: British Home Stores v Burchell, [1980], Industrial Case Report (ICR)

page: 303

According to the BHS v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 case, the employer

must show that:

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM

1. he/she believed the employee had committed the act of misconduct for which he was

dismissed - i.e. the employer must show the fact of that belief;

2. he/she had reasonable grounds for having that belief - for example, he/she had evidence

of the misconduct; and

3. he/she had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances

at the time at which he formed the belief that the employee was guilty of the misconduct

Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones, [1982], Industrial Relations Law Report (IRLR)

page: 439

That part of the report relating to: " ... within the band or range of reasonable responses

which a reasonable employer might make"

14.15.

Section 9 What decision are you asking the appeal court to make?

I (the appellant) am (is) asking that: -

(tick appropriate box)

the order(s) at section 5 be set aside

the order(s) at section 5 be varied and the following order(s) substituted :-

a new trial be ordered

the appeal court makes the following additional orders :-

5

X

X

16.

I Section 10 I

I wish to make an application for additional orders in this section

in the Part 23 application form (N244) attached

Part A I apply (the appellant applies) for an order (a draft of which is attached) that: -

because :-

Part 8 I (we) wish to rely on:

evidence in Part C

witness statement (affidavit)

Part C 1 (we) wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:-

Statement of Truth 1 believe (the appellant believes) that the facts stated in Section 10 are true.

Full name

Name of appellant's solicitor's firm ___________________________________________________________________________

signed ~

Appellant ('S solicitor)

position or office held

(if signing on behalf of firm or company)

17.

I Section 11 I If you do not yet have a document that you intend to use to support your appeal, identify it, give the date when you expect it to be available and give the reasons why it is not currently available in the box below.

Please tick the papers you are filing with this notice and any you will be filing later.

Your skeleton argument (if separate)

A copy of the order being appealed

A copy of any order giving or refusing permission to appeal together with a copy of the reasons for that decision

Any witness statements or affidavits in support of any application included in this appellant's notice

A copy of the legal aid or CLSF certificate (if legally represented)

A bundle of documents for the appeal hearing containing copies of your appellant's notice and all the papers listed

above and the following:-

a suitable record of the reasons for the judgment of the lower court;

any statements of case;

any other affidavit or witness statement filed in support of your appeal;

any relevant transcript or note of evidence;

any relevant application notices or case management documents;

any skeleton arguments relied on by the lower court;

relevant affidavits, witness statements, summaries, experts' reports and exhibits;

any other documents ordered by the court; (give details)

in a second appeal, the original order appealed, the reasons given for making that order and the appellant's notice

appealing that original (first) order

if the appeal is from a decision of a Tribunal, the Tribunal's reasons for that decision, the original decision

reviewed by the Tribunal and the reasons for that original decision

Reasons why you have not supplied a document and date when you expect it to be available: - I have not supplied a suitable record of the EAT reason for their decision, but I have applied for an approved copy I am now awaiting its arrival; but I cannot say when I will receive it.

Signed

Appellant ('s Solicitor)

8

Appeal NO.ulZEAT/0587/05/SM

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y ODS

At the Tribunal On 25 January 2006

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR P GAMMON MBE

MR A HARRIS

MR K LAWRENCE APPELLANT

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

For the Appellant

UKEAT/0587/05/SM

APPEARANCES

In Person

18.SUMMARY

Unfair dismissal- reasonableness of dismissal

Practice and Procedure - bias, misconduct, and procedural irregularity

Unfair dismissal -- ET procedural irregularity. No error of law. Appeal dismissed.

UKEAT/0587/05/SM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK A

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of Mr Lawrence's appeal against the judgment of the

London (South) Employment Tribunal promulgated with Reasons on 15 June 2005, following a B

3 day hearing, dismissing his complaint of Unfair Dismissal brought against his former'

employer, the Respondent, the Department of Trade and Industry.

c Background

2. The Claimant was dismissed for what was characterized by the Respondent as gross

misconduct on 8 April 2004, following a final disciplinary interview with Ms Heyhoe, Head of

D Operations in the Human Resources section held on 24 March. Against that decision he

appealed internally without success. He launched these proceedings by an Originating

Application lodged with the Tribunal on 2 July 2004.

E 3. The matter came on for a directions hearing before a Chairman, Ms C E Taylor, sitting

alone on 17 February 2005. The Claimant was then represented by a trade union official; Mr

Cobham. By her Order issued in writing on 23 February Ms Taylor identified the issues in the

F case as follows:

"2 The case for the Claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed because the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events.

G

H

3 It is for the Tribunal to determine whether the Respondent's decision to dismiss the Claimant fell outside of the band of reasonable responses available to an employer.

4 The Claimant seeks reinstatement."

4. The case came on for substantive hearing before a Tribunal chaired by Mr MJ Downs

on 18 May. At paragraph 2 of that Tribunal's reasons it is recorded that at the beginning and

end of the case the parties (Mr Lawrence then appearing in person) accepted, in line with the

lJKEAT 05 87/05/SM

- 1 -

issues identified by Ms Taylor, that the Tribunal "vas concerned with substantive issues and that A

any question of procedural unfairness was of no significant concern.

B

c

5. As appears from the Tribunal's findings of fact, the Respondent believed that the Claimant had refused to

obey management instructions. Taken together the Tribunal found that the Claimant was obdurate and

obstructive and behaving in a way which was contrary to clear instructions. He had become unmanageable. In

these circumstances dismissal on grounds of conduct fell within the range of reasonable responses open to his

employer. The dismissal, so the Tribunal found, was fair.

D 6. By his Notice of Appeal the Appellant complains that the Tribunal was biased; it failed

to consider his case that the Respondent was guilty of procedural unfairness and that the procedure

adopted by the Tribunal was irregular and unfair. The Respondent has responded to those arguments on

paper in accordance with the direction which I gave at paragraph 3 of an E

Order dated 24 October 2005.

7. Further, the Claimant was ordered by HHJ McMullen QC on 23 August to lodge an

F affidavit setting out his allegations of bias or improper conduct 01). the part of the Tribunal. He

did so, his affidavit being dated 25 August, repeating effectively his Grounds of Appeal. The Chairman'

and members of the Employment Tribunal have responded to that affidavit m writing, the Chairman's

comments being in the form of an affidavit dated 6 October 2005. G

8. Prior to this hearing the Claimant submitted a skeleton argument on 15 November and today he has

advanced all of the points which he takes in this appeal. It is to those submissions

H that we must now turn.

lJKEAT 05 87/05/SM

A (' 7. First, he challenges the Respondent's conclusion that he was guilty of each of the three

B

c

charges levelled against him. They were in summary: first that he was being vexatious;

I secondly, that he failed to complete his staff appraisal report (SAR); and, thirdly, that he

refused to carry out official instructions in relation to hotel and travel bookings.

10. In this connection, particularly in relation to the first charge, he has sought permission to

adduce fresh evidence which was not before the Tribunal in the form of a letter dated 21

December 2005, written to him in reply to his letter dated 30 November, from Sir Gus

O'Donnell, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service. We have considered

that letter - plainly it was not available at the Employment Tribunal hearing. However, we are

D not satisfied that it is of sufficient relevance to the matters in issue to have had any appreciable

effect on the outcome.

E

11. The background is that Mr Lawrence contented that the decision of the dismissal officer,

F

G

Ms Heyhoe, was in contravention of a clear indication given by both the Secretary of State and

the Permanent Secretary in the Department 'that minority members of staff were free to contact

those senior figures. Sir Gus O'Donnell in his letter, asked the question whether Human

Resources can overrule commitments made by either the Permanent Secretary or Secretary of

State, said it was very difficult to comment in general terms without knowing the specific

circumstances of the case. He concluded that it would be unlikely there would be obvious

disagreement between HR Directors and Permanent Secretaries other than perhaps on points of

employment law.

12.

The first charge was concerned not with the fact that the Appellant was making constant

comm

unications with members of the Department rather that he was continuing to do so when

- 3 -

the issues that he sought to raise had already been dealt with. In these

A circumstances we cannot see that this letter passes the test for the admission of fresh evidence.

13. The Appellant raises a number of arguments based on the evidence which was before B

the Employment Tribunal designed to show that the Respondent could not have properly

concluded that he was guilty of the charges. He has, quite properly, referred us to the decisions

of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones and British Homes c

Stores v Burchell as to the test to be applied in considering conduct unfair dismissal cases.

14. The question is whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds

D following a reasonable investigation in the employee's guilt of the charges leveled against him.

It is not for the Employment Tribunal, and certainly not for this Appeal Tribunal, to form its

own view as to whether or not those charges were made out. It seems to us that the Tribunal

was entitled to conclude that those stages of the so-called Burchell test had been passed in this E

case.

15. We turn next to the various complaints of procedural irregularities on the part of the

F Tribunal. Mr Lawrence contended that the procedure followed by the Tribunal breached

Article 6 of the European Convention on human rights and, in particular, his right to a fair trial

and the presumption of innocence. We think that the first principle applies but not the second,

which is concerned with criminal cases. G

16. His first point is that the Chairman of the Tribunal wrongly ruled that the Tribunal

would not consider any arguments about procedural irregularities in the course of the internal

H disciplinary process. He refers us to his opening statement to the Tribunal which raises

- 4 -

A questions of procedural irregularity. It is important, in the present climate in which Tribunals '

operate under the 2004 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, that the issues are clearly

defined and that the Tribunal adjudicates only on those issues.

B 17. We have earlier set out the issues which Ms Taylor ordered to be tried at the Directions'

Hearing. The Tribunal followed those issues and we see no reason for interfering with the

Tribunal's approach based on those clearly understood issues. Secondly, he complains that his c

Witness statement was in part deleted by the Chairman. We think the explanation for that is

simply that the Tribunal were concerned to limit the evidence to the issues identified by Ms

Taylor. Thirdly, he complains that he was not allowed to read out his opening and closing

D statements. His principal objection appears to be that a copy of his written closing argument

was given to the Respondent when he produced it. We can see no objection to that course in

circumstances where the Tribunal read the closing submissions. They were taken as read and,

E therefore, in fairness to the Respondent it was right that they should have an opportunity to

consider what was contained in those written submissions.

18. Next, he takes exception to a remark made by the Chairman during the course of the

F hearing. The remark itself, which is not disputed by the Chairman, is as follows. The

Chairman said to the Appellant, "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out

instructions." Mr Lawrence submits that that is an indication that the Chairman presumed guilt

during the hearing without waiting until the conclusion of the hearing. We think that remark G

has to be put in context and helpfully Mr Lawrence has supplied the context. It was as the

Chairman was reading through Mr Lawrence's Witness statement. Witness statements should

be numbered sequentially, paragraph by paragraph. Mr Lawrence's Witness statement was

H organized under headings with sub-paragraphs under each heading, each beginning number

UKEAT /0587 /05/SM

- 5 -

one, It seems to us that that remark, when seen in that context, does not amount to an indication ,', r'\

. of prejudging the issues in the case.

19. The next point relates to bundles of documents. The Order made by Ms Taylor at the B

directions hearing provided for the Respondent. to produce a single bundle for use by the

Tribunal at the substantive hearing. The Appellant was to provide documents to go into that

bundle. It seems that no agreement was reached before the hearing and consequently each side c

attended with their own bundle.

20, The account given by the Chairman does not appear to be disputed by Mr Lawrence.

D What happened was that the Tribunal Chairman and members extracted from the Appellant's

bundle those additional relevant documents which did not appear in the Respondent's' bundle

and added them to that bundle.

E 21. In these circumstances we can see no realistic prospect of objecting to that simple case

management procedure.

F

22. Finally, he submits that the Tribunal failed to consider his argument that the employer

G

H

had not carried out a proper investigation leading to the decision to dismiss. Notwithstanding

the limitations imposed by Ms Taylor's order it does seem to us that the Tribunal considered the

question of whether or not a proper investigation had been carried out. At paragraph 28 of their

Reasons they say this:

"We find that gross misconduct is a potentially fair reason to dismiss. In addition with some minor caveats it is accepted that the scope and quality of the investigation that was carried out in this case was appropriate, as were the hearings that were conducted by the DTl. On that basis we find that the processes that were used were broadly fair and we note again that it was accepted by both parties that procedural fairness was not an issue in this case."

lJKEAT/0587/05/SM

- 6 -

B

c

D

E

F

G

23. So despite it not being an issue it seems that the Tribunal considered it and adjudicated

on that aspect of the case. Mr Lawrence finally submits that overall the decision of the Tribunal

to find that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses was a perverse one. That is one

which no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could reach.

24. We have considered the decision as a whole and the individual submissions which have been made

in support of this appeal. We are quite satisfied that the high hurdle facing Appellants relying on the

perversity ground is nowhere near met in this particular case. In these circumstances we shall dismiss

this appeal.

lJKEAT/0587/05/SM

El\IPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Appeal No EAT/0587/05/SM

BEFORE

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK MR P GAMMON MBE, BA MR A HARRIS

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal under Section 21(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 from the Judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South and entered in the Register on the 15th day of June 2005

BETWEEN:

MR K LAWRENCE: Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TR.ADE AND INDUSTRY: Respondent

UPON HEARING Mf Karl Lawrence the Appellant in person AND UPON the Appeal having been set down for a Preliminary Hearing pursuant to paragraph 9(7)-( 18) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction 2004

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal be dismissed

THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS that any application for leave to appeal should be made direct to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the seal date of this Order

D ATE D the 25th day of January 2006

TO: Mr Karl Lawrence the Appellant The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent

The Secretary, Central Office of Employment Tribunals, England & Wales

(Case N 0.23031 02/04)

PA/0951/05/SM

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal: 10:30 am, 25th January 2006

BETWEEN: - KARL LAWRENCE

- and-

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

APPELLANT

Respondent

Preliminary Hearing (PH) - "Fresh Evidence"

1. I received on 21st December 2005 a letter from Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB (Secretary of the Cabinet and head of the Home Civil Service) confirming the authority of the Permanent Secretary that is invested in him for his Department.

2. I therefore seek permission to submit this additional evidence, evidence I did not have at the time of the Employment Tribunal hearing. This evidence has been obtained by writing to the Prime Minister Office (Downing Street), from which the Cabinet Office (Whitehall) was contacted - being the Department responsible for such matters - and the required information sought was forthcoming.

3. The Prime Minister's Office was contacted 24th October 2005; they passed on my enquiry to the Cabinet Office, from which I obtained new evidence pertaining to one of the charges which led to my dismissal from the DTI

4. This evidence further support my argument in the "Notice of Appeal" and in the "Skeleton Argument(s)" that the dismissing officer, Ms Rosemary Heyhoe, was not in a position to overrule the Permanent Secretary (and/or Secretary of State's) commitment and pledge (dated 1ST July 2003) to members of the minority staff of the DTI of an "open office policy" where members of staff could get in touch with either of these two senior officers of the DTI The Permanent Secretary did not request that communication between himself and I should stop; and therefore the charge of being Vexatious was groundless.

5. The new evidence clearly states that a disagreement between the Permanent Secretary and his HR department would only be likely on the grounds of employment law. Thus in this particular case the introduction of the Vexatious charge by the disciplinary section of the Human Resources would have no bearing on employment law and would therefore directly overruling the Permanent Secretary's (and the Secretary of State's) authority.

Please find attached the new evidence.

24th December 2005

Cabinet Office

Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB

Secretary of the Cabinet and

Head of the Home Civil

Service

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE1 OSB

21 December 2005

70 Whitehall

London

SW1A2AS

Telephone 02072760101 Fax 020

7276 0208

E-mail guS.odonnell@cabinet-offlCe.x.gsi.gov. uk Web \

W>'W.cabinet-office.gov.uk

Thank you for your letter dated 30 November regarding Human Resources sections in government departments and whether they can overrule commitments made by either that department's Permanent Secretary or Secretary of State.

It is very difficult to comment in general terms without knowing the specific circumstances of a case. HR Directors work very closely with Permanent Secretaries who have ultimate responsibility for all resources, including human, of their departments. It is therefore unlikely that there would be such obvious disagreement between the two other than perhaps on points of employment law.

Gus O'Donnell

Ref: A02005/1833

INVESTOR L'I PEOPLE

PA/095l/05/SM

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal: 10:30 am, 25th January 2006

BETWEEN:- KARL LAWRENCE

- and -

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

Skeleton Argument(s)

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

My objective is to show to the Appeal Tribunal, given that the Employment Tribunal's

decision/conclusion had to be based on factual findings, that the evidence presented to the

hearing, ET, was flawed and was not consistent with events as they occurred and that the

disciplinary procedure (DTI) to investigate was unfair and that the Employment Tribunal failed

to recognise and pick-up on this and the fact that the employer did not acted fairly with the

evidence presented to them at the time.

With the foregoing it is therefore unlikely that the Employment Tribunal could have found the

required factual findings which would have justified the employer's (Respondent) charge of

gross misconduct - given of course, and in addition, that the ET stated (in its judgment), by

reference to the DTI staff Guide, the individual charges did not amount to gross misconduct.

I will layout the case as it was presented to the ET and in so doing the reasons for my

appeal, in terms of the factual findings, which the ET needs to be satisfied with before

coming to its decision/conclusion, will become quite apparent.

My dismissal from the DTI, 8th April 2004, was based on three charges: (a)

being Vexatious;

(b) failing to complete my SAR (Staff Appraisal Report); and

(c) refusing to carry out official instructions (hotel & travel bookings).

So, the Tribunal came to its conclusion based upon the evidence presented to it; but I maintain

and can show that the basis for finding the case in the Respondent favour, based

1

PA/09S1/0S/SM

On factual findings, failed because these factual findings as presented by the Respondent was

not substantiated with the evidence available to the hearing: I will a) show below that the

evidence do not support the factual basis on which the judgment is based and b) then (at the end

of this document) use the two test: Bhs v Burchell (1980) and Iceland Frozen Food Limited v

Jones (1982) to show that a reasonable employer based on the evidence presented in this

document (and was available to the Respondent and the Employment Tribunal) would never

have considered dismissal, much less on gross misconduct:

1. With regards to the Vexatious charge , Sir Robin Young (nor SoS Patricia Hewitt) at

no point made a statement (please read: Document 43, p130-131 and 46,

p136-137) saying I should end my communication (a communication minority staff

were invited, 1st July 2003, to engage in with both these senior officers). Also, it will

be seen that my letter of 13th January 2004 (please read: Document 44, pI32-134)

addressed points raised in his letter I5th December 2003 (please read: Document 43,

p130-131). You will also have notice that in my final letter of 29th October 2004

(please read: Document 45, p135), I seek clarification on Rosemary Heyhoe

(dismissing officer) overriding/-ruling his and secretary of state, Ms Patricia Hewitt,

open office policy and the fact that I was not asked (or informed) to cease

communication. He, Sir Robin, failed to address these points, in his response to me,

and therefore was not forthcoming. As a matter of fact, he did not provide any

clarification nor did he refute my request. He, Sir Robin, was invited to attend the

hearing (ET), via a witness order but the Tribunal turned it down.

2. At the hearing (ET), there was no need to provide evidence that the SoS, Patricia

Hewitt, and the Permanent Secretary, Sir Robin Young, invited minority staff to

approach them with complaints (via their new open office policy). The 1st July 2003

Raising the Barriers Conference was called in order to inform minority staff of this new

procedure. This is not in dispute, this is a fact accepted by the DTI and the Tribunal.

What is in question, however, (and in dispute) is: did Sir Robin Young told me to cease

correspondence and was Rosemary Heyhoe in a position

2

PA/0951105/SM

to override/-rule both Sir Robin and Ms Hewitt. To the latter, when the Chairman

(Tribunal hearing) asked Rosemary Heyhoe: can you override (decisions of) these

officials, she said yes. And this is without providing a shred of evidence to back it up; I

can only presume her statement was believed and accepted.

3. In an email from Louise Sexton dated 18t December 2003 (please read: Document 47,

p138), it is stated "We shall be advising Robin that he has [no locus] in the matter, and

Dick [Graham, union rep] that we are not prepared to consider the case as a grievance."

It is quite clear from that statement there was no investigation carried out on behalf of

Sir Robin Young. Therefore my question to Rosemary Heyhoe (dismissing officer) was

why - but she was unable to answer this question, and it's at this point the chairman

intervened and ruled (in her favour) the document irrelevant. Given the foregoing plus I

was never asked to cease correspondence with Sir Robin, and Rosemary Heyhoe cannot

override/rule the permanent secretary and the Secretary of State, what would be the

basis of fact for this particular charge, on which the judgment was found against me?

4. With regards to the SAR (Staff Appraisal Report) charge , the reason the SAR report was

not dealt with earlier, in May 2003, was that I objected to Andrew Lapworth (my line

manager at the time) writing the report - on quite legitimate grounds. I had made two

complaints to senior management concerning Andrew Lapworth's behaviour (bullying,

and derogatory remarks about my work-performance, please read: Documents 57,

p158-159 and 58, p160 and 59, p161-162). And with two investigations in progress the

task of preparing the SAR report should have been transferred to someone neutral; but

management refused to acknowledge this anomaly, which was a clear breach of

procedure. But notwithstanding this situation, an agreement was reached with senior

management and HR (Human Resource) and the Union (please read: Document 57,

p158-159) that before Andrew Lapworth wrote up the SAR report he would explain

why he made his uncalled for remarks, derogatory-remarks. This agreement, which was

initiated by the union and minuted/noted by me and distributed to senior

3

19.PA/0951/05/SM

management and HR, was never disputed, but it was never honoured (the ET

refused to consider the notes of that meeting, with the Chairman stating "because

management did not respond to the notes that don't make the notes truthful").

Andrew Lapworth refused, in the presence of his line manager, to conduct the

meeting along the agreed lines. (This is the officer who made the derogatory

remarks and who provided me with a written apology - please read: Document 60,

p163 - in May 2003 for the bullying complaint and who management wanted to

write-up my SAR report in March 2003 whilst there were the two outstanding

complaints against him.) The union and I then decided to call an end to the meeting.

And it was at this point (the first) disciplinary charges were brought. I attended a

hearing (which Rosemary Heyhoe - dismissing officer - found against me) 22nd July

2003. I appeal that decision and even though the appeal was turndown 5 th November

2003, the union referred the case back on the grounds that the adjudicating officer

had stated there were no 'new evidence' - this is not a requirement in the DTI Guide.

I received a response to this on the 2nd December 2003, it was not found in my

favour. Hence this is the reason why the SAR was not dealt with earlier. (While

there was an on going appeal there was no need to sign and return the SAR report,

which was the current practice.)

5. With regards to the signing of the SAR and its return, the email I sent 22nd January

2004 (please read: Document 53, p144) contained the union's response and neither

Ian McKenzie nor Andrew Lapworth got back to me on that issue. We, the union

and I, took that to mean they were in agreement with the present position. (Also,

please note from the Chronology, that during December 2003 into January 2004

illness along with annual leave further delay the signing of the SAR report.)

6. Further, I needed to have the union's position on the fact that both the line

manager and countersigning officer had made their commentaries (please read:

Document 52, p143), in the SAR report (please read: Document 54, p145-152),

before I had had a chance to comment on the line manager's commentary - this

4

PA/0951/05/SM

step contravene the DTI Guide - and therefore I needed a form of words from the union

to insert in the SAR report on this point in order to address this new issue (refer to

Document 77, p246, from para(s) 15.28 to 15.31) Given the foregoing, what would be

the basis of fact for this particular charge, on which the judgment was found against

me?

7. With regards to refusing to carry out official instructions (hotel & travel

bookings), on 28th January 2004 I sent an email (please read: Document 61,

P164) to Andrew Lapworth (line manager) reminding him of the changes he add made

to my duties but he completely ignored the email -- he did not reply; this is a vital piece

of correspondence which pertains to the changes to my duties/tasks. (Andrew Lapworth

never acknowledged that correspondence at the time.) Also, an email from Ian

McKenzie (head of unit), 10th March 2004 (please read:

Document 48, p139), further support and demonstrated and put my position into

context. The contents of Mr McKenzie email showed that my duties were reduce. (Yet

the employer and Tribunal did not take this into account, why?) Also, the matter of my

duties was referred to the union for their advice. Andrew Lapworth was aware of this

and as stated in his statement he was awaiting a response from the union. All the facts

were place before the Tribunal (along with the fact that the Respondent was unable to

produce any documents which would or could provide a definition of its job

descriptions), but the Chairman refused to consider Mr Ian McKenzie's email of 10th

March 2004 and treated it as irrelevant; but by Bhs v Burchell the employer aught to

have conducted an efficient and unbiased investigation to justify their "belief of guilt"

that could lead to a decision for dismissal. Given the facts presented, what would be the

basis of fact for this particular charge, on which the judgment was found against me?

Objections to certain aspects of the Chairman's (ET) ruling, which certainly influence the

outcome of the hearing:

8. The Chairman ruled he would only be considering the case on substantive issues not on

procedural unfairness. My opening arguments (please read: Document 75,

5

PA/095l/05/SM

P211-213) made it quite clear that my defence would be based on procedural

irregularities; and as can be seen from the ETI (and its supporting documents, please

read: Documents 17, p75-76, and 18, p77-79 and 19, p80-87), the body of my defence

was exclusively reliant on procedural unfairness. By refusing to consider procedural

unfairness (please read: Document 26, p99-100), the Chairman had substantially

reduced my chances of defending myself properly (this would effectively undermined

my Human Rights). The fact that the ETI and my statement, along with my opening

arguments, demonstrated the direction my defence would take made it incumbent on the

Chairman to find an appropriate solution as oppose to insisting, as he did, the base upon

which my defence rest would be ignored. The Chairman did not consider the defence I

presented, in terms that one should have a reasonable defence and in this way my

defence was prejudiced.

9. In contrast to the Respondent's written submission (Document 15, p68, para 7,

subsection 2, line 11) to my Grounds of Appeal, I could not have known and therefore

"sought to have that Order set aside." It was incumbent on the Chairman to make clear

the options available to me, given my lack of experience (none) in employment law,

which he, the Chairman, was aware. He was therefore obliged, by law, to give

necessary advice, with respect to point(s) raised with him, but instead of doing so he

pressed on that the proceedings would be about substantive issues; completely

disregarding my inexperience in such situation. Thus his obligation to ensure that my

Human Rights were complied with was completely ignored.

10. With regards to my Witness Statement (please read: Document 73, pI99-208), I

submitted a ten-page document and only two paragraphs of that document I was

allowed to read aloud (the remainder was stricken-out by the Chairman as irrelevant),

while the Respondent's witnesses were all allowed to read their statements aloud (with

one exception, Ian McKenzie did not read one of his paragraphs). All statements were

over five pages. I can assure all concern I did not agree to read (aloud) only two

paragraphs of my ten-page document (as

6

PAJ0951/05/SM

intimated by the Chairman). To have done so would show a high degree of stupidity.

By depriving me of the remaining paragraphs of my statement the Chairman actually

prejudiced my defence and the outcome of the hearing (because the lay members

would not have had the benefit (and privilege) of my statement; but rather would

have had the benefit of the respondent's witness statements).

11. With regards to my Submissions - opening and closing arguments (please read:

Documents 75, p211-213 and 76, p214-218). I submitted my opening arguments with

the understanding (from the Chairman) I would be allowed to read it out, the Chairman

did not come back to me on it. I then submitted my closing arguments (hardcopy) to the

Chairman, hoping to have the opportunity to read it out, but instead the chairman

handed it over to the "Respondent" before I had a chance to hear the Respondent's

closing arguments, this surely prejudiced by case. I am sure the Chairman is not

supposed to prejudice one's case. Thus, I was denied the opportunity to deliver my

closing arguments aloud and in the process the Respondent was made aware of the

contents of my closing arguments before the Respondent had delivered their closing

arguments.

12. With regard to the Chairman's remark midway through the hearing (please read:

Document 23, p96), on the second day of the hearing the Chairman made an

inflammatory and prejudicial statement: "I can see why your managers saw you as

refusing to carry out instructions". This statement made a presumption of guilt midway

through the hearing. It is important, at this point to note the reason the remark was

made. My submitted statement to the hearing did not conformed to Tribunal

conventional-numbering system. And, because I represented myself it was assumed I

had no help in preparing for the case. Therefore the only person that could be held

responsible for the layout of the statement would be me. When he was told it was

submitted via the union he changed the subject immediately he did not apologised for

his unfortunate remark. The question remains: why would a Chairman make such a

statement? Who would benefit by doing so? My

7

PN0951/05/SM

argument is that by making such a statement before the two lay members (of the

panel) my case was prejudiced.

13. With regards to the bundles (please read: Document 24, p97), both the Respondent

and the Claimant bundles were used throughout the hearing - in all cross-examinations

(including myself) - until it came time for the panel to adjudge the case. It is at this

point: " ... the conclusion of the Claimant's evidence in chief. .. " (Document 13, p59,

para 3), that the Chairman decided to discard my bundle. Given my bundles was used

throughout, why would the Chairman deny the lay members the opportunity to use them

in their deliberation?

14. Also, by discarding by bundles it would have become impossible to find references in

my statement and/or closing/opening arguments. The reason for this is that all reference

to documents in my statement etc referred exclusively to my bundle (documents were

referred to by bundle's tab-name and number) without the bundle(s) being present it

would be impossible to locate reference(s). Thus, it is quite clear, therefore, lay

members (and/or Chairman) would not have had the benefit of the reference(s) during

the deliberations; none would be obtainable without the bundles. Just how the

Respondent's bundle would suffice in such a situation would be a puzzle.

15. With regards to: what was the reason for dismissal? It is claimed the employer made

factual findings on the three charges, which led to gross misconduct; but from the

foregoing my argument is that those factual findings are flawed: on the balance of

evidence presented above. And, if the factual findings are flawed and so don't amount

to factual findings, I should have the right to challenge those claims, especially when

the Tribunal has based its findings on those claims (factual findings). Therefore, given

the above in terms of factual findings, the Employment Tribunal conclusion on those

factual findings would be unsound.

8

20.PA/0951/05/SM

The case law I will use in my defence will be the two elements that are applied in (all) unfair

dismissal cases:

British Home Stores v Burchell, [1980], Industrial Case Report (lCR) page: 303

According to the BHS v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 case, the employer must

show that:

1. he/she believed the employee had committed the act of misconduct for

which he was dismissed - i.e. the employer must show the fact of that belief;

2. he/she had reasonable grounds for having that belief - for example, he/she had

evidence of the misconduct; and

3. he/she had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in all the

circumstances at the time at which he formed the belief that the employee was

guilty of the misconduct

Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones, [1982], Industrial Relations Law Report

(IRLR) page: 439

That part of the report relating to: " ... within the band or range of reasonable

responses which a reasonable employer might make"

I will now Summarise the three charges using British Home Stores v Burchell and

Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones:

16. From 1, 2 and 3 above, if a proper investigation had been carried out, conducted, in

accordance with Bhs v Burchell dismissal could not have been enforced using Iceland

Frozen Food Ltd v Jones: " ... within the band or range of reasonable responses

which a reasonable employer might make", because a reasonable employer would have

had regard for the two most senior officers (of the organisation) commitment to

minority staff and would not have override/-rule these officers (when no evidence has

been shown that these officers commitment to minority staff could be overruled i.e.

there were no authority); especially when no arguments have been put forward that

their, Permanent Secretary and Secretary

9

PAJ0951/05/SM

of State, commitments violates DTI policy or that they are not in a position to make

commitments to staff It was never shown that the dismissing officer indeed could

disregard these high-ranking officers.

17. The above information was available to the employer and was presented to the

Tribunal; but the Tribunal chose rather to go long with the dismissing officer's

argument that she could override/-rule these high-ranking officers.

18. From 4,5 and 6 above, again from the facts that has been made available in these

paragraphs, if a proper investigation had been conducted as required by Bhs v Burchell

test the conclusion from such an investigation could never have led to a severe

reprimand (issued by Rosemary Heyhoe) as was the case for the disciplinary hearing

attended 22nd July 2003; and again on 25th March 2004, which led to my dismissal on

gross misconduct. For the Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones test to be satisfactorily

applied the test that a proper investigation by virtue of Bhs v Burchell test would need

to be demonstrated. The evidence that these paragraphs contain demonstrates that such

an investigation could never have been undertaken. Thus, from these paragraphs the

test failed.

19. The information was available to the employer, who chose to ignore it. Also, the

Tribunal was made fully aware of this situation.

20. From 7 above, it can be see that I have taken the right approach in the way I addressed

the request to carry out an instruction. I first reminded the officer, via email, of changes

he had made to my duties/tasks (thus my job description was changed). I had no

feedback from that email. I reminded the officer of the email when he approached me

but I received no acknowledgement. I pointed out to the officer, given he wouldn't

acknowledge receipt of the email, I would need, therefore, to seek advice from my

union. And, as stated in 7 above, the changes to my duties can be substantiated by an

email sent 10th March 2004 by Mr Ian McKenzie (head of unit). Thus, if an

investigation was carried out by virtue of

10

21.PA/0951/05/SM

Bhs v Burchell how could a reasonable employer conclude that the evidence

derived from that investigation should lead to dismissal?

21. The above information was available to the employer. As to the Tribunal, it was

made fully aware of this situation as explained above; but chose to further

complicate the situation by treating Mr Ian McKenzie's email, 10th March 2004, as

irrelevant.

22. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the Employment Tribunal did not apply

Iceland Frozen Food Ltd v Jones test fairly (if at all) in accordance with equity and

the substantive merits of the case, because if this test had been done, as illustrated

above, using the facts of the case, available to both the respondent and the Tribunal,

it would have become apparent by way of Bhs v Burchell test, which is incumbent

on the Respondent/employer to apply, that this test failed to support the Respondent

in his "belief' and in his/her "investigation" to prove that belief Therefore, "the

Employment Tribunal [would be] free to substitute its view for that of the

employers' when concluding whether or not the employers' have satisfied the

Burchell test, but if the reason survives the Burchell test, they

cannot".

23. I have produced no new evidence; the evidence available above from I to 7 was

available to both the employer/Respondent and the Employment Tribunal. It is

quite clear that not only did I have evidence to defend the charges but that this

evidence is a documentation of all that took place before and during the charges.

In other words, I produce evidence, written correspondence (as referenced in 1-7

above), to support by defence against these charges.

11

Case Number: 230310212004

dd

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

BETWEEN

Claimant

Mr K Lawrence

and Respondent

Department of Trade and Industry

JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

HELD AT London South ON 18, 19 and 20 May 2005

CHAIRMAN Mr MJ Downs

Appearances

For Claimant: In person

MEMBERS Miss AJ North Mrs M Tritton

For Respondent: Ms L Busch, Counsel

JUDGMENT

Upon hearing the Claimant and the Respondent it is the unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the complaint of unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded.

Chairman Date:

Judgment sent to the parties and entered in the Register on: :

15 June 2005 For Secretary of the Tribunals

Case Number: 230310212004

dd

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

BETWEEN

Claimant

Mr K Lawrence

and Respondent

Department of Trade and Industry

REASONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

HELD AT London South ON 18, 19 and 20 May 2005

CHAIRMAN Mr MJ Downs

Appearances

MEMBERS Miss AJ North Mrs M Tritton

For Claimant:

For Respondent:

In person

Ms L Busch, Counsel

REASONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT

1. This is a claim for unfair dismissal. The issues were defined by Ms Taylor at a hearing on 17 February 2005 as follows, "(1) The case for the Claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed because the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events." (2) It is for the Tribunal to determine whether the Respondent's decision to dismiss the Claimant fell outside the band of reasonable responses available to an employer. (3) The Claimant seeks reinstatement."

2. Both at the beginning and end of the case both parties reiterated their understanding that the issues were as defined by Ms Taylor. Both parties accepted that the Tribunal, at this stage, should concern itself with liability and all matters associated with that including contribution. On that basis we confine our consideration to questions 1 and 2 (as defined above). Both parties confirmed to us that this case essentially amounted to an argument about substantive issues and to that extent,

1

Case Number: 230310212004

procedural unfairness was not of significant concern by the time this matter had been heard on appeal by the Respondent.

Evidence

3. The parties had been directed to agree a bundle. They failed to do this and we were confronted with two bundles of evidence at the outset of the hearing. The Respondent's bundle was paginated and in chronological order. The Claimant's bundle was thematic without page numbers and colour coded but, unfortunately, with the added complication that not all the bundles provided had the same colour code. We adopted the Respondent's bundle and agreed to add new documents to the Respondent's bundle from that provided by the Claimant as and when it became apparent that they weren't in the bundle provided by the Treasury Solicitors. At the conclusion of the Claimant's evidence in chief we handed him back his bundle having taken from it 16 documents which we have now added to what we will refer to as the consolidated bundle. We read and heard witness evidence from the Claimant, Andrew Lapworth the person who acted as the Claimant's line manager at the relevant time, Ian McKenzie the e-business programme director, Rosemary Heyhoe,who made the decision to dismiss and Shirley Pointer who heard the appeal.

4. We deleted passages from the witness statements which we considered to be irrelevant and no party sought to object to this. We read Mr Graham's witness statement, he was unavailable to appear before us but we gave his statement substantial weight but with a caveat that it is principally concerned with procedural problems which do not form the principal questions for this Tribunal to determine.

The facts

5. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondents at the beginning of November 1999 as a Range 2 employee and, over time, obtained promotion to Range 4. We made it plain in the course of the hearing that we believe that the relevant chronology actually starts at the time at which the Claimant's appeal against a severe reprimand is dealt with; that is on 5 November 2003 when it was dismissed by Howard Ewing. The earlier history reveals that the 2001/2002 SAR (appraisal) process was contentious and there were a series of grievances by the Claimant and informal warnings by his line manager (of different levels of gravity). In addition there was a great deal of correspondence (some of it included the Permanent Secretary) and a number of meetings which could last anything up to two hours at a time. The disciplinary hearing in July 2003 dealt with all historical matters. On 8 August 2003 a charge of misconduct against the Claimant was upheld and he was given a severe reprimand and instructed (again) to comply with the SAR procedures by Rosemary Heyhoe. In her letter to the Claimant she said, ''future failure to carry out official instructions may result in a charge of gross misconduct, such a charge, if substantiated, could lead to summary dismissal." An appeal hearing was organised on 13 October 2003 and the appeal was dismissed by Howard Ewing on 5 November 2003. This hearing was concerned with events after that date.

6. Within about 2 weeks of the appeal being dismissed, on 18 November 2003 the Claimant had a meeting with Andrew Lapworth at which it became apparent that he was very dissatisfied with the result of the appeal and wished to raise old issues. In particular, and of special concern in the circumstances of this case, he said that he

2

Case Number: 230310212004

would not work in support of his immediate line manager, David Rowe or a new Range 6 agency team member who had been employed. Indeed on the same day on 18 November 2003 the Claimant wrote to Sir Robin Young the Permanent Secretary, then of the DTI, requesting a review of his appeal against the severe reprimand. Analysis of that letter to Sir Robin Young reveals that he is, again, raising what could be considered to be old issues in that application for a review. On 28 November 2003 Mr McKenzie wrote a very full detailed and clear letter to Mr Lawrence setting out the actions that he needed to take as a result of the appeal being unfavourable for Mr Lawrence. In particular, this letter explains that it was not acceptable for Mr Lawrence to refuse to undertake tasks that David Rowe or other members of his team asked him to do and that such a refusal would constitute a breach of official instructions or misconduct or could amount to gross misconduct. The letter goes on to make specific reference to the appointment of the Range 6 team member. In addition that letter officially instructs Mr Lawrence to complete his SAR and return it to him within 10 working days and it warned him that failure to do so would result in the matter being referred to the Respondent's human resources department for consideration of disciplinary action. In addition the letter explained that given the department's decision to uphold the decision taken by Ms Heyhoe and the fact that 5 months had elapsed that it had been agreed with human resources that they would add the countersigning officer's comments to the SAR and invite Mr Lawrence to add his own comments and in particular they attached a copy of his SAR to that letter. A meeting was held on that day at which the letter was handed over. The most important additionally piece of information which arose from that was the fact that on that day Mr McKenzie made it plain that the SAR had to be returned to him by 12 December 2003. It is therefore of somewhat concern in the context of this case that on 1 December 2003 Mr Lawrence sent a memo to Mr McKenzie which set out a paragraph by paragraph refutation that everything that Mr McKenzie had set out in his original letter. It actually runs to 6% pages of closely typed text.

7. On 4 December 2003 Mr McKenzie replied. He said very plainly

"I do not intend to enter any further protracted correspondence on these issues as the points you raised have all either been addressed some time ago and therefore now closed or are matters that are subject to investigation to the grievance and appeal you are pursuing. I would like to point however that my letter of 28 November does not in itself represent a reprimand or disciplinary charge. The letter explains the reasonable actions and appropriate behaviour that I expect from you and the consequences including the possibility of consideration of formal disciplinary action should you be unwilling to comply that you have chosen to challenge some of the requests in the letter does not mean that you do not need to meet the deadlines and behaviour standards set out."

The last sentence is particularly important because there is a pattern set out in the correspondence and in the witness statement and the oral evidence that we have heard in which it is quite apparent that the Claimant believes that if he makes any statement or assertion and it is not responded to by the Respondents or contradicted then he is entitled to act in accordance with his last assertion rather than in accordance with any management instruction."

8.

Mr McKenzie shows by the wording of his letter that he had grasped the challenges

3

Case Number: 230310212004

of managing Mr Lawrence. Unfortunately Mr Lawrence went off sick on 11 December 2003. However, the following day he did e-mail his completed but unsigned SAR to the Respondents. It is significant in the circumstances of this case that the front sheet of the staff appraisal provides a short job description. This states,

"Since January 2003, reflecting new sectional responsibilities administration support and e-business communications and training initiatives including maintaining calendar and training events, assembling training packs and arranging their dispatch for training locations, commissioning contributions for weekly e-bulletin, liaison with Wagon Lit on travel issues, assisting with proof of concept testing programme e.g. maintaining lists of testers."

9. That staff appraisal, as of the date that it was submitted, set out the fact that liaising with Wagon Lit was part of the Claimant's job description. On 15 December 2003 the Permanent Secretary responded to the Claimant's letter saying that he declined to open a further review of the appeal. Again it is worth quoting from the final paragraph of his letter

"I am therefore not prepared to open this case to a further review. I am sorry that you still feel aggrieved but I am satisfied that you have been treated fairly and in accordance with the department's procedures."

10. The Claimant returned to work on 22 December 2003 and on the same day on his behalf his union wrote to Ms Heyhoe detailing his complaints by way of a grievance about the way in which he had been treated. It is quite apparent that the matters which were the substance of this grievance were quite old by the time the grievance was actually made on 22 December 2003 and pre dated the decision on the appeal which had been determined.

11 . On 23 December 2003 Ms Heyhoe replied to the grievance letter from the Claimant's trade union stating that his complaints had been thoroughly aired and that she was not prepared to greet any further investigation and further she warned that any further attempt to reopen the matter would be regarded as vexatious and could lead to disciplinary action. It is major importance that in the course of this hearing the Claimant has made crystal clear that he was in receipt of that letter before he embarked upon further correspondence which is dealt with below.

12. On the same day Mr McKenzie wrote to Mr Lawrence. Again, this is a significant letter because he had picked up the fact that, although the Claimant had completed his SAR, he had not actually signed it. Given his previous experience of managing Mr Lawrence, he fortuitously added the following sentence to his letter.

"Please can you sign the report at the end of your comments and date it. Can you then return the report to me?"

13. On 29 December 2003 Mr Lawrence went off work sick. On 12 January 2004 he returned to work but then went off again until 19 January 2004. On 13 January 2004 Mr Lawrence decided to respond to Sir Robin Young's letter of 15 December 2003. It is quite clear that in that letter to the Permanent Secretary that he was resurrecting old complaints and grievances and matters. On 22 "January 2004 Mr Lawrence

4

Case Number: 230310212004

emailed Mr Lapworth and Mr McKenzie stating that he was awaiting response from his trade union representative before signing his 2002/2003 SAR. The importance of that e-mail is that he is thereby conceding that he has not completed his SAR. In other words he had, at no stage, relied upon the fact that he had originally emailed his SAR back to the department as evidence of completion, rather he accepted himself that it required his signature on the end of the document for it to be considered to be complete and, in particular, he was looking for a form of words in consultation with his trade union to add to the SAR.

14. On 28 January 2004 Mr Lawrence was asked to make hotel bookings for other members of his team. Mr Lawrence declined to do that stating that he would have to seek advice from his trade union representative as to whether it was his responsibility to undertake this task or whether another member of the team should be responsible for performing it. He sent an e-mail which said

"Howard Gladwell asked me to book hotels. He may not be aware that it no longer comes under my job description and it is an area of work now being done by Rashmi Chavda. Can you please point this out to him?

15. As a consequence of this and other matters Mr McKenzie suspended Mr Lawrence on full pay on 6 February 2004 pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of gross misconduct. This broadly in accordance with usual: practice. On 13 February 2004 Mr Lawrence replied to the suspension letter in appropriate terms enclosing his signed SAR. This means that he had complied with the SAR procedure. However, this was 2 months out of time if we are to define time as running from the date of Mr McKenzie's last definitive instruction to the Claimant to provide him with his completed SAR.

16. On 19 February 2004 Mr Lawrence was formally charged with gross misconduct and, in particular, this concerned three matters. Firstly, his failure to carry out specific instructions by not completing his 2002/2003 SAR. Secondly, his refusal to carry out reasonable requests and most recently the request to make what is described as travel arrangements and thirdly, his continuing to raise issues which had been dealt with in the past to an extent which it might be considered to be vexatious (in other words he never let an argument rest but would rather always seek an opportunity to resurrect old grievances). In particular, at this stage of the proceedings paragraph 928 of the guide is relied upon by the Department of Trade and Industry which sets out how gross misconduct is defined and that will be set out later in the course of this judgment.

17. On 25 March 2004 the Claimant attended a final disciplinary interview with Ms Heyhoe. Mr Lawrence in the course of this hearing verbalised his desire for hard work and his sense of contrition about his previous actions. Ms Heyhoe formed the view that this was utterly unrealistic in all the circumstances of the case and on 7 April 2004 she wrote to Mr Lawrence setting out her decision and the reason why the Respondents had come to the conclusion that he should be dismissed and the following day the 8th April 2004 was his last day of service.

18. On 30 April 2004 Mr Lawrence lodged an internal appeal against the decision to dismiss him which was heard on 2 June 2004. He was notified on 8 July 2004 that his appeal had been dismissed. His appeal was dealt with by the CSAB in October

5

Case Number: 230310212004

and November 2004 but dismissed. In the meantime the Claimant had submitted and Originating Application to this Tribunal on 2 July 2004 and effectively these proceedings were stayed until the outcome of the last appeal.

The Law

19. We applied Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. All parties agreed that the principles that we were concerned with in this case were well-established.

ACAS Code of Practice

Submissions

20. The Claimant produced separate documents by way of opening and closing submissions for which we are very grateful. As concerns the issues he made the following principal points.

SAR process

21. The Claimant states that the three principal reasons for delay are

1. The Claimant's unresolved complaint about the conduct of his pre SAR meeting.

2. The appeal process was not completed until 2 December 2003. The calculation that he is using is the date by which his application for a review was refused.

3. He was seeking union advice about the proposed order with which management comments were placed on the form and generally at the time at which he was last requested to provide his SAR and he was so entitled to seek such union advice and be given time to have that provided to him.

Hotel booking

22. The Claimant believed that his job description had been narrowed by the time of the e-mail of January 2003 and that the phrase administrative support was too vague as a series of words to guide him and he felt that he was entitled to consult his union.

Vexatious correspondence

23. The Claimant states that he was not aware that Ms Heyhoe's instructions actually prevented him from corresponding with Sir Robin Young in circumstances in which Sir Robin had extended an open invitation to minority staff to write to him direct with their concerns in a conference for employees from minority groups.

Contrition

24. The Claimant states that before Ms Heyhoe he had set out the extent of his contrition and such a point is supported by Mr Graham.

25. As far as the Respondents were concerned they submitted that we should have regard to the band of reasonable responses test and that the charges which the Claimant faced should be considered separately and together and are such in all the

6

Case Number: 230310212004

circumstances of this case as to be considered grave in particular in the light of the chronology.

Application of facts to the law and our conclusions

26. We remind ourselves that the band of reasonable responses test applies and we take into account the size and administrative resources available to the Department of Trade and Industry and, in particular, we have stated from the outset that we would have high level expectations from them of the sort of management resources which they could put into place to deal with problems as and when they arise.

27. The Claimant is an extremely articulate person. He is very fluent and confident both verbally and in writing and he can at times be strident and this was demonstrated in the course of this hearing.

28. We find that gross misconduct is a potentially fair reason to dismiss. In addition with some minor caveats it is accepted that the scope and quality of the investigation that was carried out in this case was appropriate as were the hearings that were conducted by the DTI. On that basis we find that the processes that were used were broadly fair and we note again that it was accepted by both parties that procedural fairness was not an issue in this case.

29 .. The DTI guide gives gross misconduct a very particular meaning. We believe that it was reasonable of the Respondents to consider the three infringements of management instructions individually and collectively. Further they were entitled to consider them against a background of previous informal warnings at a local level and most importantly the existence of a severe reprimand given on 8 August 2003 and, in particular, the letter from Ms Heyhoe says she has concluded that a severe reprimand is appropriate with a warning that if future failure to carry out. official instructions be a result in a charge of gross misconduct such a charge is substantiated could lead to summary dismissal.

30. We find that the evidence was overwhelming that the individual charges were made out and, in particular, as concerned the SAR process the Claimant's continued prevarication after 23 December 2003 was inexplicable. There was no rational explanation as to why he did not actually provide the Respondents with a signed copy of his SAR. He was, of course, entitled to consult the union as to whether he should appeal but asking the union as to whether he should appeal and submitting a signed SAR did not preclude each other. As far as the question of hotel booking is concerned, we believe that the essence of the problem was the feeling of resentment that the Claimant had towards Andrew Lapworth however so derived and the employment of the agency worker. There was no question that he did not have the time to do this task. This has not been asserted as a reason for the failure at the time, in the course of the appeals process or before us in this hearing. The Claimant was simply being obdurate and obstructive and behaving in a way that was contrary to clear instructions which had been given to him.

Vexatious correspondence

31. The letter that the Claimant wrote to the Permanent Secretary was symptomatic of his wilful approach. There was almost no letter sent to him from his management

7

Case Number: 230310212004

over the course of the period to which we are concerned which he did not feel able to respond to in detail arguing with every individual instruction. He approached each management request as a challenge and as an opportunity to launch a philosophical dialogue. The consequences of this behaviour are that it eroded trust and confidence in the employment relationship and the responsibility for such lay with the Claimant and in essence it represented disobedience of a reasonable instruction against the backdrop of months' protracted meetings, negotiations and correspondence in which the Claimant was asked to comply.

Proportionality

32. It is true that on their face each allegation is not that serious as compared with the other examples in the list provided in the guide but we remind ourselves of the general terms and, in particular, it states that we are to consider and the Department of Trade and Industry are to consider whether or not the misconduct complained of shows that the employee has disregarded the central conditions of his or her employment contract. It is plain that the Claimant had so disregarded the central conditions - he had become unmanageable. He was disrupting the work of the section, he was nullifying any attempt at team work and taking grossly disproportionate amounts of management time and energy from the top to the bottom of the department and, on that basis, we believe that the decision of the Department of Trade and Industry to dismiss the Claimant summarily was within the band of reasonable responses open to them as an employer and therefore we dismiss this application.

Chairman Date:

Reasons sent to the parties and entered in the Register on:

15 June 2005 For Secretary of the Tribunals

8

22.23.24.

PN09411/05M

IN THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

KARL LAWRENCE Appellant

and

DEP ARTMENT FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY Respondent

RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSfor preliminary hearing

(1) The Appellant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in Lawrence v DTI (Case No 2303102/2004) dismissing his Claim for unfair dismissal pursuant to a notice of appeal filed on 25th July 2005

2. In the Respondent's submission, the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospects of success.

3. The application for leave to appeal would appear to made on the following grounds:

(1) The Tribunal was biased (see Grounds of Appeal, paras 5 and 6).

(2) The Tribunal failed to take into account a key aspect of the Appellant's

claim, in that it focused on the issue of substantive unfairness and did not

adequately consider that of procedural unfairness (see Grounds of Appeal,

paras 7 and 8).

1

25.

(3) The proceedings before the Tribunal were in various respects irregular and

unfair (see Grounds of Appeal, paras 9 to 16 and 17 to 20).

4. The Respondent is conscious of the fact that the purpose of written submissions is to

deal with matter of law, rather than evidence. It has therefore refrained from itself

giving evidence in these submissions. The Respondent would, however, if invited to do

so by the EAT, willingly supply an affidavit or affidavits drafted by its legal

representatives at the hearing before the Tribunal (namely, by Counselor the solicitors

who attended the hearing) endorsing the evidence set out in the Statements prepared by

the Chairman and the Tribunal Members for the purposes of the present preliminary

hearing.

5. On this basis, the Respondent makes the following submissions.

6. First, the Respondent respectfully submits that the EAT has no reason not to accept the

account of the proceedings before the Tribunal contained in the Statements of the

Tribunal Chairman and Members. In this regard, it should be noted that the evidence in

question does not conflict with the account of the proceedings set out in the Grounds

of Appeal and in the Appellant's Affidavit. Rather, the Tribunal's evidence takes the

form of an explanation of the matters which are a cause of concern to the Appellant

and which form the basis for his proposed appeal. This explanation is informed by the

Tribunal Chairman's and Members' considerable collective experience and fully

addressed the concerns in question. The Respondent would, therefore, respectfully

invite the EAT to accept this explanation as entirely adequate to the purpose of

demonstrating that the Appellant's concerns are without foundation.

7. Further, in particular:

(1) With respect to Ground One: This matter is dealt with in paragraphs 10-11 of

the Chairman's Statement. As the latter account makes plain, the import and

effect of such a comment on the Appellant's conduct was merely to provide

him with an opportunity to set out his defence to the Respondent's

2

26.27.allegation that he refused to obey instructions, and to put the conduct which

gave rise to this allegation in context. The comment in question was not and

could not reasonably be construed as indicative of any bias or prejudgement

on the Chairman's part. Further, in the Respondent's respectful submission,

it is manifestly plain both from the Tribunal's decision and from their

Statements that the Chairman and Members took every step necessary to

ensure that the Appellant, who was unrepresented, received a full and fair

hearing.

(2) With respect to Ground Two: As the Chairman of the Tribunal correctly

observes in paragraph 4 of his Affidavit, the issues between the party were

defined during the course of the preliminary hearing on 17ili February 2005.

The issues in question, as set out in the Tribunal's Order of 22nd February

2005, were whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and

whether the Respondent's decision to dismiss the Appellant fell outside the

band of reasonable responses available to an employer. These issues,

clearly, concern substantive rather than procedural matters. The Appellant

does not allege, in his Grounds of Appeal, that the abovementioned Order

misrepresented the issues in the case, as he understood them to be, or that

he at any stage sought to have that Order set aside. On the contrary, as the

Statements of the Chairman and Tribunal Members make plain, the fact that

the Appellant's complaint concerned substantive, rather than procedural,

issues was confirmed during the course of the hearing.

(3) With respect to Ground Three: The alleged procedural irregularities are,

" once again, fully dealt with in the Statements of the Chairman and I!I. •. ,

Tribunal Members. Their account of the matters in question makes it plain

that the Appellant's allegation that the proceedings were irregular or unfair

in the respects set out in the Grounds of Appeal is wholly unfounded.

8. In the Respondent's submission it is clear, for the above reasons, that the proposed

appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondent therefore

respectfully requests the EAT to refuse leave to appeal.

3

~ 1_...i~j\

i .)

L·~)j''''. ~.

4-5 GRAY'S INN SQUARE

GRAY'S INN

LONDON WCIR 5AH

2nd November 2005

LISA BUSCH

Case no: 2303102/2004

THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: -

AFFIDAVIT

KARL LAWRENCE

v

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

Claimant

Respondent

Commencement of Affidavit:

I, Karl Lawrence (D.O.B: 28th July 1951) of7 Albury Buildings, Boyfield Street, London SE 1 OSB, make oath and say: -

Introduction:

1. The case number above refers to the case held at the Employment Tribunal, London South. (Therefore, this appeal might require a new reference number.)

2. The case at London South was held 18th to 20th May 2005.

3. This appeal will raise a number of points, with respect to how the hearing was conducted; and, in particular the argument my the Chairman, Mr J Downs, that the "case essentially amounted to an argument about substantive issues" and nothing to do with "procedural unfairness", and that this "was not significant" to the Claimant's defence.

4. 1 should, also, like to notify, as pointed out in the Practice Direction procedures, that 1 have seek review, or investigation, with the Regional Chairman, Mr John Warren, of the decision of the Employment Tribunal, chaired by Mr J Downs.

Grounds of Appeal:

5. The chairman's remark midway through the hearing that: "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions". (As stated in my request for a review to the Regional Chairman.) Such a remark, 1 consider to be a gross inappropriate conduct coming from the Chair of the panel. (It is quite clear he, at least, had his mind made up concerning my guilt and therefore his remark serve to influence the remainder of the hearing and the lay members.)

6. (His remarks were made on the basis that my submitted statement did not follow Tribunal convention-numbering system. 1 pointed out that my statement was submitted by the union and therefore had nothing to do with me, he immediately change track without as much as apologising for his remark - but by then the damage had been done.)

28.Case no: 230310212004

7. As to "substantive issues" and "procedural unfairness" (as mentioned in the employment tribunal's Judgment (pages 1 & 2), dated 15th June 2005), it bears no relationship to any aspect of my defence. My defence was exclusively and completely reliant on "procedural unfairness". This was demonstrated in the ETI submitted by the union - including the additional document accompanying it. Bearing that in mind, my defence over the three days was, again exclusively and completely, along the lines of "procedural unfairness". Yet the chairman had chosen to take the line that my case should be about "substantive issues" (" ... penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events." Judgment (page(s) 1, para 1)). A step that would ensure I stood no chance of succeeding in my claim. What's more, the union official who submitted the ETI also submitted a statement and in that statement it dealt exclusively with "procedural unfairness".

8. (Therefore, I am inclined, and the evidence above bears this out, to believe the chairman has done a great disservice, when it is considered I represented myself and was not represented by a professional advocate. If he is correct and his Judgment stands, it will have shown there were no reason to have held a hearing over three days because my cross-examination of the witnesses, which dealt with "procedural unfairness", would have been superfluous to the matter on which he, and the panel, would deliberate; and hence, would only have taken/needed, at most, half-a-day.)

9. I asked to have my opening argument read out but the chairman did not come back to me on this issue; I submitted my closing arguments to the panel, hoping to have the opportunity to read it out, but instead the chairman handed it over to the "Respondent" before I had a chance to hear the Respondent's closing arguments (which is the practice); but again, the chairman left me compromised and at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the Respondent.

10. The chairman ruled three documents as irrelevant (and after this decision I decided it would be hopeless to argue any decision the chairman comes to). He, eventually, relented on one of the three documents. The three documents support key areas of my defence; they actually dealt with two of the three charges. These documents were ruled irrelevant during my cross-examination of the witnesses Ian McKenzie (HMU) and Rosemary Heyhoe (Head of Operations, HR&CM). Both were having difficulties in answering the questions and it's at this point the chairman steps in and ruled the questions, in relation to the documents, were irrelevant; once again I am being compromised and at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the Respondent.

11. The question put to Ian McKenzie dealt with the charge "Refusal to carry out official instruction" - concerning travel and hotel bookings. This incident occurred 28th Jan 2004. My argument throughout has been that my Job Description had changed for the year 2003/04. In an email by Ian McKenzie dated 10th March 2004, it stated, "In terms of the PAP [Personal Achievement Plan] for the current year (2003/04) I believe it is true to say that it was broadly up to date. The range of objectives had become quite narrowly defined because of the wider issues we had had to manage with Karl in terms of tasks we could trust him to perform ... ". It is quite clear therefore, the tasks pertaining to my job description had changed, which would make this document an essential part of my defence.

12. Please refer to "Hotel booking", para 22, where the chairman went on to state: "The Claimant believed that his job description had narrowed ... ". As have stated in the above paragraph, 11, the document by Ian McKenzie, 10th March

Karl Lawrence; date 24'h June 2005 - Grounds for Appeal

Case no: 2303102/2004

2004 (it's enclosed with this appeal document), shows that my Job Description had narrow (by management) somewhat. This is the document the chairman stop me from asking Ian McKenzie questions on, ruling it irrelevant.

13. The question put to Rosemary Heyhoe dealt with the charge "Vexatious" continue to raise issues dealt with. This incident occurred 13th Jan 2004. My argument and the evidence in support of it throughout has been that Sir Robin Young (permanent secretary) and Patricia Hewitt (SoS) invited me, along with many other minority staff, to approach them at anytime with complaints (no evidence to the contrary were produce to show that Rosemary Heyhoe could reverse that decision). In an email from Louise Sexton dated 01 December 2003 (it's enclosed with this appeal document), it is stated "We shall be advising Robin that he has [no locus] in the matter, and Dick [Graham, union rep] that we are not prepared to consider the case as a grievance." It is quite clear from that statement there was no investigation carried out on behalf of Sir Robin Young. Therefore my question to Rosemary Heyhoe was why - but she was unable to answer this question, and it's at this point the chairman intervened and ruled (in

/~' her favour) the document irrelevant. 14. The final document, which also pertains to Rosemary Heyhoe and Sir Robin Young, to

which I was unable to ask questions on, was ruled irrelevant. Questions I needed to ask concerns the body of that document for which I have and can produce the evidence to the contrary.

15. The chairman of the panel allowed me to read out less than three paragraphs of my eleven-page statement, and informed me he would be striking out the remainder because it was irrelevant. I have not come across anything like this or heard of anything like this ever-taking place. This was tantamount to a Kangaroo court. This behaviour and action has denied me my human rights, under the European Convention of Human Rights - I was unable to state to the hearing my concerns and complaints for which I came to the Tribunal to have address, in the first place.

16. The chairman remove my trial bundle after removing at least sixteen documents from it; I was informed by the Tribunal I was within my right to produce my own trial bundle. My trial bundle was drawn-up on a thematic basis - which enable easy access to all the personalities involved. Each and every document within it was numbered (and coloured-tab) in accordance with the theme. The most frightful part of the chairman's action was to allow the panel to deliberate on the decision/judgment using the Respondent's trial bundle and ignoring, discarding my trial bundles submitted to panel. This action once again left me compromised and at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the Respondent

I will make reference to points raised by the chairman in his "Judgment of the Employment Tribunal" document:

17. The chairman stated that "We made it plain in the course of the hearing that we believe that the relevant chronology actually starts at the time at which the Claimant's appeal against a severe reprimand ... ; ... 5 November 2003 ... ", refer to page 2, para 5. If this were the case, I would have objected. The actual issues that were brought before the Tribunal dated back to 17th March 2003, and this was to do with the spreadsheet issues (this was made clear to the chairman and that was the reason he allowed me to cross-examined on the spreadsheet issue). It was demonstrated (when Ian McKenzie was cross-examined) that the

Karl Lawrence; date 24'h June 2005 - Grounds for Appeal

29.Case no: 2303102/2004

spreadsheet issue was not dealt with appropriately else it would be impossible to have found that issue against me. Therefore, the chairman has got his date wrong; but it would, also, appear the chairman wants to decide what issues I should bring, and contest, at the hearing of the Tribunal, even though this was stated clearly in my ETI.

18. It will be seen from my ETI and the Respondent ET3 that reference were made to David Rowe (my line manager) and this dated back before the 5 November 2003 - but also my "Originating Application was made on 2 July 2004" to the Tribunal. In particular, the reference (ET3) that was made by the Respondent to David Rowe, accused me and point to allegations (which obviously form part of the decision by Rosemary Heyhoe, 8th August 2003);

18. Please refer to para 6, the 5th sentence from the bottom, the chairman failed to acknowledge that it's an infringement of the rights of DTI staff by way of established procedure and regulations as laid down in the DTI Staff Guide, as confirmed by the union, for countersigning officer to make their commentaries in the SAR (Staff Appraisal Report) before the member of staff comments on the

.~- line manager (the reason for this is that the member of staff need to comment on the line manager's comment before the report is passed to the countersigning officer for his comments on both line manager and member of staff's commentaries - this is stated categorically in the DTI staff Guide. There are no provisions for any other process).

20. I was asked during cross-examination, by the respondent solicitor, why I did not go through with the pre-SAR meeting of the 24th June 2003 and my response was that there was an agreement by Ken Morris (deputy director of e-business) prior to this meeting attended by: Jane Law (UKTI HR), Dil Joshi (union) and I, that Andrew Lapworth's derogatory remarks would be discuss at that meeting, I even produce notes to that effect. Yet the chairman made the remarks in para 7, last paragraph - word for word. This is astonishing given I produce evidence to back up my assertion/response.

21. I am, therefore, seeking to have the decision by the Employment Tribunal overturn based on the points of appeal raised.

ANTHONY GOLD, 169 WALWORTH ROAD,LONDON SE17 1 RW

Karl Lawrence: date 24 June 2005 - Grounds for Appeal

KARL LAWRENCE

Details of complaint

Mr Lawrence believes he has been unfairly dismissed from his job with the Department of Trade and Industry.

Summary of charges

On 6 February 2004 Mr Lawrence was suspended from duty pending the outcome of investigation into allegations of misconduct. On 19 February he was written to informing him of the disciplinary charges which had been laid against him.

These were:

He failed to carry out specific instructions by not completing his part of his Staff Appraisal Review (SAR) report form as requested by Rosemary Heyhoe, DTI Director of HR Operations, in her letter of 8 August 2003, an instruction which was repeated in Ian McKenzie's, E-business Programme Director, letter of 28 November 2003 and at a meeting on the 6 February 2004.

He refused to carry out reasonable requests from line management, most recently a request to make travel arrangements.

He had continued to raise issues which have been dealt with, to an extent which may be considered vexatious.

Mr Lawrence attended a formal disciplinary interview with Ms Heyhoe on 27 February 2004. Following that, Mr Lawrence received a letter from Ms Heyhoe dated 7 April 2004 informing him that the charge of gross misconduct had, in her view, been fully substantiated and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances dismissal was warranted. Mr Lawrence's last day of service with the Department was 8 April 2004.

He appealed against his dismissal. His appeal was heard by Shirley Pointer, Director of Human Resources and Change Management, on 2 June. He is still awaiting the outcome. An appeal has also been lodged with Civil Service appeal Board in case his internal appeal is unsuccessful.

Summary of defence

Failure to complete his Staff Appraisal Review (SAR) as instructed

Mr Lawrence was unhappy with the arrangements for completion of his SAR as it was to be written by a line manager about whom he had raised concerns following what Mr Lawrence regarded as unfair criticisms of his work. An agreement that was reached that would have allowed these concerns to be

30.discussed prior to his SAR being written was disregarded. There were also procedural irregularities in the way the SAR process was handled.

Had Mr Lawrence's concerns about the way his work had been criticised been addressed in a manner that Mr Lawrence felt was fair, and had the agreement to discuss these concerns at his pre-SAR meeting been honoured, he would have felt able to complete his part of the SAR process in a timely fashion. Mr Lawrence believes he has been punished for simply insisting that his concerns should be dealt with fairly and that an agreed way forward should have been honoured. His concerns about procedural irregularities have not been addressed by the DTI.

Refusal to carry out reasonable requests

Mr Lawrence did not refuse to undertake a request by his line manager to make travel arrangements but queried whether it was appropriate work for him to undertake. He understood this area of work to be the responsibility of the R6 on the team. No other examples of a refusal to carry out reasonable requests from line management have been given in the charge or at subsequent hearings (apart from the failure to complete his SAR which is the subject of a separate charge - see above).

Raising issues to an extent which may be considered vexatious

Mr Lawrence had raised concerns about the way his work had been criticised by his line manager and about the way he felt that this had not been properly, or fairly, investigated. He had been written to by Ms Heyhoe, Director of HR Operations, on 23 December 2003 and told that his concerns had been thoroughly aired and that she was not prepared to agree to any further investigation. She also said that the matter was closed and any further attempt to re-open it would be regarded as vexatious and that it could result in disciplinary action.

Prior to this letter from Ms Heyhoe, Mr Lawrence had written to the DTI Permanent Secretary, Sir Robin Young, on 18 November 2003, setting out his concerns. This followed a DTI conference for minority ethnic staff at which both Sir Robin and Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State, encouraged those present to write to them with any work concerns they had.

Sir Robin replied to Mr Lawrence on 15 December. Mr Lawrence responded with a further letter to Sir Robin dated 13 January 2004 addressing points in Sir Robin's letter. Mr Lawrence did not appreciate that by replying to Sir Robin's letter he would be seen as disregarding Ms Heyhoe's instruction not to re-open his complaint. He saw it as responding to points raised by Sir Robin in an existing exchange of letters and not as a fresh attempt to re-open the matter.

Mr Lawrence has been penalised for responding to an invitation from the Permanent Secretary to raise work related concerns with him.

Procedural irregularities

Mr Lawrence, and his trade union, have a number of concerns at the way the final disciplinary hearing with Ms Heyhoe, held on 25 March 2004, was conducted and at some of the conclusions drawn from it, as reflected in the dismissal letter sent by Ms Heyhoe to Mr Lawrence on 7 April. Mr Lawrence was denied the opportunity to comment on the note of the final disciplinary meeting, in breach of Departmental procedures, prior to a decision being taken on his future with the Department. This must raise a question as to whether any decision based in part on this note is sound.

A copy of the 'Appeal against dismissal' letter dated 30 April 2004 sent to Shirley Pointer, Director Human Resources and Change Management, which gives full details of the case is also attached for information.

Room 219 Elizabeth House

020 7855 4534

30 April 2004

Shirley Pointer Director Human Resources and Change Management 117 Elizabeth House

Dear Ms Pointer

KARL LAWRENCE: APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL

1. I am writing on behalf of Karl Lawrence as his trade union representative to appeal against the decision to dismiss him from the Department.

2. On 6 February 2004 Mr Lawrence was suspended from duty pending the outcome of investigation into allegations of misconduct. On 19 February Pauline Campbell, PMU Conduct and Discipline, wrote to Mr Lawrence informing him of the disciplinary charges which had been laid against him.

These were:

He failed to carry out specific instructions by not completing his SAR as requested by Rosemary Heyhoe in her letter of 8 August 2003, an instruction which was repeated in Ian McKenzie's letter of 28 November 2003 and at the meeting of the 6 February 2004.

He refused to carry out reasonable requests from line management, most recently a request to make travel arrangements.

He had continued to raise issues which have been dealt with, to an extent which may be considered vexatious.

3. Mr Lawrence attended a formal disciplinary interview with Ms Heyhoe on 27 February 2004. Following that, Mr Lawrence received a letter from Ms Heyhoe dated 7 April 2004 informing him that the charge of gross misconduct had, in her view, been fully substantiated and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances dismissal was warranted. Mr Lawrence's last day of service with the Department was 8 April 2004.

4. I believe it would be helpful if I summarise the sequence of events and key points in this case to help explain the grounds for this appeal.

Non-completion of SAR

5. In March 2003 Mr Lawrence was asked to prepare some spreadsheets to use for logging names of participants in the testing of the Proof of Concept on the Portal system.

6. Mr Lawrence brought the first spreadsheet to the attention of his then line manager, David Rowe, who did not raise any concerns about the layout or design of it. A second spreadsheet was then prepared by Mr Lawrence taking the same approach as with the first for a further set of tests. He also drafted an accompanying e-mail.

7. On arriving at work on 18 March 2003 Mr Lawrence received an e-mail from David Rowe saying that he was unable to make sense of the spreadsheets or the covering e-mail as the two did not tie-up. Mr Lawrence met with David Rowe to discuss the problem at which it transpired that the latter had only printed off three pages of what was a six-page spreadsheet and was therefore only looking at part of the information that Mr Lawrence had prepared.

8. In addition, David Rowe complained that one of the headings used in the spreadsheet, "Willing", was confusing. Mr Lawrence pointed out that this had been used in the first spreadsheet prepared by him, again with David Rowe's knowledge, and had not caused any confusion on that occasion.

9. Following this meeting Mr Lawrence returned to his desk to find an e-mail awaiting him from Andrew Lapworth, Head of eBusiness Programme Communicationf Training Team, supporting the comments in David Rowe's email which he had been copied into.

10. Mr Lawrence asked to meet with both David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth to clarify the position as he felt he was being unfairly accused of producing work that was causing confusion.

11. The meeting between the three of them took place later that day, 18 March. Mr Lawrence explained that the work he had produced had been with David Rowe's knowledge and that no concerns had been raised with the first set of spreadsheets produced, and that the second set followed the same formula. However, both David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth persisted in their claim that they found the work confusing.

12. Following further discussion Mr Lawrence said that he would like a transfer or to move away from his current post as he felt it would benefit his career to do so. Andrew Lapworth replied that there was no opening for a transfer and that he could not afford to lose members of staff at that time, but that Mr Lawrence might benefit from having a word with HR. Mr Lawrence says that Andrew Lapworth then went on to say that his performance was poor, that he had no prospect of promotion, and that he needed to do much more in terms of performance.

31.13. Mr Lawrence was concerned at this as, in effect, it pre-empted his preSAR interview with his Reporting Officer, David Rowe (in fact, a pre-SAR meeting never actually took place, nor a PAP review for the period 20021 2003). In addition, he had not previously been informed that his performance was poor and needed to improve.

14. He also raised his concerns with Ken Morris, Deputy Director, e-Business Programme, Strategy and Communications Group, who wrote to Mr Lawrence on 2 June 2003, saying he had looked at the relevant papers and had reached the conclusion that David Rowe had been justified in being critical of the work in question. Mr Lawrence did not accept that Ken Morris had investigated his concerns properly and asked for a fair hearing of his complaint.

15. Mr Lawrence's unhappiness with the way he felt he had been treated, and also the fact that he was unhappy that Andrew Lapworth was to write his SAR (because of the comments he had made about his work at the meeting on 18 March), led to his refusal to complete the SAR process until he was satisfied his complaint about the way his work had been criticised had been properly dealt with. It had been agreed with Ken Morris and Jane Law, UKTI HR, after intervention by Oil Joshi, Mr Lawrence's trade union representative at the time, that his complaint about the criticisms of his work, and the remarks made by Andrew Lapworth at the meeting on 18 March about his performance, should be discussed at the outset of his pre-SAR meeting on 2 July. In the event, Andrew Lapworth disregarded this agreement and refused to discuss Mr Lawrence's concerns before the pre-SAR discussion commenced. This was despite the fact that Mr Morris, who was a party to the agreement, was present. As a result the meeting ended without a SAR discussion taking place. This "refusal" to participate in the SAR process led to a disciplinary charge which resulted in his receiving a severe reprimand. Ms Heyhoe, as the decision officer, wrote to Mr Lawrence on 8 August 2003 informing him of the severe reprimand, also enclosing a copy of his SAR for him to complete and forward to Ken Morris, his Countersigning Officer, within 10 days.

16. Mr Lawrence appealed against the outcome of the disciplinary charge. Mr Lawrence notified his line management that he wished to await the outcome of the appeal before completing his part of the SAR. This request was not refused. The appeal was heard by Howard Ewing who upheld the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty. Mr Lawrence was notified of Mr Ewing's decision on 5 November.

17. Ian McKenzie, e-Business Programme Director, wrote to Mr Lawrence on 28 November attaching a new version of his 2002/2003 SAR with the Countersigning Officer's comments added, on HR's advice, and asking him to add his comments and return the SAR within 10 working days. No explanation was offered as to why HR had recommended this course of action. Mr Lawrence was surprised that he had not been given the report before the Countersigning Officer had added his comments, in line with Departmental guidance, to enable Mr Lawrence to comment on what the

.. ....': .

Reporting Officer had written before the report was passed to the Countersigning Officer for him to complete his part of the SAR. Mr Lawrence was unhappy that the Countersigning Officer's comments had been written without taking into account anything that he may have had to say on what the Reporting Officer had written. Apart from not following Departmental guidance for the completion of SARs it also sent a signal that his views were of no interest or importance as far as his line managers, and presumably HR who had advised them to act in this way, were concerned. Not surprisingly, Mr Lawrence was upset by this action and decided to seek advice from his trade union on how he should proceed. His suspension from duty occurred at the stage where his trade union had provided an initial response to his enquiry confirming that the actions of his line managers did not conform with the SAR procedures laid down in Departmental guidance. Following his suspension Mr Lawrence signed and returned his SAR to Ms Heyhoe.

Refusal to carry out reasonable requests

18. The charge specifies that Mr Lawrence refused to carry out a reasonable request from his line managers. This relates to an occasion when Mr Lawrence was asked to make some travel arrangements. Mr Lawrence maintains that he did not refuse to undertake this task but that he queried whether it was appropriate for him to do. He understood this area of work to be the responsibility of the new R6 on the team. Mr Lawrence's PAP, which was last reviewed in December 2003, does not include a specific responsibility to make travel arrangements. What it does include are two references to occasions, listed under Objective 1 on page 3 of his PAP, when Mr Lawrence helped colleagues with travel arrangements. The first occasion was when he obtained airfare estimates for colleagues Yvonne Ahern and Rajesh Kakaiya who were unsure how to obtain them. This did not involve making bookings or travel arrangements. The second was a one-off occasion when he helped out Howard Gladwell by arranging airfare and hotel accommodation for a trip to Glasgow. The specific responsibility to undertake travel arrangements as part of his regular duties was removed from his PAP in December 2003 as it had become the responsibility of the new Range 6.

19. When Mr Lawrence was asked on 28 January 2004 to make travel arrangements for Andrew Lapworth and another member of the team he queried why he was being asked to undertake this task. Mr Lawrence had, in fact, raised this issue with Mr Lapworth four days earlier bye-mail but had received no reply. When requested to make the travel arrangements Mr Lawrence pointed out that he understood this to be the responsibility of the new Range 6. He said that he wished to seek advice from his trade union representative and that this was accepted by his line manager. The request to make travel arrangements was never formally put to Mr Lawrence by his line manager. He did not receive a written instruction to carry out this task explaining the possible consequences if he refused to do so. However, he sought advice from his trade union which was that this was a reasonable request. He accepted that advice but Andrew Lapworth had by that time, unknown to Mr Lawrence, written a letter addressed to him and copied to HR Conduct and Discipline concerning this issue. This letter was dated 2

February 2004. Mr Lawrence is quite clear that he did not refuse to carry out this request but that he wanted to seek advice on whether, in the circumstances, it was a reasonable request. He now accepts that it was so.

Continued to raise issues which have been dealt with to an extent which may be considered vexatious

20. I wrote to Ms Heyhoe on 22 December 2003 on behalf of Mr Lawrence as his trade union representative detailing his complaints about the way he felt he had been treated at work. In her reply, dated 23 December, Ms Heyhoe said that his complaints had already been thoroughly aired and that she was not prepared to agree to any further investigation. She also said that the matter was closed and that any further attempt to re-open it would be regarded as vexatious and that it could result in disciplinary action.

21. Mr Lawrence did not raise the issue again as he took Ms Heyhoe's .<" warning seriously. However, he did respond to the letter he received from Sir

Robin Young dated 15 December 2003 which addressed the concerns that Mr Lawrence raised with him in a letter dated 18 November 2003. Mr Lawrence did not appreciate that by replying to Sir Robin Young he would be seen as disregarding Ms Heyhoe's instruction not to re-open his complaint. He saw it as responding to points raised by Sir Robin in an existing exchange of letters and not as a fresh attempt to re-open the matter.

Response to points made in Rosemary Heyhoe's letter dated 7 April 2004

22. The letter from Ms Heyhoe to Mr Lawrence dated 7 April 2004 informing him that he was dismissed raises a number of points that need a response.

23. In paragraph 7, Ms Heyhoe says that it is clear from the note of the meeting he had with Barbara Lindsay and Monica Hinds that Mr Lawrence refused to take up the offer of coaching. It is not clear which note Ms Heyhoe is referring to. I do not recollect having seen this note. Considering the gravity of Mr Lawrence's situation any material evidence being used to support the charges against him should be made available to Mr Lawrence and his trade union representative and I would ask that a copy of the note be made available. Mr Lawrence said at his meeting with Ms Heyhoe on 25 March 2004 that he had attended a meeting with Barbara Lindsay and Monica Hinds, which had lasted approximately two hours. He understood that they would be following up with arrangements for further meetings once his appeal had been decided but he had heard nothing since. There was an e-mail exchange between Mr Lawrence and Ms Lindsay following the meeting on aspects of what had been discussed. Mr Lawrence also had a telephone conversation with Ms Lindsay.

24. In paragraph 8, Ms Heyhoe appears to have misunderstood what Mr Lawrence said at the meeting on 25 March. Ms Heyhoe says that Mr Lawrence confirmed that his job description had not been changed. What Mr Lawrence said was that his PAP had been amended and responsibility for making travel arrangements had been removed as it was now the

responsibility of the new Range 6 on the team (see paragraph .18 above for full details of changes). Ms Heyhoe goes on to say, "Your TU representative made it clear that he had confirmed the request to undertake travel arrangements was a reasonable instruction". It is correct that I did inform Mr Lawrence that such a request was a reasonable one to be made of someone in his position in his team. However, at the time I spoke to Mr Lawrence on this Andrew Lapworth had already drafted a letter, copied to HR Conduct and Discipline, addressing the issue (see paragraph 19 above). It is therefore misleading for Ms Heyhoe to continue by saying, "I conclude therefore that you were aware that travel arrangements remained your responsibility and were refusing a reasonable instruction". This conclusion ignores the fact that Mr Lawrence's PAP had been amended and responsibility for making travel arrangements, that had previously been a specific part of his post, had been deleted. It also overlooks the fact that my advise was received too late for Mr Lawrence to make the travel arrangements as requested by Andrew Lapworth as Mr Lapworth had by this time written to Mr Lawrence, copied to conduct and Discipline, recording the incident and had arranged for someone else to undertake the travel arrangements.

25. In paragraph 10, Ms Heyhoe says that Mr Lawrence had little to say at the meeting on 25 March when asked what he would do to avoid problems in workplace relationships were he to return to the workplace. My note of that meeting records Mr Lawrence as responding by saying that were he given the opportunity to return he would seize it with both hands, that he would turn a new leaf, keep his head down and get on with his work. He also said that he accepts that criticism from line managers is a way of improving work and getting it done. Ms Heyhoe goes on to say that she asked for details about relationships and his reasons for leaving employment in the past and, in marked contrast to his behaviour throughout the rest of the interview, he was hesitant and slow in his replies. The reason why Mr Lawrence was slow in responding, and somewhat hesitant, was that he was surprised to be asked such questions. He had prepared for the meeting with Ms Heyhoe by going over the events that had led to the charges being made against him. He had not given any thought to his previous employment before joining the Department. Ms Heyhoe then goes on to say, "My conclusion from this is that you may have a history of similar behaviour". This is completely unacceptable as it is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact. The questions asked by Ms Heyhoe about Mr Lawrence's previous work relationships were inappropriate and had absolutely no bearing on the charges brought against him. PCS are asking that this "conclusion" be disregarded when considering this appeal.

26. In paragraph 12, Ms Heyhoe says that Mr Lawrence was given an opportunity to demonstrate contrition and a will to change but neither were evident in his discussion with her. This is not my recollection. As stated in paragraph 25 above Mr Lawrence made clear he would welcome a fresh opportunity and would turn a new leaf. Additionally, at the meeting with Sally Morgan on 27 February 2004 she asked him, "if he could turn back time would he take the same course of action". Mr Lawrence said, "no, he would not". Ms Morgan then asked if he were allowed back to work, "what his approach would be towards his relationship with management". Mr Lawrence replied

32.

".

that, "he wanted to work". He said that "he is known as a person who wants to work. He would 'keep his head down' and get on with his work".

Appeal against dismissal

27. Had Mr Lawrence's concerns about the way his work had been criticised, and the further criticisms of his performance as detailed in paragraph 12 above, been addressed in a manner that Mr Lawrence felt was fair and unbiased, he would have felt able to complete his part of the SAR process in a timely fashion. The fact that a way forward had been agreed, as described in paragraph 15 above, and then disregarded by Andrew Lapworth exacerbated the situation which might otherwise have been resolved at that point. Mr Lawrence has been punished for simply insisting that his concerns should be dealt with fairly and that an agreed way forward should have been honoured.

28. In the letter from Ms Heyhoe, dated 6 February 2004, informing Mr Lawrence that he was suspended from duty, and the letter from Ms Campbell, dated 19 February 2004, informing him of the disciplinary charges being brought against him, and in Ms Heyhoe's further letter, of 7 April, informing him of his dismissal, the charge is repeated that Mr Lawrence "refused to carry out reasonable requests from line management". The charge goes on to say "including/most recently a request to make travel arrangements·. Although the charge refers to "requests" no mention or detail of any specific instances of where Mr Lawrence is alleged to have refused to carry out a reasonable request has been given apart from the one involving making travel arrangements (the SAR issue is covered in a separate charge). Without being given details of these other alleged refusals to carry out reasonable requests it has not been possible for Mr Lawrence to respond to this charge in full. The charge of refusing to make travel arrangements has been addressed by Mr Lawrence at the meeting with Sally Morgan, Head of PMU, on 27 February 2004 and the subsequent meeting with Ms Heyhoe on 25 March 2004, as well as in paragraph 18 above, and other correspondence. As no information on any other alleged examples of a refusal to carry out a reasonable request has been produced as part of the disciplinary procedure, either at meetings or in correspondence, PCS is asking that the charge be amended to read, "He refused to carry out a reasonable request to make travel arrangements". As explained in paragraph 18, Mr Lawrence strongly refutes that he refused to carry out an instruction to make travel arrangements. In addition, as mentioned in paragraph 19 above, Mr Lawrence was not given a written instruction to carry out this request, which in view of the serious implications for Mr Lawrence if he did not carry it out, PCS would have expected to have happened. Mr Lawrence would then have been made fully aware of the possible consequences of his actions.

29. The attitude taken by Ms Heyhoe with regard to the correspondence between Mr Lawrence and Sir Robin Young raises an important issue. Mr Lawrence wrote to the Permanent Secretary having attended the Lifting the Barriers conference for minority ethnic staff that took place on 1 July 2003. At the conference both the Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State

"

urged minority ethnic staff to contact them if they had work related problems linked to the attitude or behaviour of their mangers. This can be verified by those who attended. Mr Lawrence subsequently wrote to the Permanent Secretary detailing his concerns at the way he had been treated. The Permanent Secretary responded on 15 December 2003. Mr Lawrence wrote back to Sir Robin Young in mid-January responding to points made by Sir Robin Young in his letter.

30. As stated in paragraph 21 above, Mr Lawrence did not appreciate that by continuing his correspondence with the Permanent Secretary he would be seen as disregarding an instruction from Ms Heyhoe. It is of serious concern that having taken both the Permanent Secretary and Secretary of State at their word, and having written raising his concerns as a result of the encouragement given at the Lifting the Barriers conference, he was penalised for doing so. This does not send out a positive signal to other minority ethnic staff. In fact, it would probably be seen by some as reinforcing their concern that such encouragement is at best superficial and at worst can be positively damaging.

31. PCS is asking that the charge, "Continued to raise issues which have been dealt with to an extent which may be considered vexatious", be dropped as it relates to a correspondence between Mr Lawrence and the Permanent Secretary that originated before Ms Heyhoe's instruction contained in her letter dated 23 December 2003, and which was prompted as a result of encouragement at the Lifting the Barriers Conference to raise such issues.

32. PCS believes that the penalty imposed on Mr Lawrence is disproportionate for the reasons set out above. PCS is asking that Mr Lawrence's dismissal be overturned and that he be allowed back to work.

33. I look forward to hearing from you.

RECEIVED 1 9 APR 2005

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Mr H Cobham Pcs 160 Falcon Road London SW112LN

Dear Sir/Madam,

Claimant Mr K Lawrence V

Regional Office Montague Court 101 London Road West Croydon CR02RF Direct Dial: 020

8253 5714 Fax: 02086499470 Email: Londonsouthet@ets.gsLgov.uk Our Ref:

2303102/2004 Your Ref:

Date: 18 April 2005

Respondent Department Of Trade Industry

Thank you for your letter of 12 April 2005. A Chairman of the Tribunal, MS.Taylor has asked me to write to you.

The Witness Orders are refused. Neither of the witnesses were the dismissing (or appeals) officer and therefore their evidence is not necessary for a fair hearing of the matters in issue in this case.

Yours faithfully

NEIL MASSIE For Regional Secretary of the Tribunals

cc The Tresury Solicitor Queen Anne's Chambers 28 Broadway London SW1H 9JS LT41881E/AAW/EG1

GEN124A

33.

34.

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 02079287394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

The Assistant Secretary of the Tribunal London South Employment Tribunal

Date: 20th May 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Employment Tribunal Application 2303102/2004 - Karl Lawrence v Department of Trade and Industry

1 attended an hearing over three days, from 18th to 20th May 2005. During the second days hearing, in the afternoon, the chair of the panel (for that particular hearing) made a remark along with a number of rulings for which 1 find objectionable.

The remarks and rulings took the line: "1 can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions", 1 consider this a gross inappropriate conduct for the Chair of a panel to have taken midway in an hearing; he went on to rule that certain documents presented by me to bolster my defence was irrelevant - yet eventually he conceded one of those documents as indeed relevant; he struck out numerous paragraphs from my submitted statement; and pay very scant reference/regard to my (five pages of) submitted "Concluding Arguments". The concluding arguments took into account all that each witness had to say in terms of answering relevant questions - and therefore was indeed pertinent in refuting the charges.

I should like to know what procedures are open to me to present my objections on the basis of a complaint in how the hearing was conducted; and also to obtain the opportunity to have my case re-heard at a new hearing.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

()

c

Q

35.Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

The Assistant Secretary of the Tribunal London South Employment Tribunal

Date: 20tl1 May 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Employment Tribunal Application 2303102/2004 - Karl Lawrence v Department of Trade and Industry

I attended an hearing over three days, from 18th to 20th May 2005. I sent an earlier letter of complaint with the same date as above. This particular letter will make reference to the "trial bundle" I submitted to the hearing.

The chair of the panel decided to remove my trial bundle after removing at least sixteen documents from it. I do not believe the chair has the right to remove one's trial bundle. This decision to remove the trial bundle was taken after all the witnesses were cross-examined; this was at the end of the second day of hearing. The question I need an answer to is: why was it decided at such a late stage in the proceedings to take this step? I was told to take my four folders home with me, I am sure this is a violation of my rights to have my trial bundle present in the hearing and have them stored with the Respondent's trial bundle at the end of the hearing.

My trial bundle with its documents were not considered along with the Respondent trial bundle in the panels final deliberation - as I have stated above, only sixteen documents were removed from it!

I would like to know what right the Chair has enabling him to take this drastic step. It would appear he is more in favour of the opposition than he is in conducting a fair and impartial/balance hearing.

I should like to know what procedures are open to me to present my objections (as above) on the basis of this complaint.

As I have stated above, I sent an earlier letter of complaint dated 20 th May 2005; please couple these letters and treat them as one complaint. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

36.Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 0207928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Regional Chairman of London South Employment Tribunal

Date: 26th May 2005

Dear Mr Warren,

Re: Employment Tribunal Application 2303102/2004 - Karl Lawrence v Department of Trade and Industry

Thank you for your letter of 26th May 2005. I await your investigation as stated in your letter. However, I should like your investigation to include my opening and closing arguments - as was given to the panel (but was never encouraged for them to be read out to the hearing). Please find both enclosed.

As stated in my letter of complaint of 20th May 2005, the chair of the panel made a remark but what was not stated, in my letter, was what gave rise to such a remark/comment. The chair made his remark/comment because he believed my statement did not conform to (tribunal) paragraph conventions. After making his remark/comment, I pointed out to him that my statement was submitted by my union representative and not by me and therefore had nothing to do with me, he immediately change the subject without as much as apologising for his remark. I do hope this will clarify and put in context the unfortunate remark/comment made by the Chair.

I await your response, thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Karl Lawrence

t'

37.

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Regional Chairman of London South Employment Tribunal

Date: 30th May 2005

Dear Mr Warren,

Re: Employment Tribunal Application 2303102/2004 - Karl Lawrence v Department of Trade and Industry

Thank you for your letter of 26th May 2005. While awaiting the investigation Ithought it would be in my interest, not knowing if you would get back to me before starting the investigation, to provide all my concerns on the way the hearing was conducted. In particular the Chair of the Panel:

1. Making it clear to the Respondent, during the Respondent's summing up, that my only chance was along the line of "disproportionate penalty" by way of Gross Misconduct. This is complete nonsense: that was indeed one part of the process for the panel to consider/decide; but they had also to decide whether or not irregularities was involved in the DTI reaching their decision; and, was procedures followed in reaching those decisions. In both counts - irregularities and procedures - it was proven in evidence provided and in cross-examination there were much deficiencies in reaching their decision.

And none were overwhelming as: The spreadsheet issue, shown at the hearing that no investigation was camed

out - it was a complete cover-up an attempt to sweep it under the carpet (against the dti regulations, the Guide);

Andrew Lapworth becoming my reporting officer (writing my SAR) after complaints and investigation proceedings was put in place against him;

The arrangement between management, Kenneth Moms, UKTI HR and the union, that Andrew Lapworth would need to explain himself as to his derogatory remarks/comments;

The email (which the Chair claimed was irrelevant) which showed that there could not have been an investigation carried out for Sir Robin Young; and

The evidence which showed that my Job Description was changed, with concurrence from senior management, Ian McKenzie.

2. The handing over of my Concluding Arguments - by the Chair - to the Respondent before I had had a chance to hear the Respondent's arguments.

The points raised above will be my final submission to you before the investigation begins. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

Karl Lawrence

2

John Warren Regional Chairman

25 May 2005

Mr K Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE10SB

Dear Mr Lawrence

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Regional Office Montague Court 101 London Road

Croydon CRO 2RF Telephone: 020 8667 9131 Fax: 020 8649

9470 Londonsouthet@ets.gsi.gov.uk

38.Re: Karl Lawrence-v-Department of Trade and Industry Case No: 2303102104

Thank you for your letter of 20 May 2005. Once the Judgment and Reasons have been promulgated I will investigate your complaints.

Yours sincerely

~~

John Warren

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

John Warren Regional Chairman

27 May 2005

Mr K Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE1 0SB

Dear Mr Lawrence

Re: Mr K Lawrence-v-Department of Trade & Industry Case No: 2303102104

Your letter of 26 May 2005 is acknowledged.

Yours sincerely

John Warren Regional Office Montague Court 101 London Road Croydon CRO 2RF Telephone: 020 8667 9131 Fax: 020 8649 9470 Londonsouthet@ets.gsi.gov.uk

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

7 June 2005

Mr K Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Bo

yfield Street Bermondsey London SE1 OSS

Dear Mr Lawrence

Re: Yourself-v-Department of Trade and Industry

Case no: 2303102104

Regional Office Montague Court 101

London Road Croydon CRO 2RF

Telephone: 020 8667 9131 Fax: 020

86499470 Londonsouthet@ets.

gsi.gov.uk

Thank you for your letter of 30th May 2005, the contents of which are noted. I will write further once I have completed my investigation.

Yours. sincerely

John Warren

John Warren Regional Chairman

19 July 2005

Mr K Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Bo

yfield Street Bermondsey London SE10SB

Dear Mr Lawrence

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

C

London Road Croydon CRO

2RF Telephone: 020 8667 9131 Fax: 020 8649 9470

Londonsouthet@ets.gsi.gov.uk

Re: Mr K Lawrence-v-Department of Trade and Industry

Case No: 2303102104

Further to your letter of the 20 May, 26 and 30 May 2005 I have had the opportunity of reading the Judgment and reasons and have received comments from the Chairman on the complaints you make.

Before I deal with specific points I would wish to point out that it is the Chairman's task to manage any hearing and to ensure that cases are dealt with proportionately.

The issues for the Tribunal are identified at the start of the proceedings in this case there had been a Case Management Discussion chaired by Ms Taylor and the parties had confirmed then and again at the start of the merits hearing that the questions for the Tribunal were whether the penalty of summary dismissal was disproportionate to the events, whether that penalty fell outside the band of reasonable responses. These were the questions the Tribunal had to deal with.

The Tribunal is not permitted to substitute its view for the decision of the employee. The Tribunal has to ask itself was the penalty outside of the band of reasonable responses. For a Claimant to succeed the Tribunal needs to find that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in such a case.

I have divided up your comments into four principal contentions.

1 . . Remarks by the Chairman

You reasonably concede that the remarks which you relate in your letter of the 20 May 2005 is an approximate quotation only and state that the Chairman said words to the effect of, "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions".

The substantive evidence in this case was heard over two days with the third day given over to submissions and the Tribunal decision. The Chairman is happy to concede that he was quite likely to have made such a remark as attributed to him albeit he phrased it in more conditional terms. The remark was made during the afternoon of the second day and he believes it was in the context of trying to appear to deny to evaluate how contumelious your actions were. You did not disobey any instructions but rather averred that your disobedience was frequently inadvertent or minor/trivial. On behalf of the Tribunal the Chairman was anxious to tease this out. The remark was put to you to allow you to respond. The context was the history as set out in the evidence to the Tribunal.

You appear to be suggesting that the Chairman was commenting on a failure by you to obey directions of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal was anxious not to conduct an exercise to establish who was to blame for the fact that directions had not been complied with. Rather the Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach.

2. That the Chairman ruled that documents you presented were irrelevant

The Tribunal was presented with two competing bundles at the beginning of the case. In the Tribunal reasons it is set out why they eventually decided to use the Respondent's bundle as a basis for a new consolidated bundle. The Chairman stresses that not only was your bundle colour coded but the coloured tabs used were not the same as between the bundle that was provided for the Tribunal Chairman and members and that which was provided for the Respondent and witnesses. The Tribunal added 16 documents from your bundle to the consolidated bundle. They were anxious to consider all relevant documents that you provided. It is correct that once the Tribunal were satisfied that they had a bundle with all the relevant documents in it they handed back to you the bundles that you had produced for the Tribunal. This was so as to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding as to which documents the Tribunal had read and relied on.

3. The Chairman struck out paragraphs in witness statements

The Tribunal considered very carefully the witness statements. By agreement those paragraphs that did not contain evidence relevant to the issues in the case were struck out. This was to ensure that:

(1) the length of the case could be kept proportionate; (2) parties concentrated on relevant issues; (3) there could be no misunderstanding about what were relevant and what

were irrelevant passages in witness statements.

4. The Chairman paid scant attention to your submissions and handed them to the Respondents before you had an opportunity to hear what the Respondents had to say.

39.40.It was exceptionally helpful that the Tribunal was provided with written submissions in support of your Closing Submissions. They were read carefully by the Tribunal and were the basis upon which the Tribunal were able to summarise your principal submissions in the reasons the Tribunal provided for our Judgment. It is conventional in any case for a party to provide a copy of any written submission on which he relies to the other side this is in accordance with the overriding objective and is standard accepted practice.

Thank you for writing to me. I realise you wrote prior to receiving the written Judgment and reasons which you will now have received and I hope now that you have received these documents and this reply your concerns will have been dealt with.

y~~~

i

John Warren

Case Numbers: 2303102/2004

THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

,..- SITTING AT:

BEFORE:

. BETWEEN:

ON: 17 February 2005

APPEARANCES:

For the Claimant:

For the Respondent:

LONDON SOUTH

Ms CE Taylor (sitting alone)

Mr Karl Lawrence

AND

Department of Trade and Industry

Mr Cobham, trade union representative

Ms L Busch, Counsel

ORDER

Claimant

Respondent

Having heard parties I make the following orders.

The hearing

1. The hearing was listed for three days commencing 18 May 2005. The hearing shall begin at 10.00am on the first day. .

The issues

2. The case for the Claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed because the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events.

3. It is for the Tribunal to determine whether the Respondent's decision to dismiss the

Claimant fell outside of the band of reasonable responses available to an employer.

4. The Claimant seeks re-instatement.

Case Numbers: 2303102/2004

Schedule of loss

5. No later than 24 March 2005 the Claimant shall supply a schedule of loss to the Respondent.

Trial bundles

6. The Respondent is responsible for compiling the trial bundle. For this purpose no later than 7 April 2005 the Claimant shall supply to the Respondent one clean and legible copy of all documents which the Claimant intends to introduce into evidence or otherwise rely upon at the tribunal hearing, the originals of which documents are not already in the possession of the Respondent.

7. No later than 21 April 2005 the Respondent shall supply one copy of the bundle to the Claimant.

Witness statements

8. The parties shall prepare a written statement for each witness (including the Claimant or Respondent who will give evidence personally) who it is intended will be called to give evidence on their behalf at the tribunal hearing. Such witness statements shall:

(i) be typed in double spacing;

(ii) contain the evidence-in-chief of such witnesses;

(iii) be laid out in short consecutively numbered paragraphs;

(iv) set out in chronological order, with dates, the facts which the witness can state;

(v) omit any matter not relevant to the issues in this case;

(vi) identify the source of any information which the witness does not know first hand;

(vii) refer by page number in the bundle of documents to any document mentioned in the statement;

(viii) be signed.

to the intent that such statements shall be read out by the respective witnesses at the tribunal hearing. Each party shall ensure that there are six copies of each statement of their own witnesses available at the tribunal hearing not contained in a bundle of documents.

..,

41.Case Numbers: 2303102/2004

Evidence without a Witness Statement

9. No evidence-in-chief may be given or expanded upon by a witness other than the evidence contained in the written statement of that witness without the leave of the tribunal. No witness may be called by a party to give evidence at the tribunal hearing other than a witness in respect of whom a written witness statement has been prepared and exchanged or with the leave of the tribunal.

NOTES

1. Failure to comply with an Order for DISCOVERY/INSPECTION may result on summary conviction in a fine of up to £1,000 being imposed upon a person in default under section 7(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

2. If a person does not comply with Orders made under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, rule 8 of the Employment Tribunals (Levy Appeals) Rules of Procedure or rule 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Health and Safety - Appeals against Improvement and Prohibition Notices) Rules of Procedure a chairman or Tribunal may:

(a) make an order in respect of costs or preparation time (if applicable) under rules 38 to 46; or

(b) at a pre-hearing review or a Hearing make an order to strike out the whole or part of the claim or, as the case may be, the response and, where appropriate, order that a respondent be debarred from responding to the claim altogether.

3. The Tribunal may also make a further Order (an "Unless Order") providing that unless it is complied with, the claim or, as the case may be, the response shall be struck out on the date of non-compliance without further consideration of the proceedings or the need to give notice under rule 19 or hold a pre-hearing review or a Hearing.

4. An Order may be varied or revoked upon application by a person affected by the Order or by a chairman on his own initiative.

5. This Order confirms orders made/directions given at a hearing on 4 February 2005.

Chairman February 22, 2005 London South Date and place of Order

2005Date sent to the parties

42.

EMPLOMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

PA/0941/05/SM

BEFOREHIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK in

Chambers

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal under Section 21 (1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 from the Judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South and entered in the Register on the 15th day of June 2005

BETWEEN:

MR K LAWRENCE

- and-

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

UPON a Notice of Appeal received on the 25th July 2005

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Appellant

Respondent

1. This appeal be set down for a preliminary hearing in accordance with paragraph 9(7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction with a time estimate of 2 hours ( if the parties disagree they are to inform the EAT) at which the Appellant will be heard ex parte

2. The preliminary hearing of this appeal be heard before a judge and two members

3. The Respondent must lodge with the Employment Appeal Tribunal and serve on the Appellant concise written submissions in opposition for consideration at the preliminary hearing within 14 days of the seal date of this Order, dedicated to showing that there is no reasonable prospect of success for any appeal.

4 If the Respondent intends to serve a cross-appeal, it must be served within 14 days of the seal date of this Order, and thereafter such cross-appeal shall be set down f or the said preliminary hearing, at which the Respondent will be heard.

5. If it is considered by any party that a point of law raised in the appeal or cross-appeal cannot be argued without reference to evidence given (or not given) at the Employment Tribunal, the nature of which does not, or does not sufficiently, appear from the Written Reasons of the Employment Tribunal, or if any other applications in respect of the introduction or disclosure of evidence are to be sought to be made, then any such case must be set out in the skeleton argument(s) to be served for the preliminary hearing.

6. A Skeleton argument must be lodged with the Employment Ap

peal Tribunal by the Appellant (and, in the case of any cross-appeal, by the Respondent at least 10 days before the date fixed for the preliminary hearing together with copies of authorities proposed to be relied upon at such hearing and (in the case of the Appellant) a Chronology.

, 7. The Appellant must prepare and lodge with the Employment Appeal Tribunal 4 copies of an indexed and paginated bundle of relevant documents for the purposes of the Preliminary Hearing within 21 days of the seal date of this order

8. Liberty to the parties to apply on notice to each other on paper to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to vary or discharge this Order: the Employment Appeal Tribunal itself reserves the right to vary or discharge this Order on prior notice to the parties

D ATE D the 21st day of October 2005

TO: Mr Karl Lawrence the Appellant The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent

The Secretary, Central Office of Employment Tribunals, England & Wales

(Case No.2303102/04)

TRIBUNAL EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Potential Appeal Xo 0941/05/sm

BEFORE Potential Appeal No: P AJ0941/05/SM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK IN CHAMBERS

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal under Section 21(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 from the Judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South and entered in the Register on the 15th day of June 2005

BETWEEN:

MR K LAWRENCE

- and-

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Appellant

Respondent

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal be further stayed until 30th September 2005 when it will be restored for consideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under paragraph 11 of the Employment Appeal Practice Direction the Appellant must lodge with the Employment appeal Tribunal and serve on the Respondent an affidavit or affidavits giving details of the alleged bias or improper conduct and in default the appeal be dismissed. Upon receipt by the Employment Appeal Tribunal of such affidavit the Chairman and members of the relevant Employment Tribunal will be asked for their comment to be given so far as is practicable within 21 days of receipt for the purpose of the full hearing and the Respondent may if so advised within the same period lodge 'with the Employment Appeal Tribunal and serve on the Appellant an affidavit in response.

D ATE D the 23rd day of August 2005

TO: Mr Karl Lawrence the Appellant The Treasury Solicitor Employment Team for the Respondent

The Secretary, Central Office of Employment Tribunals, England & Wales

(Case No.2303102/04)

43.EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Potential Appeal No: P AJ0941/05/SM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC IN CHAMBERS

IN THE MATIER of an Appeal under Section 21(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 from the Judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South and entered in the Register on the 15th day of June 2005

BETWEEN:

MR K LAWRENCE

- and-

DEP ARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

UPON a Notice of Appeal received on the 25th day of July 2005

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Appellant

Respondent

1. The appeal be stayed for 21 days from the seal date of this Order pending the butcome of the Appellant's application to the Employment Tribunal for a review. The Appellant is directed to notify the Employment Appeal Tribunal of the outcome.

2. The papers will be restored for further consideration on the 2nd day of September 2005.

3. Liberty to the parties to apply on notice to each other on paper to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to vary or discharge this Order: the Employment Appeal Tribunal itself reserves the right to vary or discharge this Order on prior notice to the parties.

D ATE D the 12th day of August 2005

TO: Mr Karl Lawrence the Appellant The Treasury Solicitor Employment Team for the Respondent

The Secretary, Central Office of Employment Tribunals, England & Wales

(Case No.2303102/04)

8 September 2005

Mr R Ainslee Regional Office Montague Court 101 London Road West Croydon CRO 2RF

Dear Russell

Re: Mr KLawrence v Dept of Trade and Industry. Case No 2303210/04

Thank you for your letter of 31 August. My comments on the affidavit are attached.

Yours sincerely

M Tritton

Mr K Lawrence v Dept of Trade and Industry. Case No 2303102/04 Comments on Affidavit submitted by Mr K Lawrence

The Issues Prior to the hearing on 18, 19 and 20 May 2005 the case had a one day hearing on 17 February 2005. At the February hearing the issues were as follows: "( 1) The case for the claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed because the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events. (2) It is for the Tribunal to determine whether the respondent's decision to dismiss the claimant fell outside the band of reasonable responses available to the employer. (3) The Claimant seeks reinstatement. " The issues were agreed by both parties at the opening of the hearing on 18 May. They were further agreed during submissions on 20 May according to my notes. Because the claimant was unrepresented the Chairman was careful and clear in his explanations of what the issues were and what the claimant needed to produce as evidence.

The Bundles The matter of the bundles and the deletion of passages from the witness statements has been clearly explained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the decision by the Tribunal. It would have been difficult for the Tribunal to work with what was, in effect, four different bundles. Any additional relevant documents from the claimant's bundles were accepted into evidence. I do not believe he was disadvantaged by this decision.

Alleged Comments by the Chairman I have no recollection of the remark "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions." It is not in my notes and if it had been said I would have recorded it and would have raised objections to it during an adjournment. I believe Mr Lawrence is mistaken and it was not said. As for the possible influence this remark may have had on lay members, I am experienced enough not to be influenced and to make my own decisions which I did in this case.

Other Complaints I believe all the other complaints he raises were dealt with either during the hearing and/or in the decision.. ' ..

Potential Appeal No 0941105/sm

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SEI OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btintemet.com

Registrar Employment Appeal Tribunal Audit House 58 Victoria Embankment London EC4Y ODS

Date: 17m September 2005

Re.: London South Employment Tribunal Hearing, Case no: 2303102/2004

Dear Sir / Madam:

Thank you for forwarding the Employment Tribunal's response dated 8m September 2005, to my Affidavit dated 25m August 2005.1 should like to draw to your attention a clear contradiction between the Regional Chairman's letter to me dated 19m July 2005 and this recent comment, 8m September 2005, on my Affidavit. The Regional Chairman's letter, 19m July 2005, was submitted as part of my "Grounds For Appeal".

In the Regional Chairman's letter (1. Remarks by the Chairman) it was conceded that: "The Chairman is happy to concede that he was quite likely to have made such a remark ... "; but in the response (Alleged Comments by the Chairman) to my Affidavit it is stated that: "I believe Mr Lawrence is mistaken and it was not said.". 1 should like this contradiction to be brought to the attention of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

With regards to the trial bundles, in the response (The Bundles), it is stated that there were "four different bundles" - this is completely inaccurate. The Chairman along with the two lay members was given identical bundles (in every respect). The bundles, the Respondent and the Claimant, were used throughout the hearing up until" ... the conclusion of the Claimant's evidence in chief. .. " (para 3 of the Judgment). The reasons given not to include my bundles in the panel's deliberation simply do not stand up, if the bundles were used throughout shouldn't the lay members have had the opportunity to use my bundle(s) in their deliberation? The fact that the lay members were denied the opportunity to use by bundle(s) in assisting them to arrive at a decision put me at a disadvantage when it is considered that the bundles of the Respondent were used in that deliberation (with the exclusion of my own).

PotPotential Appeal No 0941/05/sm

It is important to note that of the ten page document submitted as my statement to the Employment Tribunal (as stated elsewhere) only two paragraphs I was allowed to read to the hearing; while the Respondent's witnesses were allowed to read their statements in full with the exception of one, Mr Ian McKenzie, he was prevented from reading only one paragraph from his statement.

I would appreciate if the points raised above were treated as a response to the Employment Tribunal's comments to my Affidavit.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Registrar Employment Appeal Tribunal Audit House 58 Victoria Embankment London EC4Y ODS

Date: 4th October 2005

Re.: London South Employment Tribunal Hearing, Case no: 2303102/2004

Dear Sir / Madam:

Thank you for forwarding the Employment Tribunal's (Amanda North -lay member) response dated 24th September 2005, to my Affidavit dated 25th August 2005. I should like to draw to your attention a clear contradiction between Amanda North's account (her comment 10) and the Chairman's (Mr MJ Downs) Judgment dated 15th June 2005 (para 3), i.e. the Chairman cease using my bundle once the evidence in chief was concluded.

Amanda North's Comment for paragraph 9 of my grounds of appeal states:" I have no note of this sequence of events and can not recall the claimants statement." It is odd that she cannot recall that my closing arguments' was given to the Respondent's solicitor. The hearing stopped while photocopies, of the closing arguments', were obtained by the usher for the panel and the Respondent's solicitor. (So it's a moment that cannot be easily forgotten by anyone who was present.)

I would appreciate if the points raised above were treated as a response to Amanda North's (Employment Tribunal) comments to my Affidavit.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

IN THE EMPLOTh1ENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL POTENTIAL APPEAL No: 0941/05/sm

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 from the Judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South and entered in the Register on the 15 th

day of June 2005

MR K LAWRENCE Appellant

and f

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY Respondent

L MARTIN DO\VNS, Chairman of the Employment Tribunals at London South, Montague Court, 101 London Road West Croydon, CRO 1 RF

State on oath

1.

3.

I make this statement from my own knowledge in response to the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal of 23 August 1005 asking for comment by members of the Tribunal who heard the case of Mr K Lawrence -V- Department of Trade and Industry Case No: 2303102/04 in response to the affidavit of Mr Lawrence dated 25 August 1005. I apologise for any delay by me in swearing this affidavit. I believe I did not receive the Order of the EAT until 5 September 1005 and then I wished to see the file of papers in this case before I responded.

The Claimant had previously corresponded with the Tribunal concerning the hearing. His first letter was dated 10 May 2005 which was on the last day of the hearing. The Tribunal also received simultaneously a further letter dated the same day. In addition the Tribunal received letters on 26 and 30 May. My direct recollection of the case has faded since 20 May 2005. However, I had been asked in July for my comments on Mr Lawrence's correspondence and at that stage the hearing \vas fresher in my memory.

I propose to deal with the principal matters raised by Mr Lawrence in turn.

Issues in the case

4. Mr Lawrence maintains that I determined that the case was about substantive issues and not procedural fairness and that this was inaccurate. He says that his defence was exclusively and completely reliant on procedural unfairness. I am slightly surprised by this because I believed that the issues had been carefully defined at a preliminary hearing on 17 February 2005 by Ms Taylor and this was confirmed at the beginning of the hearing on 18 May and again before the parties made their submissions at the

44.end of the case. I also believe that I reminded the parties of the issues before the Claimant gave his evidence.

5. This also accorded with my general understanding of the case. It is not that there had never been concerns about procedural matters but rather that by the time of the hearing the matter had been investigated by the Respondents up to the level of the Civil Service Appeals Board and, on that basis, I understood from the parties that the residual issues concerned substantive matters rather than procedural fairness.

Closing submissions

6. The Claimant is concerned that I urged him to hand over to the Respondents his written closing submissions before he had an opportunity of hearing their arguments. I was of the view that it was exceptionally helpful that the Tribunal was provided with written submissions in support of the Claimant's Closing Submissions. They were read carefully by us and were the basis upon which we were able to summarise his principal submissions in the reasons we provided for our Judgment. It is conventional in a case of unfair dismissal when the burden rests on the Respondent for the Claimant to provide all material upon which he relies for the Respondents to make their final submissions. I believe that the Tribunal heard oral submissions from the -:.:Claimant in addition to his written submissions. The Tribunal indicated that it would not find it helpful for the Claimant to read out his written submissions. This was because we were given an opportunity to read them before we gave our decision. They were summarised in our reasons.

Bundle and relevant documents

7. The Claimant complains that I requested that he removed his trial bundle after taking from it 16 documents and that I disregarded the remainder. He acknowledges that his bundle was thematic.

8. The Tribunal was presented with two competing bundles at the beginning of the case. Both contained substantially the same documents. In our reasons we set out why we eventually decided to use the Respondent's bundle as a basis for a new consolidated bundle. Perhaps, I need to stress that not only was the Claimant's bundle colour coded but the coloured tabs he used were not the same as between the bundle that he provided for the Tribunal Chairman and members and that which he provided for the Respondent and witnesses. It can be seen by the way that we added 16 documents from the Claimant's bundle to the consolidated bundle that we were anxious to consider all relevant documents that he provided. It is correct that once we were satisfied that we had a bundle with all the relevant documents in it we handed back to the Claimant his bundles that he had produced for us. This was so as to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding as to which documents we had read and relied on.

I struck out paragraphs in witness statements

9. The Tribunal considered very carefully the witness statements. By agreement those paragraphs that did not contain evidence relevant to the issues in the case were struck out. This was to ensure that:

(1) the length of the case could be kept proportionate;

(2) parties concentrated on relevant issues; (3) there could be no misunderstanding about what were relevant and what

were irrelevant passages in witness statements.

The Chairman had made up his mind

10. In his affidavit of 25 August 2005 Mr Lawrence has stated that I said, "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions" In his letter of 20 May this quotation was preceded by the words, "The remarks and rulings took the line ... " On that basis I had assumed that he was referring to an approximate quotation. In addition in that letter he has said I made such a remark during the afternoon of the second day of the hearing.

11. The substantive evidence in this case was heard over two days with the third day given over to submissions and our decision. At the time the matter \vas referred to me in July 2005 I agreed that I believed I may have made the remark attributed to me albeit I phrased it in more conditional terms. The remark was made during the afternoon of the second day and I believe it was in the context of trying to evaluate how contumelious the actions of the Claimant were. In his evidence the Claimant did not deny disobeying instructions but rather averred that his disobedience was frequently inadvertent or minor/trivial. On behalf of the Tribunal I was anxious to tease this out. The remark \vas put to the Claimant to allow him to respond. The context was the history as set out in the evidence of the Tribunal.

12. There appears to be a suggestion by the Claimant that I was commenting on a failure by him to obey directions of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal was anxious not to conduct an exercise to establish who was to blame for the fact that directions had not been complied with. Rather the Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach

SWORN BY

(Deponent's signature)

before me

Signature:

Solicitor

Browne Jacobson LLP Aldwych House 81 Aldwych London WC28 4HN

Potential Appeal No 0941/05/sm

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bennondsey London SE 1 OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Registrar Employment Appeal Tribunal Audit House 58 Victoria Embankment London EC4Y ODS

Date: 11th October 2005

Re.: London South Employment Tribunal Hearing, Case no: 2303102/2004

Dear Sir / Madam:

Thank you for forwarding Mr MJ Down's - Chairman - response dated 7th October 2005, to my Affidavit dated 25th August 2005.

As appropriate, I will address Mr Down's comments by paragraph numbers:

Issues in the case: 4. It was pointed out to the Chairman, at the time, that procedural unfairness was the

basis on which my case rest, and that my ET 1 bears this out, but on his (Chairman) insistence to pursue the hearing on substantive issues I decided rather than prejudice my case, given that the Chainnan was insistent, I would pursue it immediately the case concluded.

5. It will be seen, also, that reference was made to the conduct of the Civil Service Appeal Board (CSAB) - including the various hearings leading up to the CSAB in my statement to the Tribunal. Thus, procedural unfairness was at the heart of my defence; I could never, therefore, concede this point as the Chainnan is making out.

Closing submissions 6. Mr Downs claimed: " ... the Tribunal heard oral submissions from the Claimant in

addition to his written submissions." This is totally false. The whole idea of my closing submission was to read it aloud, once I have heard the Respondent's closing arguments/submission, but this was denied to me by allowing the Respondent solicitors to read and evaluate my closing arguments before I had the chance to do so. Hence, I made no oral submissions as claimed by Mr Downs. Yet it is important to note that the Respondent made oral statements in their defence for closing arguments.

1

Potential Appeal No 0941105/sm

Bundle and relevant documents 8. Both the Respondent and the Claimant bundles were used throughout the hearing - in

all cross-examinations (including myself) - until it came time for the panel to adjudge the case. It is at this point: " ... the conclusion of the Claimant's evidence in chief. .. " (para 3 of the Judgment), that the Chairman decided to discard my bundle. Given my bundle was used throughout, why would the Chairman deny the lay members the opportunity to use my bundle(s) in their deliberation?

Also, by discarding by bundles it would become impossible to find references in my statement and/or closing/opening arguments. The reason for this is that all reference to documents in my statement etc (which was many) referred exclusively to my bundle (documents were referred to by bundle's tab-name and number) without the bundle(s) being present it would be impossible to locate reference(s). Thus, it is quite clear, therefore, lay members (and/or Chairman) would not have had the benefit of the reference(s) during the deliberations; none would be obtainable without the bundles. Just how the Respondent's bundle would suffice in such a situation I don't know.

I struck out paragraphs in witness statements 9. Mr Downs admitted he struck out paragraphs (because "they did not contain

evidence relevant to the issues") from my statement in order to maintain: a. (overall) length of case; b. relevant issues.

But what he has failed to address is: how is it possible that a ten-page document (statement) only had two relevant paragraphs (within a paragraph section) - the two paragraphs he allowed me to read while allowing the Respondent's witnesses to read their statements in full.

The Chairman had made up his mind 10. It is admitted that a remark (derogatory) may have been made albeit for different

reasons from my own, but the question remains: why would a Chairman coach his query to me in that way? Who would benefit by doing so? This is what we need an answer for. My argument is that by making such a statement before the two lay members (of the panel) my case was prejudiced. It is important to get this absolutely clear, the Chairman's statement: "I can see why your managers saw you as refusing to carry out instructions" was made because my submitted statement to the hearing did not conformed to regulations. When he was told it was submitted via the union he changed the subject immediately, without apologising for his remark.

I would appreciate if the points raised above were treated as a response to Mr MJ Downs's (Chairman) comments to my Affidavit.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

2

45.Potential Appeal No 0941/05/sm

Karl Lawrence 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SEI OSB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394 sunnethk@btinternet.com

Registrar Employment Appeal Tribunal Audit House 58 Victoria Embankment London EC4 Y ODS

Date: 19th October 2005

Re.: London South Employment Tribunal Hearing, Case no: 2303102/2004

Dear Sir / Madam:

In addition to my earlier, 11th October 2005, response to Mr MJ Down's – Chairman response dated 7th October 2005, I should like to include a very important point that have not been, as yet, covered.

1. During my cross-examination of the dismissing officer (the officer who presided over the internal DTI disciplinary hearing), Ms Rosemary Heyhoe, Mr Downs, the Chairman, intervened and asked her: does her position allowed her to override the permanent secretary, Sir Robin Young, and the secretary of state, Patricia Hewitt (please refer to Karl Lawrence AFFIDAVIT, para 13). Her response was that indeed she could; he then asked her if it was possible, between her and the respondent solicitor, to produce the DTI Guide (managers and staff procedural guidelines) to the hearing the following day; both the solicitor and Rosemary Heyhoe agreed to this request.

2. The Guide was submitted the following morning (the second day of the hearing), I was given a copy along with the panel members.

3. Close examination of the Guide showed that nowhere in it did it gave the dismissing officer the authority, nor even hinted, to override these two senior officers of the DTI. Yet the Chairman accepted her statement without further questioning her on this point or requesting further evidence to support this argument. And, as will be seen from his, Mr Downs, Judgment, 15th June 2005, he casts no doubt on this point or any doubt that Ms Rosemary Heyhoe could override these officer - the Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State.

This was most important; the Vexatious charge was completely based on that argument - that Ms Rosemary Heyhoe could override these officers (once they had allowed member of staff to approach them with complaints).

1

Potential Appeal No 0941/05/sm

I would appreciate if the points raised above were brought to the attention of the presiding judge.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Lawrence

To: Sir Robin Young Permanent Secretary to the DTI

From: Karl Lawrence

Date: 18th November 2003

A Request for a Review

UKTI, SCG4

I am writing to you seeking your intervention and assessment of the ~'f ( l( outcome to an appeal presided over by Howard Ewing (Director: People Deployment and Development). The basis on which his judgment/decision was base/made: two submissions:

1. Written Submission - this was made to Rosemary Heyhoe (Director HR Operations) on the disciplinary hearing~ and

2. Appeal Submission - this was made to Howard Ewing (Director POD)

The appeal had arisen out of a Disciplinary Hearing (based on my SAR report) presided over by Rosemary Heyhoe. In that particular hearing, I submitted a number of points backed up by evidence, evidence that I had already submitted at a "local" level - within my own directorate and to date I have not heard from management; however, nor did Rosemary Heyhoe addressed these points, which was central to the case I put before ht=r in my defence.

The resultant outcome from Howard Ewing: was that, I did not bring to the appeal any new evidence, and as a result he could not review the case in terms of overturning Rosemary Heyhoe’s decision - and so her decision was upheld.

I have read the Guide, and nowhere in it does it say when appealing fresh/new evidence should be produced/submitted. My submission (and the minutes of the Hearing) made quite clear that I believed the decision was not fully informed with the evidence provided and therefore the case submitted to Rosemary Heyhoe I should like to have looked at again - what's more, there are no contradictions in the evidence submitted. As an example:

My former countersigning officer (who is now my line manager) made derogatory/disparaging comments about my performance (and which actually led to the disciplinary hearing), I brought the comments, in written form, to management (the head of my section) - in mid-March 03 - and I am still awaiting a response to that submission. (This point was pertinent to the disciplinary hearing, yet Rosemary Heyhoe never addressed this point along with other points, and because there was no fresh evidence, Howard Ewing did not address it either.)

I should very much appreciate it if you could review this case. I am submitting it on the basis/strength of your comments on making complaints or pointing out actions contrary to departmental procedures, at the "Lifting the Barriers Conference" that took place at the DTI HQ Conference Centre – 1st July 2003. You and Patricia Hewitt made it quite clear that once it, complaints, was proven not to be false allegation(s) it would be investigated.

Please find enclosed the documents submitted to Rosemary Heyhoe and Howard Ewing, along with the minutes of the hearing with Howard Ewing - and my response to that minute, thank you.

...

dti 15 December 2003

Sir Robin Young KCB PERMANENT SECRETARY

Karl Lawrence Esq UKTI Bay 148 Kingsgate House LONDON SWIE 6SW

Thank you for your letter of 18 November, in which you ask me to review the outcome of your appeal against the disciplinary penalty imposed on you by Rosemary Heyhoe on 8 August 2003.

I have read all the papers you sent to me in support of your request. I know that you are familiar with the sections of The Guide relating to disciplinary appeals and you therefore know that, under paragraph 938, the appeal officer's decision is final and is not open to further internal appeal.

You list the reasons why, exceptionally, you are seeking my intervention. These are:

1. that Rosemary Heyhoe did not consider all the evidence put before her when reaching her decision on the disciplinary penalty;

2. that the basis for Howard Ewing's decision to uphold the disciplinary penaity was faulty, as he appeared to be interested only in "new" evidence;

3. that you had not received a response to comments raised with your line management in March 2003; and

IV. that my comments at the "Lifting the Barriers" conference invited complaints of actions contrary to departmental procedures.

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street London SW1 H OET

Direct Line +44 (0)20 7215 5539 Minicom +44 (0)20 7215 6740 Enquiries +44 (0)20 7215 5000 www.dti.gov,uk

2

Rosemary Heyhoe has assured me that she read all the paperwork surrounding your case very thoroughly before making her decision. As a result of her careful consideration, in addition to the disciplinary penalty Rosemary asked you to work with a career adviser on improving your self-awareness and receiving feedback.

Howard Ewing has also confirmed that in considering your appeal, he reviewed all the papers. These included all those you sent to Rosemary. All the evidence did not persuade Howard that the disciplinary penalty imposed by Rosemary Heyhoe was unfair. In addition, as you did not offer any new evidence, which might have persuaded him, Howard upheld the original decision. I understand you have now had a letter from Howard fully explaining the steps he took in considering your appeal.

You raised concerns with your line managers on 19 March 2003. I understand that they responded to these on 26 March and in more detail on 3 April 2003. As you are not awaiting a response, this was not a point that needed to be addressed in the disciplinary hearing or appeal.

As you know from what I said at the "Lifting the Barriers" conference, I do take instances of discrimination very seriously indeed. However, for line management to highlight, fairly and reasonably, work problems or areas of performance and behaviour that require improvement is not tantamount to victimisation, bullying or harassment.

I am therefore not prepared to open this case to a further review. I am sorry that you still feel aggrieved, but I am satisfied that you have been treated fair1y and in accordance with the Department's procedures.

ROBIN YOUNG

46.To: Sir Robin Young

From: Karl Lawrence

Date: 13th January 2004

Permanent Secretary (DTI)

UKTI SCG4

Response to your letter _15 th Dee 03

I am extremely grateful to you to have spared the time to consider and review my case presided over by Rosemary Heyhoe and Howard Ewing. It would appear all the documents and notes pertaining to the case were forwarded to you. And, this would have involved the comments by management in support of their actions.

I am further grateful to you to have taken my concerns seriously enough to have itemised the issues - and address them in turn - an action that has been lacking up until now:

Was not forthcoming from Rosemary Heyhoe, nor Howard Ewing

(I have no idea on what points, if any, my evidence was not substantive - to this end I do not know if they saw any substantive point of mine. Why am I left so confused?)

From your letter it is quite clear you agreed with the outcome, the decision arrived at by Rosemary Heyhoe and Howard Ewing. But this does not take into account (although you specifically addressed the issue) that my complaint, on a local level, were put to Ian McKenzie and Ken Morris (Director and Deputy Director of ebusiness Programme), in mid-March 03 about Andrew Lapworth's comments on my performance.

Your account is that my line manager and countersigning officer (David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth) gave a response. Yes they did, but my complaint was about these officers - on their actions and treatment of me - to the HMU. In the papers I submitted to both Rosemary and Howard I included their comments. What was missing from the documents I submitted to Rosemary and Howard was a response from Ian McKenzie and Ken Morris (from whom I would have expected a response) in how I was treated by both David and Andrew. I thought, and still believe it to be the case/procedure, if one put a complaint forward to the head of one's unit, they should/would be obliged to give a response.

My case was that: I was not informed of the basis for these comments nor have I had a review in the year up to the SAR period (which would give some justification, if that was the case), much less a pre-SAR review. I maintained: Andrew and David might hold

these views on me - but 'am suppose to be informed of them if indeed they do exist. The case against these comments also maintained: that there has been a breakdown in the management chain. If this was not the case, I would have been informed earlier, and it would not have taken me to ask for a transfer to find out what my managers thought of me; and in a situation for which the manager (David Rowe) is to be blamed (spreadsheet, for which I have not had an apology for their action in that regard).

So, in response to your statement that my managers responded on 19 March 03 and again on 3 April 03, I can only say the thrust of my complaint was directed to the head of unit - Ian McKenzie and Ken Morris and to date I have not had a response from them. I am the one drawing the situation to their attention; to whom then on a 'local level' am I to make a complaint regarding these two officers, or any situation for that matter, if not the head of unit? I am also surprise that Rosemary Heyhoe and Howard Ewing did not pick up on this!

In conclusion: I referred my case to you, when all other avenues were exhausted, and you responded, and responded in a way that none of your officers had managed to do. The point I am making is that as head of Department you took it on yourself to investigate my claim of injustice as outlined; but shouldn't Ian and Ken have responded likewise?

I raised these points/questions regard the comments, but they have not been addressed i.e.:

why were they (comments) not brought to my attention earlier

why it took a request for transfer to know what my managers thought of me

why senior managers did not, and as yet, responded given my claim and concerns:

I had no review bring these concerns of line management to my attention, and

How is it that my countersigning officer is aware of these concerns and I am not?

if you, as head of Department, have responded why haven't they? And,

am I overstepping my expectations: when complaint are made to senior management, do they only respond if they choose to? Or are they obliged to do so?

The questions above, I would like very much to have answers for, such answers will enable me to conduct myself in accordance with procedures/regulations, in terms of my expectations.

Also, a part from the questions raised above, can I have if at all possible your comments on the fact - outline above - that neither Ian McKenzie nor Ken Morris has responded to my 'local complaint'. This complaint was directed at them. So, are they obliged to respond, for that was my understanding?

To: Sir Robin Young CKCB

From: Karl Lawrence

Date: 29th October 2004

Permanent Secretary CDTI

Formerly UKTI SCG 4

Dismissal- one charge based on 13 th January 2004 letter

I wrote to you on 18th November 2003, and received a response on 23rd December 2003, I again responded on 13th January 2004, thanking you for your efforts and outlining the points on which I needed general guidance.

I chose to write to you (in the first instance) after attending the Raising the Barriers Conference held on 1 st July 2003, attended by yourself and the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, where both of you encouraged the minority attendance to make contact if they were unhappy in the workplace.

I am now sacked from the civil service, and one of the charges that lead to dismissal, just happens to be a vexatious charge. This charge is based on the fact that I wrote to you 13th January 2004. ,

I am now seeking clarification because neither you nor Secretary of State Patricia Hewitt stated at the time (1st July 03) that DTI HR&CM (Ms Rosemary Heyhoe, Head of HR Operations) could override both your statements i.e, that minority staff could contact you at anytime. That notwithstanding, you did not informed me in your 15th December 2003 letter that I could not continue communication with you,

.. '

I would appreciate very much if you could clarify this position for me.

Please find enclosed "Response to your letter - 15th Dec 03”. Thank you.

My home Address: - 7 Albury Buildings

Boyfield Street London SE 1 OSB

Y ours sincerely

Karl Lawrence

26 November 2004

Karl Lawrence Esq 7 Albury Buildings Boyfield Street LONDON SE 1 OSB

dti Sir Robin Young KCB PERMANENT

SECRETARY

Thank you for your letter of 29 October. You asked for further clarification of the invitation I extended, at the Lifting the Barriers event in July 2003, for ethnic minority staff to contact me at any time regarding work-related concerns. I thought I had already provided this.

When you wrote to me on'18 November 2003 to ask me to review the outcome of your appeal against a disciplinary penalty imposed on you, I carefully reviewed all the papers you sent me. I was satisfied that your concerns had been fully addressed by line management and that you were treated fairly and in accordance with the Department's procedures. I wrote to you en 15 December to let you know this, and I also told you that I was not prepared to open your case to a further review.

In line with my decision and following your attempt to raise a further internal grievance, Rosemary Heyhoe wrote to Dick Graham, PCS, on 23 Dee-ember 2003. Rosemary· made clear that your complaints against the Department were closed and that any further attempt to re-open the matter would be considered vexatious and lead to disciplinary action.

Shirley Pointer, Director HR&CM, also made clear to you in her letter of 8 July 2004, in which she set out her decision on your appeal against your dismissal, that she considered the specific charge of "continuing to raise issues already dealt with" to be entirely reasonable.

1 Victoria Street London SW1 H OET

Direct Line +44 (020 7215 5539 Minicom +44 (0)20 7215 6740 Enquiries +44 (0)20 7215 5000 www.dti.gov.uk

Department of Trade and Industry

47.2

As the DTI Diversity Champion, I remain committed to making race equality a reality for all staff. I take instances of discrimination very seriously - I will not tolerate harassment, bullying or discrimination of any kind. I continue to be willing to listen to direct approaches from individual members of staff who feel that their managers have treated them unfairly.

ROBIN YOUNG

.. '

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Kari Lawrence ~ It! 10

Zlta Ho ...

Morgan Sally (Mrs SM) 01December 2003 11:25 Ewing Howard (Mr HAL) Heyhoe Rosemary (Mrs R); Baker Rose (Mrs RL) FW: Karl Lawrence letter Restricted Staff and Management

-----Original Message----From: Sexton Louise (Mrs LA) Sent: 01 December 2003 10:16 To: Morgan Sally (Mrs SM) Subject: Karl Lawrence letter

Howard

I attach a longer version of your letter, which I recommend you send. I am returning your hard copy of the letter from Zita to which this is the reply. I think it is important for the legal audit .trail, and your own personal legal responsibilities as the appeal officer, that you spell out in detail the process and rationale for your decision. Obviously, you need to be content with what the letter says, as you have personal legal responsibility for it.

You should be aware that Karl has written to the Permanent Secretary asking him to 'review' the case. Dick Graham, PCS, has also written to Rosemary, lodging a grievance on Karl's behalf. Neither letter raises any new issues. We shall be advising Robin that he has no locus in the matter, and Dick that we are not prepared to consider the case as a grievance.,

Sally

48.49.·' t~·

--Original Message-From: McKenzie Ian (Mr 1M) Sent: 10 March 2004 19:25 To: Morgan Sally (Mrs. SM) Cc: Morris Ken (Mr. KJ); Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL); Reynolds John (UKTI SCG); MorTisen Ann (Miss A) Subject: To Sally: Restricted • Staff AND MANAGEMENT - current Gross Misconduct C"..se - for reply before 18/3 please

Sally ci John Reynolds & Ken Morris ca Andrew Lapworth

We spoke. I will take each of the points in turn. I am responding based on my recollection of events and don't at this time have ready access to all the background papers as we ·are in the throws of an office move to 1 Victoria Street tomorrow. I would also note that Andrew Lapworth is away on leave at present and I would welcome his confirmation of points made below when he returns in week beginning 15 March. Please also note that some of the factual points will be recorded in the detailed· chronology of events that we have maintained for: this case and you already have access to that in the case file papers.

2. In terms of the SAR position, theSAR:2002/02 SAR was subject to an appeal which became a lengthy process and one I recall was subject to continued debate although the position on the report was upheld. Andrew Lapworth was. responsible for handling the appeal in that case prior to him becoming Karl's line manager in the subsequent reporting year. From my experience and recollection the appeal process was handled fully in line with Departmental procedures. 3. In terms of the PAP for the current year (2003/4) 1 believe it is true to say that it was broadly up to date. The range of objectives had become quite narrowly defined because. of the wider issues we had had to manage with Karl in terms of tasks we could trust him to perform and deliver at a· key stage in our work. From our perspective this was the reality of managing an individual that had continually challenged management when feedback had been provided on tasks that had not been performed to the standard we had expected. As you know this had been a continuing trait in Karl's behaviour which had been a key challenge in effective performance management and. one that we had tried to address with him throughout the last 2 years. All members of the management chain had been involved in the process including Ken Morris and myself and we had all experience the same frustrations when Karl did not respond positively to the opportunities to move on and address the weaknesses in his performance. I think it is also true to say that some developmental elements of the PAP were not as fully developed as we would have. ideally liked because we had difficulty in securing Karl's agreement in recognising weaknesses in his performance and accepting these as elements in the PAP. This particularly related to the willingness to accept a developmental need in the area of handling constructive: feedback on performance. You will recall that this was something that we had: attempted to address at an earlier point in the discipline process but the offer to accept some coaching/mentoring type help offered by Rosemary Heyhoe had been robustly rejected by Karl.

4-. In terms of the PDR this should have taken place during October/November2003. My recollection is that the PDR was in fact scheduled but did not take place. I think is may have been scheduled twice. I need to check this with Andrew Lapworth on his return form leave although it will be shown on the chronology record you already have. If I am correct the first occasion the PDR was postponed was because Karl was off sick. The second slot was then arranged but subsequently cancelled with y full support. I recall that Andrew and I discussed the pros and cons of continuing with the PDR process against the continuing conduct and discipline issues and I judged that it would be too difficult to conduct the PDR process in an open way that would normally

\~

KCW - Mail

From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject:

All:

"sunneth Lawrence" <ksunneth@btinternet.com> <Ian .mckenzie@uktradeinvest.gov.uk>; <andrew.lapworth@uktradeinvest.gov.uk> < rashmi.chavda@uktradeinvest.gov.uk> 29 December 2003 10:48 Sick

I shan't be in today and if I'm still feeling unwell by Monday 5th Jan, I will see the doctor.

However, I will then start my a/I and back to work Monday 12th Jan.

If my condition change however I will be in for 30th-31st.

Seasons Greetings!

Karl

04/02/2005

KCW - Mail

From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject:

All:

"Karl Lawrence" <sunnethk@btinternet.com> <Ian.mckenzie@uktradeinvesLgov.uk>; <andrew.Iapworth@uktradeinvest.gov.uk> <yvonne.ahern@uktradeinvest.gov.uk>; <dick.graham@dti.gsi.gov.uk> 14 January 2004 10:34 Sick - 14/0112004

I shan't be in today due to a bout of cold. I cannot say if I will be in for the remaining days of the week. However, if not, I will attend the doctor on Monday, 19th Jan 04.

Kind regards

Karl

1.

LawrenceKarl

2.From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject:

Dick:

"Karl Lawrence" <sunnethk@btintemet.com> <dick.graham@dti.gsi.gov.uk> "Lawrence (Mr KR)" <Karl.lawrence@dti.gsi.gov.uk> 14 January 20 14:15 Fw: To Karl: RESTRICTED STAFF T

Please find below Ian McKenzie's response to my request for clarification on the SAR report, mentioned to you in my email of recent, which also answers the question of challenging it.

Thanks

Karl --- Original Message --- From: McKenzie Ian (Mr IM) To: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR); ‘Karl Lawrence’

Cc: Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) ; Morris Ken (Mr KJ) Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:49 PM Subject: To Karl: RESTRICTED STAFF

Karl

Thank you for your e-mail confirming you are unwell and do not expect to attend work for the next few days.

In the meantime I understand you spoke to Elaine yesterday to seek clarification on my request in my letter dated 23 December (which was passed to you on 12 January) regarding sign off of your 2002/03 SAR. In adding your signature to the report I am asking you to:

confirm the comments you have made on the report; and the completion of the report process.

It does not prevent you raising an appeal against the report or the way has been conducted if you wish to do so. If you do want to add any further comment on the report in manuscript form at the point of signing you can of course do so. As you have reported in on sick leave today (14 January) I am arranging for the hardcopy report to be passed back you on your return to work for signature.

Ian

Ian McKenzie, E-Business Programme Director UK Trade & Investment e: ian.mckenzie@uktradeinvest.gov.uk | t: 0207215 2442 | f: 020 72158336 | www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk

UK Trade & Investment is the Government organisation that supports both businesses in the UK

Graham Dick ( Mr D)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Karl

Graham Dick (Mr D) 20 January 2004 09:40 Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) RE: Staff Issues

You're quite right, the Guide, Staff Appraisal, para's 15.28 to 15.31 clearly sets out the procedure to be followed. This is: once the Reporting Officer has completed his/her parts of the report they pass it to the Jobholder who comments on the Reporting Officer's comments; the Jobholder then passes the report to the Countersigning Officer who adds their comments and returns it to the Jobholder; the Jobholder then has the opportunity to comment on the Countersigning Officer's comments, signs it etc and passes it back to the Reporting Officer who forwards it to Pay and Personnel Records Management.

Do you know why your line managers didn't follow the guidance in your case?

Dick

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) sent: 19 January 200410:56 To: Graham Dick (Mr D) Subject: Staff Issues

Hi Dick: 3.4.

Good Morning!

I now back at work. and thought I would add to those earlier email on the SAR report:

In the report, Andrew Lapworth made his comments - and by regulations as stated in the Guide - it should then pass to me to make my comments on those comments. Once that's done, it should be passed to the countersigning office, who in this case is Ken Morris, who then should make his comments on both contributions.

--~ .

But in this case that was not so, Both Andrew and Ken made their comments and then it passed to me tomake my comment - is this not fundamentally wrong? Or am I to presume it's part of the disciplinarypenalty imposed./dished out!

Does this not show complete contempt for both me and the Department - in terms of the Guide?

What's your view/take on this. I will need to know, because as I have told you earlier I have not signed off the report as yet - and I think there are sufficient grounds for appeal. I am looking on this as a discriminatory action taken by them.

Thank You, and - Kind regards

Karl Lawrence UK Trade & Investment Strategy & Communication Group - 4 e-Business Programme Communications & Training Kingsgate House - bay: 148 66-74 Victoria St., London SW1E 6SW Tel.: 0207 215 4429 Fax: 0207 215 4231 maito: karl.lawrence@uktradeinvest.gov.uk

UK Trade & Investment is the Government organisation-that supports both companies in the UK trading internationally and overseas enterprises seeking to locate in the UK.

1 -,~

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

lan/Andrew:

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) 22 January 2004 17:07 McKenzie Ian (Mr 1M); Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) Graham Dick (Mr D) FW: Staff Issues

Just to confirm, as was told to Andrew, I did speak to the union on the SAR report, and that is the reason for the delay in getting back to you both. Please read Dick Graham's (union) response below.

Karl

-----Original Message----- From: Graham Dick (Mr D) Sent: 22 January 2004 16:38 To: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Subject: RE: Staff Issues

.Sorry not to have got to you on this. I'm a bit snowed under at the moment but will consider your question and get back to you asap.

Best wishes

Dick Graham DTI Departmental Trade Union Side Deputy Secretary Room 219 Elizabeth House 39 York Road London SE1 7LJ Tel: 020 7855 4534 Fax: 020 7855 4537 dick. graham@dti.gsi.gov.uk

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Sent: 19 January 2004 10:56 To: Graham Dick (Mr D) Subject: Staff Issues

Hi Dick:

Good Morning!

I now back at work, and thought I would add to those earlier email on the SAR report:

In the report, Andrew Lapworth made his comments - and by regulations as stated in the Guide - it should then passed to me to make my comments on those comments. Once that's done, it should be passed to the countersigning office, who in this case is Ken Morris, who then should make his comments on both contributions.

But in this case that was not so, Both Andrew and Ken made their comments and then it passed to me to make my comment - is this not fundimentally wrong? Or am I to presume it's part of the disciplinary penalty imposed./dished out!

Does this not show complete contempt for both me and the Department - in terms of the Guide?

What's your view/take on this. I will need to know, because as I have told you earlier I have not signed off the report as yet - and I think there are sufficient grounds for appeal. I am looking on this as a discriminatory action

taken by them. ,.,

Restricted - Staff when completed

Assessment of personal effectiveness

Karl has had to adapt his work & role as our small team has changed during the period in its focus & responsibilities. Karl provided a variety of administrative assistance to the team over this period & I was pleased that, as the sales leads service marketing work wound down, he was able to take-on support for our e-business training programme by maintaining the events calendar & putting together the training packs. Karl was helpful when the section moved into its new accommodation alongside the websites team & I was pleased by his willingness & speed in sorting through kit & packing/unpacking crates etc.

During the period Kart started to assist by producing minutes of our marketing/communications meetings with APR. I have seen other examples of his written work & on occasions he produced reports for me on meetings he had attended. Although he attended a reporting meetings course in the period he needs to apply the skills taught there to further improve clarity & conciseness in all his written work, including meeting minutes.

He has a very good knowledge of some of the more advanced functionality offered by Word, Excel etc, but he needs

to consider how important brevity & clear presentation of information & data is to recipients, in a style & form they

can understand. Some of his outputs caused confusion & misunderstandings by recipients.

Karl has built-up more knowledge & experience of the e-services beyond the sales leads service in this period. He has assisted the wider team in new areas. Although keen to assist & quick to make a start he needs to pay more attention to the detail in his tasks, eg by listening carefully to what is expected, by seeking timely clarification of points he is unsure of, by acting on constructive feedback received, by making sure information is correct, by double-checking his own work & being more personally responsible for its quality & clarity.

Karl has been provided with regular, ongoing feedback during the period but I have often been very disappointed with his reactions & behaviors. He has often not been willing to accept or act on the feedback he has been given & has sometimes aggressively challenged it. This has happened at a variety of levels in the management chain. Working in support of a small team in an open plan area Karl has demonstrated some unacceptable behaviors in words & actions, especially when feedback has been constructively provided. It has been made very clear to him that these are not behaviors which can be tolerated, & these are additional personal development areas he needs to take on board if he wants to achieve a "successful performance" in the current period.

Reporting Officer

I confirm I have carried out all elements of the SAR process correctly I last

attended an SAR training event on 24 March 2003

Signature

Revised May 2003

Date 22/12/03____________________ _

5.Restricted - Staff when completed Job

Holder's comments on Reporting Officer's assessment

See comment below regarding advice from DTI HR on routing of this report.

Countersigning Officer's comments (not required for project reports)

I am acting as Countersigning Officer, as Andrew Lapworth's line manager, in accordance with the advice provided by HR. Also on further advice from DTI HR I have completed this section without Karl's comments on the RO's assessment. I would not normally see Karl's work on a day-to-day basis but as a result of having to arbitrate on several issues I have had to look closely at a number of individual pieces of his written work produced during the year, and aspects of his behaviour.

I have ensured that Andrew Lapworth had full discussions with David Rowe, who would have been the Reporting Officer, about the details of Karl’s performance, and prepared the necessary supporting documentations for the arranged pre e-SAR meeting. Karl declined to participate in that meeting and as consequence this report has been written, on advice by HR Operations, without the pre-SAR discussion. From my own observations and investigations I endorse what Andrew Lapworth has written as an objective and fair report. I agree that the overall marking is in accordance with the advice given in the SAR guidance and reflects the areas of Karl's performance that need improvements.

Karl has a lot of energy and expresses a desire to work in a professional manner. He has skills but does not recognise the need to adapt these to match the requirements of the recipient i.e. providing a more appropriate response to what is required than his own view. His difficulty is in accepting any aspect of constructive feedback of his work to which he often projects a hostile manner which is totally unacceptable, especially in a small team working in an open plan environment.

If he could willingly accept the advice and help on offer from his managers to improve aspects of his performance he would be able to attain a Successful Performance marking. Equally the corollary holds true that if he does not grasp the offer he will risk moving towards an unacceptable marking. Overall Karl needs to recognise and accept his own responsibilities for his performance and areas where he needs to develop.

I confirm that all elements of the SAR process have been carried out correctly. I

last attended an SAR training event on 11 March 2003

Signature Kenneth Morris Date:

Revised May 2003

Restricted - Staff when completed

Job Holder's comments on Countersigning officer's comments

Andrew Lapworth is the author of this report, a report I made clear early on I would object to if he wrote it up.

There are good reasons for this, and these reasons I had outlined and brought to senior management attention, along with the necessary evidence to back up my arguments, before we got in to the SAR period - which begins April of each year.

Both participant of this report, excluding myself, are too deeply involved in this case -- participants who completely ignore my concerns, ignored it to such extend that I am still awaiting a response to my complaint, which was lodged in mid-March 03. How could I honestly participate in such an exercise, an exercise that completely ignores me, my views and concerns - not even the decency of addressing the points raised?

But, not only have they ignored my concerns, they show their contempt for the Guide and it’s laid out procedures and processes that management are suppose to adhere to.

From the foregoing, I therefore cannot accept this report, a report that violates the basic tenets for fair play and impartial assessments. (These are not my interpretations, it's how it's laid out in the Guide.) I am responding to the report on the grounds that I am coerced under duress and penalty" of severe reprimand.

If management themselves do not comply with the basic requirements/tenets of the Guide: when complaint is issued on a local level, how then can they expect me to take their comments seriously as a fair and impartial assessment? Such complaint should be taken up and dealt with appropriately, shouldn't it? And finally, responded to; why then should I participate in an exercise that show no regard for the basic road map (the Guide) or my concerns, concerns on the basis that management did not consider them, for if they did I would have received a response explaining their reasons for disagreement or agreement to the points raised in the submission/complaint.

It would help at this stage to direct all who will come in contact with this report and happens to read this section to know that papers/docs (and there are many) pertaining to my submissions, mention above, can be found with DTI HR&CM Directorate and/or Sir Robin Young office (permanent Secretary), or from me).

Briefly, but yet true account/representation of the way Andrew Lapworth and Ken Morris conducted themselves:

1. Firstly, Andrew Lapworth: - There are several issues involving Andrew Lapworth (Andrew is now by line manager, he formally was

my countersigning officer - until line management was transferred from David Rowe to him)

The first issue occurred 26th September 2002 - it involved a grievance issue concerning the info-Centre (HIVE). With the union member present in my representation Andrew Lapworth attempted to mislead both myself and the representative (Ron Webster). This took the form of ensuring both of us that the incident was investigated by his officers David Rowe and Michele Gryc (at the time my line manager and countersigning officers respectively). The assurance took the shape that he was given the necessary documents on this issue. And therefore, our request for an investigation was not possible given there

Revised May 2003

Restricted - Staff when completed

has already been one. We acknowledged what has been said, for we had no reason to doubt Andrew Lapworth at that time. We then followed up, the union and I, by asking to see the investigation or a summary of it; this was followed up by Andrew shuffling through the stack of papers he had with him, and he then turned and said he must have le~ it in his office. We said that would pose no problems, we would wait until he retrieved it or we could fix another date when it could be produced. At this suggestion, he owned up that no investigation was done, and agreed to hold an investigation (what I had all along requested and had refused). (This demonstrated the extent he, Andrew Lapworth, would go to protect and defend his officers.)

The second issue occurred 13th February 2003 - and involved Andrew Lapworth and his wife. This was an incident that should not have been allowed to escalade but managed, but Andrew Lapworth felt it was below him, and his position, to admit he (and his wife) had gotten it wrong. The actual incident occurred when I told Andrew's wife on the 'phone that Andrew was in a meeting and therefore was not available to speak to her at that moment in time; but in 10 to 15 mins she would be able to do so. She begun shouting that she needed to speak to her husband there and then, and if I did not allowed her to speak to him she would report me. At this juncture I interrupted Andrew, because I did not know what to do - how should I respond. He spoke to her and immediately had a go at me: that I should have allowed her to speak him, regardless of whatever he might be doing, and that I should have done so in that instance. He went on to claim I did not judged the situation appropriately - but immediately after having a go at me, he produced instructions (instructions that was not there before): that if he was in a meeting, in future, he should be interrupted. However, I actually received an apology, eventually. But when this issue came up at a meeting with him, his line manager and I, he stated he still held I was at fault! His wife actually apologised for her behaviour on the 'phone.

The third issue occurred when Andrew delivered his apology note. Along with the note, there was a second note, which contained a verbal warning by Andrew Lapworth, this was done ostensible because I smile (in his word: I laugh) and said Good day when our meeting (one of our regular meetings) had ended. This is all fabrication, what actually occurred was: A Unit/Section, from another part of the building, would be moving to our bay area and he wanted me to undertake work from that unit. I told him that would prove difficult, given my present workload: Sales Leads Service and UK Supplier Database, and e-Business Programme Communications and Training assignments. He did not take kindly to my suggestion, and put to me sternly: are you refusing my request? I told him I was not refusing, and would also appreciate it if he would be mindful of what I actually said, which was: I currently have two job-roles and therefore it might prove difficult (this is a valid statement, I had it check with the union). At this point he terminated the meeting. Just over a week later he handed me two envelopes: one containing his apology and the other containing the verbal warning (the question here is: why would a manager wait a full week - shouldn't it have been stated there and then - to decide whether or not to give a warning?). The worst part of this is that he failed to state the reason the meeting terminated - he made no mention of asking me to take on extra work, and my reply to that. I put this anomaly to Ken Morris, stating I wanted it looked into - to this day Ken Morris have not responded or have I heard anything more on this subject/concern of mine.

The fourth issue occurred 19th March 2003 - it involved derogatory/disparaging statements made to me at a meeting involving David Rowe, Andrew Lapworth and I. These statements concerns my work performance (work performance that was not part of that meeting). The matter in discussion concerns an issue with David Rowe and I and to a small part, Andrew Lapworth (I will refer to this later in this comment). Once the issue in

Revised May 2003

6.7.Restricted - Staff when completed

question had been ended, I informed the meeting that I would like to have a transfer/move from my current position because I believe my prospects - notwithstanding the difficulties I was, and am, experiencing working in their section - was being hindered. Andrew commented that there was no opening available for such a transfer, and further he was not in a position to lose members of his staff at this moment in time. He made suggestions such as having a word with the in-house HR section (after his derogatory comments). But he went a little further than that, by telling me the outcome of by SAR even before I have had a chance for an interview (the official pre-SAR interview) with my line manager on that topic. The fact of the matter, now, is I don't need to have a SAR report, it was told to me in no uncertain terms/fashion:

Poor performance; No range movement; There would be no prospect of promotion; I would need to do much more in terms of performance; and He believes I am suited to range four etc.

As can be seen, from the SAR report, a very low box marking - try comparing that box marking with my PAP of 2002103, you will see that they don't match up. If that is not discrimination then I simply don't know what discrimination is or about. As can be seen therefore Andrew Lapworth had made up his mind as to what my SAR report should contain - and it is for that reason, as stated above - it would be better to have an impartial assessment. Andrew Lapworth cannot provide this, and by any stretch of the imagination it would be prejudicial. There cannot be a fair and balance report produced by Andrew Lapworth. (He will be attempting to prove his statements, even though there is complete muddle between him and David Rowe (my former line manager). As I have stated elsewhere, it would appear David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth indeed communicated, but did not sort to include me. So, what has this amounted to: a breakdown in the management chain - a breakdown on David Rowe's part, but also on Andrew Lapworth's as well, because he fail to get confirmation from is officer-as to whether or not he, David Rowe, was consulting with me. And as I have said, these derogatory statements were never brought to my attention by David Rowe.

As stated above, I will make reference to what enabled me to see just how Andrew Lapworth saw and still see me, and regard me.

David Rowe requested of me all names who had not responded to his invitation to participate in the proof of concept testing - a mock-up of a content management interface - to be brought to his attention. All prospective names were place in an Excel spreadsheet. I chose to analyse responses against non-respondents - completing a full response via a cover-email. (It should also be borne in mind that all I had to do was to provide those names that had not responded - nevertheless, I gave a full account of those names.) The Units/Sections from which those names work/belong - those Units would still try to send/provide a replacement - and therefore the header-field ("Willing") above the Units (in the spreadsheet) was populated as "Yes", meaning all Units/Sections listed would be participating, these Units would provide a participant. David Rowe would follow-up the Units. So, from this analysis, I passed the result to David i.e. cover-email and the spreadsheet (itself). On receiving the spreadsheet, David Rowe printed off 3 pages of the 6-page document. He then attempted to compare a 3-page doc with the cover-email that was drawn up using the six-page document, obviously that would be impossible. For his error (blunder), I received two emails, one from David and one from Andrew (at that time, line manager and countersigning officers, respectively) describing my work as 'confusing' and describing me as unreliable, and must do better in future.

Revised May 2003

Restricted - Staff when completed

David Rowe eventually admitted to management his error (blunder), yet no one has apologised to me for slandering my work/my reputation. I am seeking an apology (that's exactly what happened in the telephone incident above.) Senior managers were actually coercing me to take the blame for David's blunder. Why should I do that? I eventually called a meeting including David Rowe, Andrew Lapworth, and myself. At this meeting, David and Andrew refused to concede that the problem emanated from David basic error/blunder. Even though I produced evidence showing that I had created an identical spreadsheet layout/format (a week or two earlier and David Rowe gave is approval). From their attitude and stance it was clear to me I had to somehow get out of the section. I made it clear to both that I needed to move laterally (it did not matter where I went, so longs I got away from their section). And it was at this point Andrew Lapworth made his comments as outline above.

2. And secondly, Ken Morris: - I had a number of meetings with Ken Morris on this particular issue (along with others). At these

meetings, the UKTI HR and the Union were all present. And, I can clearly state, at no time was Ken Morris interested -- and he made it quite clear – in this issue (that is, Andrew Lapworth comments on my performance). We must remember this was before the SAR period. (And notwithstanding, I have not had an official (or otherwise) response from him.) He went as far as actually saying: I am not interested in your side-issues, what I am interested in is getting the SAR report completed. I repeat - for further clarification and/or confirmation - UKTI HR and the Union were present at each meeting with Ken Morris. In our last meeting before I was disciplined for not taking part in the pre-SAR review, Ken Morris eventually came round, in the presence of HR and the Union, that we would discuss the issue at the pre-SAR meeting with Andrew Lapworth. Now, at that meeting (in the presence of the Union and Ken Morris) Andrew Lapworth wanted to go straight into the pre-SAR - it was then pointed out to him that an agreement between Ken Morris, Jane Law (UKTI HR) and Dil Joshi (Union), was that the issue of his comments would be discuss first. To this, he would have none of it. It would either be we dealt with the SAR or call an end to the meeting (I consulted with the union representative, and decided: given the pre-agreement arrived at, it would be best if the meeting was terminated). And so the meeting terminated. And hence, I was called to account for not heeding to 'official instructions'.

This issue (along with others) is currently being investigated/pursued, looked into by the union and Sir Robin Young's (permanent Secretary) office.

This report will be passed to the union to follow up i.e. that this report is invalid on the grounds that complaints relating to it - before and after - was completely ignored. And if this was not so, this report would have been written - but not by the present author. From what can be deduced from above, every effort was made to ensure that Andrew Lapworth wrote this report, against all my concerns and the evidence to support my arguments. David Rowe was not in a fit state to do so because he was transferred due to the spreadsheet (and other) issues.

Karl Lawrence - Date: 4th December 2003

Revised May 2003

To: Ian McKenzie: Ken Morris: Andrew Lapworth: David Rowe: Dil Joshi: Sue Brown:

Director of E-Business Programme, Deputy E-Business Programme, Head of Public Website Team, Website Research and Development Manager Union PSC, Personnel Support Team

Meeting with David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth

What followed: A meeting was called by me because I came to realised there has peen a misunderstanding between the countersigning officer and my reporting officer concerning a spreadsheet and a cover email (giving clear explanation) accompanying that spreadsheet. The spreadsheet in question is the second of two - these spreadsheets log names of participants participating in the testing of the Proof of Concept on the (contractual) Portal system (testing the basic requirements of the system). The first, log the names of all in-house (Kingsgate House) participants - mainly web-base staff. The Second, take the same form, except that the participants are now: Posts, Regional partners, and those who didn't, but should have, taken part on the first run. The field headings of the spreadsheet (the requirements) are:

Name (participants); Role; Willing (provisional acceptance - until otherwise stated via email); Availability (time/date set aside for testing); None Availability (time/date); Comments (exceptions); and Done Test (denote those who has done the test);

The above headers are common to both spreadsheets.

On the decision to put names on the spreadsheet

David Rowe took the responsibility/lead as to who would be taking or should participate in the testing. The names were given to me to insert on the spreadsheet - those said names were then sent by David to the prospective participants, cascaded. Once those names responded, the spreadsheet was further updated and the provisional header: 'Willing', along with the other fields, would acknowledge the participants actual position. This approach was adopted on the first spreadsheet and brought to David's attention - no objections or dissenting comments were received (neither did I have feedback from him that he was confused).

David Rowe and I took the same approach, as on the first spreadsheet - listing names and using the provisional 'Willing' header field (as referred to above) - for the second spreadsheet.

8.On the 17th March David asked for a report on those names that has not yet responded to his email (requesting participation) to be available when he gets in on 18th March. The report was duly drawn up and accompanied with the actual spreadsheet (as was done with the first spreadsheet).

When I got in to work on 18th I received an email explaining that he David was on able to make sense of the covering email and the spreadsheet i.e. he was confused, this email was copied to Andrew Lapworth. His explanation for his confusion was that the covering email didn't tie up with the spreadsheet. We had a meeting that morning where it became clear that David was only working with part of the spreadsheet sent to him. The spreadsheet I sent to David consisted of six pages, but David had only printed off three pages and did not notice the discrepancy between three pages printed off and the six pages displayed on his monitor, no cross reference was made. Therefore he was only working with part of the data - which was part of his complaint. As to the confusion caused by the 'provisional acceptance' header 'Willing', I explained that the second spreadsheet took the same method/approach/form as the first and that did not caused any confusion - but further the covering email had explicitly made clear those prospective participants who has, up to then, not responded.

It is important at this stage, however, to make clear that the usage of the 'provisional acceptance' header 'Willing' in the initial stages before the prospective participants responded, via email, was an accepted approach, as stated above, between David and 1. It's important because this was the approach taken on the first spreadsheet - and further updated as email came through. (And as stated above I had no complaint from David on that occasion.

Andrew Lapworth'5 concurrence with David

After the meeting with David had concluded, and I got back to my computer there was an email from Andrew, more or less agreeing with what David had to say about confusion. I replied saying: the meeting with David had shown that David's email to me and him, Andrew, was inaccurate, and therefore disagreed with his concurrence with David. I further put it to David, that morning, I would like to have a meeting with all three of us present, in order to bring Andrew in the picture as to the meeting that took place with him, David. A meeting was arranged for later that day for 3:00pm.

At the meeting I explained exactly what I stated above: there are two spreadsheets, one covering the first set of testing, and the other covering the 2nd set of testing. And, that both spreadsheets are identical in form and presentation. And that they were not done in isolation - but that David had access to the first one which had not caused him any confusion, and that was without a covering note. And further, the 2nd spreadsheet was followed with a covering note. The explanation took in the use of the 'provisional acceptance' header 'Willing' - but both David and Andrew persist that it caused them confusion. Even though I explained that this understanding was between David and I for the initial stages, of the spreadsheet, until prospects responded to his invitation to participate.

9.The meeting at this point took a turn, but David was aware of what I was about to say, because he was informed before hand.

I informed the meeting that I would like to have a transfer/move from my current position because I believe my prospects - notwithstanding the difficulties I was experiencing working in that section - was being hindered. Andrew commented that there was no opening available for such a transfer, and further he was not in a position to lose members of his staff at this moment in time. He made suggestions such as having a word with the in-house HR section. But he went a little further than that, by telling me the outcome of by SAR even before I have had a chance for an interview with my line manager on that topic. The fact of the matter, now, is I don't need to have a SAR, it was told to me in no uncertain term/fashion:

Poor performance; No range movement; There would be no prospect of promotion; I would need to do much more in terms 'of performance; and He believe I am suited to range four;

My concerns are, I did not know the procedures had change, I have had no complaint in relation to my work, neither from customers nor David Rowe, and those type of statements I would have expected from David in a pre-SAR interview but not from Andrew. I have not had a PDR interview even though I have given David my PDR. Andrew is not aware of the state of my PAP, I have only recently added an additional 'Objective' (sixth) to it, plus additional work carried out over and above what was initially drawn up. So, how he came to these conclusions without an interview with me and David I will never know!

I am actually asking for an explanation of the above.

In conclusion: It would appear from the foregoing I should not have needed to submit clarification for something David should have known. And even after meeting with both David and Andrew, the matter was not accepted as such, even though the basic facts to that was presented: the first spreadsheet which was brought to David attention, without any objections or confusion.

My unhappiness in the section, over such a long period of time, with outstanding matters still to be completed, would suggest: there has to be some form of personality clash; and under such condition I would have expected my request to be looked at favourably.

Andrew might be right in his statements about me and how he went about delivering it; but from my perspective and understanding of the DTI procedures (The Guide) for SAR and pre-SAR interview coupled with one's PAP, I do not think that was and is the correct way to go about it. And as stated above, I would like an explanation with corroboration from the DTI procedures.

Note: the above spreadsheet is included with this document.

Karl Lawrence: SCG 5aiii Date: 19 March 2003

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Ken:

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) 30 June 2003 12:31 Morris Ken (Mr KJ) Young MPST; Pollard Tony (Dr AF); Morrison Ann (Miss A); Rumsey Martin (Mr MJB);Joshi Dil (Mr D ); Law Jayne (Mrs JA); McKenzie Ian (Mr 1M) RE: My Account of What Happened - to discuss three issues

It is quite clear you have not read my email of 28 May 03 (explaining that no one has looked at this the spreadsheet incident), it is here attached:

10.RE: RESTRICTED

STAFF; FOLLOW U ...

When I called the meeting with Andrew Lapworth and David Rowe that was to highlight the fact that that morning I clearly showed David Rowe where he went wrong i.e. print off three pages for six and then attempting to square my cover-email with those three pages (rather than six), that was accepted by him (David) that morning; and, I made it clear, also, at the meeting that morning with both Andrew and David, that David should have brought his mistake to Andrew's notice in the same way he brought it to his notice that it was confusing.

Andrew Lapworth seek to back David Rowe even though it was clear what had happen - David confused himself, and· now both him and Andrew wanted me to accept I was wrong -- I was not wrong, David confused himself and to compound it the spreadsheet was the second of two identical 'sheets (can someone please explain to me· what's wrong, that's what I would like you to tell me).

So, to repeat: I am seeking that you look at the question brought 'before you objectively - when you read David's email is seen clearly why he became confused. Therefore, J am not giving up on it, I want it address objectively.

As to the question of the SAR, how can I get myself in 'disciplinary situation'? Your managers has breach the rulings/letter of/in the Guide, making statements/allegations for which data/facts/information has never been brought/provided to back up their arguments - the truth of the matter is I should have had those data/facts, they should have been brought to my attention via my Line manager. 1 had no reviews nor has he spoken to me regarding these issues, there has been a break down in the management chain.

Again, I want answers to these questions - these questions were put to you in March 2003, why am I still waiting for an answer?

It would appear you are taking the same procedure as the spreadsheet, avoid addressing the issues - but it will not be swept under the carpet as I have made clear.

Why have I got to jump through hoops to get you to address the issues?

I will attach my note dated: 19 March 2003, for those who aren't familiar with the issue: DavidAf1drew -

Thanks

Karl

-----Original Message----- From: Morris Ken (Mr I

Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Karl

30 June 2003 10:52 Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Rumsey Martin (Mr MJB); Brown Sue (Miss SVE); Joshi Dil (Mr D); Pollard Tony (Dr AF); Morrison Ann (Miss A) RE: My Account of What Happened - to discuss three issues

Thank you for this response. Your note clearly varies from mine.

For the record I would like to re-iterate the following points:

I had already indicated to you that I had looked at the issues around the "spreadsheet incident" and had concluded that there had been sufficient investigation by others, including Ian McKenzie our Director, and that in my judgement I had nothing further to add and that you needed to accept this. I did provide you with a model spreadsheet to illustrate the manner in which I would have expected to have undertaken the exercise, and as an example to be used in any future work of this kind.

My reason for focussing on the SAR issue at our meeting was simply to avoid you getting yourself into a disciplinary situation by failing to complete the first stage of the e-SAR form as instructed. The SAR process also provides an appropriate method of discussing and resolving your other concerns around your performance that you refer to. Elaine Barley has now arranged your pre SAR meeting to be held this Thursday 3rd July at 2.30pm in room 135. Both Dil Joshi and myself will act as observers to ensure that this is conducted fairly. My thanks to Dil for rearranging another meeting so that we could hold this session without further delay.

I raised my voice once during the meeting to overcome your own loudness and for you listen what was being said.

The meeting lasted one hour - I had to close it as I had another meeting immediately following.

Ken

Kenneth Morris Deputy Director e-Business Programme Room 136B Kingsgate House 66 Victoria Street London SW1 E 6SW

+44 20 7215 8407

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Sent: 27 June 2003 12:34 To: Morris Ken (Mr KJ) Cc: Rumsey Martin (Mr MJB); Brown Sue (Miss SVE); Joshi Dil (Mr D); Law Jayne (Mrs JA); Pollard Tony (Dr AF) Subject: My Account of What Happened - to discuss three issues

Ken:

Re.: My Account of the Meeting, (including background information) 24th June 03

The meeting was call for 3:00pm and when it eventually turned to the issues for which the meeting was called and for which prior warning was given I was bluntly told in no uncertain terms those issues would not be discussed. I outline why I believe and have a right to have those issues aired and brought to the attention of the other two attendees, quite apart from Ken Morris. I wanted them to have my views of those issues, but just as important I wanted to have them see just how it was being handled and seen by Ken Morris. Ken was in no doubt how he wanted the meeting to proceed and what he wanted to discuss, in total disregard for the reasons for calling the meeting. He would pursue the issue of SAR completion and everything else would take

2 .

11.12.a backseat - even though one of the issues he wanted to have nothing to do with was central to completing the SAR.

The issue of the SAR completion came about because one of Ken Morris officers, my countersigning officer, made some derogatory and disparaging comments about my job performance, in a quite unprofessional way. These comments were never justified by the officer in question nor by my line manager from whom he would need to obtain such information. Such information take a particular course: it would be brought to my notice by my line manager in order that we both could work on improving these weaknesses, but quite apart from that we would need to have regular reviews to address these issues; not only was there no regular review, there was no reviews; I have not had my end of year SAR review. So, just how this officer came by this knowledge about me is still a mystery. And, I can assure all involved, I have done everything possible to have an answer to that question, but as yet I have had none.

The other part of this equation is that Ken Morris wants this countersigning officer to oversee the drawing up of the SAR report i.e. to have him write up my SAR report, without first addressing the central issue: how did he came by his information about me. This officer was ask to take on this task because my direct line manager, who fell ill some time in March/April 03 and is now back at work since the beginning of May 03, it is claimed, is not up to the job of reporting on me.

There is also another question attached to both officers, if my reporting officer did pass on information on me to the countersigning officer, why did he not inform me of my weaknesses, why was I not informed; and, why did the countersigning officer did not ensure that this basic procedure was followed? Given these outstanding question, how could I go into an agreement to have my SAR report drawn up by an officer who has not provide answers to these question, but worst: why haven't senior management dealt with this issue?

Yet, as pointed out above, Ken Morris believes his officers have nothing to answer for. He pointedly refuse to address these points. His statement was: I don't care about anything but getting the SAR completed. During this course of events, I actually had to tell him to refrain from shouting at me (just so that I may not be called a liar, Dil Joshi and Jane Law was present).

~ Eventually, I got him to admit the issue would be address at the pre-SAR review. And when I ask what does it mean, what would be the procedure, he was very unclear. So I put it to him it was only logical to clear up this management confusion first before moving on to areas (i.e: SAR report) for which management would need to be much more objective rather than subjective. He objected to this point-blank, so at this point I referred to my Union representative, who ask if there was good reason for not taking this part, Ken had no good reason and went on to say: it is something we can look at. I insisted that these issues must be dealt with first, from the point-a-view of common sense -- what would be the point of going into such a substantive area as the SAR only to be referring back to this officer, on my concerns, which would not have been addressed? So it follow it must be dealt with first, I believe this to be logically and I said so.

With the above issue, there was two other issues outstanding - and as stated above - Ken Morris knew well before hand what I and my Union representative (including Jane Law) would be coming to the meeting to discuss. Yet, I believe I spent approx 2hrs in the room with none of the issues being addressed.

It is important at this point to make quite clear: the issue of my countersigning officer was submitted in March 03, yet management have not dealt with it, there are serious problem here. And why is it serious: they have ignored my plea of concern at that time on such an important issue, only to now want the said officer to write up an important document/report as my SAR, without a single word to me where my 'concerns' are concern. As to the other two issues, when will they be address, they are:

1. Spreadsheet disagreement 2. Formal Warning

When will my concern be address?

• Best Regards Karl Lawrence - bay: 148 ( www.tradepartners.gov.uk ) British Trade International Strategy & Communication Group - 5aiii (KMT) E-Business Programme Communications & Training (, and Public websites Customer Liaison/Marketing Officer) Tel.: (02072154429)

3

This is clearly a difficult and sensitive case which, as you say, has a long history.

The Staff Appraisal policy is clear:

• If the Reporting Officer is not available to write the report, the Countersigning Officer must take on the role.

It follows that in such a circumstance the Countersigning Officer role would also move one rung up the management chain.

However, every effort must be made to ensure the Reporting Officer responsibilities are carried out fully, fairly and constructively. I wonder whether (even at the expense of what might be agreed as a reasonable delay, weeks not months) it might yet be possible for David Rowe to write the report. Much will depend on when his period of sick absence is expected to end but his input into the reporting process should be secured if at all possible. Do you judge this +0 be achievable?

Happy to discuss of course.

MARTIN

Martin Rumsey Staff Development Unit Human Resources & Change Management Directorate Tel 02078554720 See DTI's Human Resources Intranet site at http://mandrin/hr/ For the Staff Appraisal guidance see http://mandrin/hr/3_2.htm

----Original Message----- From: lapworth Andrew'(Mr AL) Sent: 16 April 2003 16:45 To: Rumsey Martin (Mr MJB) Cc: McKenzie Ian (Mr n'l); Brown Sue (Miss SVE); Barry Jane (Miss JE); Morris, Ken Subject: FW: RESTR1CTED~STAFF

Martin Please see messages below. Sue Brown has suggested you may be able to advise us further on how this case might best be taken forward, and in particular how much choice Karl Lawrence now has in how we progress completion of his SAR. By way of background: his reporting officer David Rowe is currently on a month’s sick-leave and is not able to conduct the SAR process. Also Karl currently has a grievance case against me (his current CSO). Hence the impasse. Sue Brown has the full background on this case which has a long history.

I attached the minute sent to Karl « File: klsar2002 03 .doc »

Andrew Lapworth

..,

To: Ian McKenzie: Director of E-Business Programme, Ken Morris: Deputy E-Business Programme, Andrew Lapworth: Head of Public Website Team, David Rowe: Website Research and Development Manager Dil Joshi: Union PSC,

Sue Brown: Personnel Support Team

Telephone Incident - Andrew Lapworth's Wife

What follows:

On the 13th February 2003, I answered Andrew Lapworth' s 'phone because he was in discussion with Rosemary Ogilvie, TPUK consultant. On the line was Andrew's wife,· Ruth Lapworth. I explain that Andrew was in discussion and I expected it to conclude in ten to fifteen minutes and if she rang back then I am sure she would be able to speak to him. She insisted that I interrupt him, but I explained I could not do that - he was my senior officer and it would be unprofessional. At this moment she seems to have lost it and began with threats: if I did not allow her to speak to her husband she would 'report' me for denying her to speak to Andrew.

Ruth had rang earlier in the morning, around 11:45, but Andrew was then in a meeting, she left a message and it was passed on the Andrew. There were no complications, she accepted what I had to say and offered to leave the message. So, I was taken aback by her attitude and threat (why would she do that when she gave me no reason to act any other way).

(That question was put to Andrew and his reply was: 'it's you'.)

When I realised that Ruth meant to make trouble for me, by her threats, I immediately interrupted Andrew and advised him that his wife was on the 'phone. He stopped what he was doing and took the transferred call. (I believed he had overheard the conversation between his wife and me.)

When he had finished talking to his wife, he came over to me (he work an earshot away from me) rather blustered, making it clear he was upset. He then went on to say: whenever his wife call I should put her through to him don't care what he was doing or whom he was speaking to. I told him I did not like the way he was speaking to me because after all it was his wife that had step out of line. But his manner and tone was that I was to be blamed. I follow that by say: if that's the way you see it I need to speak to either Ken Morris and/or Ian McKenzie, I then went to Ian Mckenzie office and arranged a meeting via his secretary (Elaine Barley). A meeting that I have since had on 14th Feb 03 at 5:00pm in Ian's office.

When I got back to my desk, Andrew invited me to have a quiet chat. During this meeting he told me his wife had apologised for her behaviour on the 'phone but still contended I was to be blame: I made an error of judgement and further his wife was sick. I turned to Andrew and said: you have never told me since working with you that if your wife rings I should interrupt you, don't care what you were doing and

13.further neither you nor your wife have informed me of her illness i.e. that she was ill and therefore she should be put through to you. (I know this is obvious, but I cannot read minds and if I am not informed of these situations I will continue to conduct my duties in a professional way, in the way that Stephen Brown requires of us.)

Finally, I ask Andrew why he has taken the position that I am to blame when his wife has apologised for her behaviour on the 'phone, and his reply was: it's his wife he must defend her, who do you want me to stand up for, you.

I should also appreciate it if Andrew would refrain from telling me to 'shut up', that is very disrespectful and rude. I have never spoken to him in that manner before, and do not expect him therefore to speak to me in that way.

To conclude: my summation of the whole situation/incident is one where Andrew is trying to get me to admit that I am at fault, even though it is as clear as day, with the apology of his wife and much else, that it had nothing to do with me. I conducted myself in a professional manner.

This leave me to give reference to: 'Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace' circular to all staff in DTI, dated: January 2003 from Christine Hewitt (HR & CM)

My interpretation of the incident is that it has breach that circular.

Karl Lawrence: SCG 5aiii Date: 17 February 2003

"

Minute

RESTRICTED: STAFF

To Karl Lawrence, BTI SCG

From Andrew Lapworth, BTI, SCG

ca

cl Ken Morris BTI SCG, Jayne Law BTI HR, Ian McKenzie BTI SCG

Date 16 May 2003

Subject APOLOGY

TRADE PARTNERS UK

www.tradepartners.gov.uk

Ken Morris has spoken to me further following your meeting with him on 8 May and I have seen his note of the meeting, and his letter to you.

I recognise I should not have responded in the way I did in an open plan office area and wish to offer my apology for my response to your handling of the telephone call in question.

Andrew Lapworth

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) 28 January 2004 10:39 Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL)

Gladwell Howard (Mr H); Graham Dick (Mr 0) Job Role. ' Andrew: Howard Gladwell ask of me to book hotels, he may not be aware that it no longer comes under my job description and it’s an area of work now being done by Rashmi Chavda, •

Can you, please, point this out to him.

Thank You, and 14.Kind regards Karl Lawrence. UK Trade. & Investment

Strategy & Communication- Group - 4- e- Business Programme. Communications & Training Kingsgate House. - bay: 148 66-74 Victoria St., LondonSW1E 6SW Te!': 0207 215 4429 Fax: 0207 215 4231 mailto: karl.lawrence@uktradeinvest.gov.uk UK Trade & Investment is the: Government organisation that supports both companies in the UK trading internationally and overseas enterprises seeking to locate in the UK. . ==============~~====~==== Tracking: Recipient

Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) Gladwell Howard (Mr H) Graham Did< (Mr 0)

..

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)

" Subject:

Read Read: 2B101/04-1 1 :00

Read: 2B101/4.11:04-

Read: 29/01/04 15:10

dti PERSONAL

160057

Mr Karl Lawrence 7 Albury House Boyfield Street Bermondsey London SE1 OSB

7 April 2004

RECORDED DELIVERY

GROSS MISCONDUCT PENAL TV LETTER: DISMISSAL

Department of Trade and Industry

Services Group

EZH 124 Elizabeth House 39 York Road London

Tel +44 (0)20 7855 4781 Fax Enquiries +44 (0)20 7215 5000 Minicom +44 (0)20 7215 6740

www.dti.gov.uk Rosema ry. Heyhoe@dti.gsi.go v.uk

In the disciplinary charge letter dated 19 February 2004, you were charged with gross misconduct in accordance with paragraph 928 (vi) of The Guide: a serious act of insubordination e.g. offensively or aggressively refusing to carry out a reasonable request. At the interview on 25 March I said I would consider all the evidence, including your representations and comments, before determining whether the charge had been substantiated. I am now writing to you to let you know my decision.

Background 2. Pauline Campbell wrote to you on 19 February 2004 to charge you with the disciplinary offence of gross misconduct in accordance with paragraph 928 (vi) of The Guide: a serious act of insubordination e.g. offensively or aggressively refusing to carry out a reasonable request. Specifically you had:

failed to carry out specific instructions by not completing your SAR as requested by me in my letter of 8 August 2003, an instruction which was repeated in Ian McKenzie's letter of 28 November 2003 and at the meeting with Ian McKenzie on 6 February 2004;

refused to carry out reasonable requests from line management, including a request to make travel arrangements;

15.Continuation 2

continued to raise issues which have been dealt with, to an extent which may be considered vexatious.

In that letter you were invited to attend a formal disciplinary interview with Sally Morgan on 27 February 2004.

3. HR&CM received a response, sent on your behalf by Dick Graham, PCS, to the charge letter of 19 February. You attended the disciplinary interview on 27 February, accompanied by Dick Graham. Mr Graham subsequently sent amendments to that note, on 10 March 2004. You were invited to a final disciplinary hearing with me on Thursday, 25 March 2004. Prior to this meeting I received a letter from Dick Graham, dated 22 March 2004. You attended the final disciplinary hearing on 25 March 2004.

Review of charge 6. It is clear that despite repeated requests from a number of different people to complete your SAR, you failed to do so. You even failed to do so after being charged with a breach of official instructions in July 2003 and receiving a severe reprimand and a clear warning that:

"future failure to carry out official instructions may result in a charge of gross misconduct. Such a charge, if substantiated, could lead to summary dismissal".

In looking at the detail of the exchanges over the SAR I was struck by the aggressive tone of communications and the number of occasions when you are reported as shouting in an aggressive manner and getting up an leaving meetings.

7. My letter of 8 August 2003 also asked you to seek career advice. It is clear from the note of the meeting you had with Barbara Lindsay" and Monica Hinds that you refused to take up the offer of coaching.

At the hearing on 25 March 2004 you confirmed that your job description had not been changed and that there was no discussion to indicate that you were no longer responsible for "day to day administrative support" or "liaising with Carlson Wagon Lit on travel issues", as set out in your SAR. Your TU representative made it clear that he had confirmed the request to undertake travel arrangements was a reasonable instruction. I conclude therefore that you were aware that travel arrangements remained your responsibility and were refusing a reasonable instruction.

9. You have continued to raise issues that have been dealt with to the extent that could be considered vexatious. There are a number of 'examples in the case papers of your repeatedly going over old ground in relation to a variety of issues. An incident in the call centre, the handling of an urgent phone call from Andrew Lapworth's wife and the criticism of a spreadsheet you were involved in are the main ones. You were warned in December 2003 and still went back to the Permanent Secretary yet again in January 2004.

16.Continuation 3

10. In his letter of 22 March, Dick Graham said that you apologised 11 unreservedly" if your action had been perceived as obstructive or vexatious. However, you had little to say when asked, in the hearing on 25 March, what you would do to avoid problems in workplace relationships were you to return to the workplace. I also asked details about relationships and your reasons for leaving employment in the past and, in marked contrast to your behaviour throughout the rest of the interview, you were hesitant and slow in your replies. My conclusion from this is that you may have a history of similar behaviour.

Decision 11. I have considered the voluminous papers on your case. Following my detailed consideration of the papers and of the discussion I had with you, I have concluded that the charge of gross misconduct under paragraph 928 (vi) of The Guide (serious insubordination e.g. offensively or aggressively refusing to carry out a reasonable request), set out in the charge letter of 19 February, has been fully substantiated. You were informed in that charge letter that a charge of gross misconduct, if substantiated, could lead to your dismissal and I reminded you in the interview on 25 March that your dismissal could result from the charge.

12. In deciding the appropriate penalty I have considered whether there are any mitigating circumstances. I do not consider there are any. There are no reasons offered as to why you were unable to control your behaviour of understand that you were being obstructive. You aware of the instructions and understood them. You were given an opportunity to demonstrate contrition and a will to change but neither were evident in your discussion with me. I have therefore concluded that the disciplinary offence of gross misconduct warrants dismissal and you are dismissed from the Department with immediate effect. Your last day of service will be recorded as 8 April 2004.

13. You have the right to appeal against the decision to dismiss you. If· you choose to do so your appeal should be made to the Director of Human Resources and Change Management, Bay 117 at the address on page 1 of this letter, within 15 working days of the date of this letter, setting out the grounds on which you wish to appeal. You also have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board. If you wish to exercise this right you should write to The Secretary, Civil Service Appeal Board, 7 St James Square, London SW1Y 4JH within three months of the date of this letter.

14. During your service with the Department you have been bound by the provision of the criminal law, which protects certain categories of official information, including the Official Secrets Act, and by the duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown as your employer. These obligations are set out in paragraph 722 - 727 of The Guide, a copy of which is attached. You should note that you continue to be bound by these obligations even after you have left the Crown's employment. A further letter will be sent to you in due course setting out the position on your pension and any other entitlement.

Continuation 4

15. This letter has also been sent by first class post.

Yours sincerely

ROSEMARY HEYHOE DIRECTOR, HR OPERATIONS

17.

_\

PAY

You will enter Range 2 on a salary of £11,673 per annum. You will be paid monthly, in arrears, by direct credit transfer to your bank or building society account. Increases in salary may be awarded based on your performance, up to a maximum of £16,435.

HOURS

You will normally work a 5 day week of 41 hours, including meal breaks.

PROBATION

You will be required to serve a probationary period of 12 months following appointment. Your appointment will be confirmed on the satisfactory completion of the probationary period. The DTI has a strong commitment to managing and developing the people who work in it, so they can provide a professional service to business and the community. We place much emphasis on encouraging our staff to make the most of, and to improve, their skills and abilities. Your manager will play a large part in this. He or she will discuss any training with you that may be necessary and will help to guide you through the probationary period and beyond, as your career develops.

LEAVE

Your annual leave will be 26 days with pay, rising to 30 days after 10 years' service. You will also receive 10.5 days per annum in respect of Public and privilege holidays. Your manager will give you details of your leave entitlement for the current year after you have started work.

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

I enclose a note setting out the further conditions of service that will apply.

Your appointment is pensionable from the outset, under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), as from time to time amended. However, your access to the PCSPS's ill-health retirement benefits depends on you meeting the PCSPS's health standard. Please complete the enclosed form (HD2/98) so that this can be assessed.

ACCEPTANCE

If, as I hope, you would like to accept our offer of employment under either of the options specified above, please complete and sign the enclosed acceptance slip, and return it to me within 14 days. Assuming you wish to proceed with the appointment, the next step will be for a suitable vacancy to be identified for you, the timing of which will of course depend on which option you choose.

dti Department of Trade and Industry

18.

I look forward to hearing from you, but please let me know if you have any questions about the appointment process.

P J COSFORD SPO/Recruitment Unit

Internet: peter.cosford@lond05.dti.gov.uk X.400: S=Cosford G=Peter O=DTI OUl=LOND05 P=HMG DTI A=Gold 400 C=GB

dti Department of Trade and Industry

19.20.CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

ESTABLISHED AND CONDITIONALLY ESTABLISHED APPOINTMENTS

Details of the main conditions of service of civil servants are set out in the Guide, a manual which details the main conditions of service of its staff which will be available for you to see in your own section. This note summarises the principal conditions which will apply to your appointment.

Probationary Period

2. In common with other new entrants, you will be on probation for 12 months. The objectives and conditions of probation are explained in paragraphs 6-21 of The Guide. Your line manager will assess your performance and will complete a report periodically during the probation period.

3. In order for your appointment to be confirmed you will need, by the end of the probationary period, to demonstrate the capacity fully to meet the normal requirements of the grade. If you do not meet this standard we will terminate your appointment (normally with five weeks' notice - see paragraph 6 below). Your appointment may be terminated at any time (again normally with five weeks' notice - see paragraph 6 below) during the probationary period if it is clear that you will not be able to reach the required standard before the end of the period. If during your period of probation your conduct or attendance is unsatisfactory taking account of paragraphs 15-17 of The Guide, we will review your suitability for continued employment and may terminate your appointment. All periods of sick leave, whether medically or self-certified, and any other absences from work apart from authorised leave, are considered when deciding whether attendance is unsatisfactory.

Appraising your performance

4. Each year, you and your line manager will draw up a Personal Achievement Plan (PAP) for the coming year so you will know the nature of your duties and what objectives you should be aiming to achieve. Your performance at these tasks and your success in achieving these objectives will be assessed by your line manager both throughout the year and in an annual Staff Appraisal report.

Sick Leave

5. Once your appointment has been confirmed, you may be allowed up to six months sick pay in any period of twelve months, less any National Insurance benefit received. After that, you will be on half pay subject to a deduction of NI

a pension and a lump sum at retirement

widow's or widower's pension

children's pensions

death benefits

ill health retirement benefits.

12. As a new entrant to the Civil Service, you are automatically a member of the PCSPS, but you have a choice about staying in the PCSPS or, instead, becoming a member of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme or taking out a personal pension.

13. You will shortly receive leaflets from SPP Pensions section which will give a more detailed explanation of the benefits provided by the PCSPS and tell you about other possible pensions arrangements.

14. You will remain a member of the PCSPS while you are a civil servant unless you opt out. So you do not have to do anything if you want to stay in the scheme.

15. You are strongly advised to take your time in deciding about your pension. There is no immediate rush. If you do decide to leave the PCSPS, which you Can do at any time, you ~hould return a signed option form at any time up to 3 months from ~he date you joined the Civil Service. Your option will be backdated to the date of joining; if you return the signed option form at any time after three months from the date you joined the Civil Service, your option will be put into effect as soon as possible, but will not be backdated. You may, if you wish, transfer the full value of the PCSPS benefits that you earned while you were in the Civil Service.

16. If you were in a pension scheme prior to joining the Department, a transfer value payment may be credited to the PCSPS. You will receive a booklet, "Transferring Your Pension Rights Into the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme" from Pensions section which will explain this.

17. Subject to certain conditions, you can purchase added years of pension credit to provide for a bigger 'pension and lump sum. Also, you can make additional contributions to

Mobility

*Non-Mobiles -

25. In the grade to which you are being appointed, you will not normally be expected to transfer to a post outside reasonable travelling distance of your home. If, however, you are promoted to Band B you may be required to accept an obligation to transfer to anywhere in the United Kingdom or abroad.

Part-time staff

27. Part-time staff, of whatever grade, are non-mobile.

Discipline

28. During your time in the Department you will be subject to the Department's disciplinary procedures as currently set out in paras 921-938 of The Guide. These may be changed from time to time but you will always be given adequate notice of any changes. You should take an early opportunity to acquaint yourself with this section of The Guide.

Revised: November 1998

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)

From: Rowe David (Mr DE)Sent: 17 March 2003 08:35To: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)Cc Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL)Subject: RE: Tasks you were dealing with

Thank you.

21.I'd like to discuss 1. and 2. with you today please. I have a pac script meeting with Hannah at 10am. Maybe after that.

David

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Sent: 14 March 2003 13:30 To: Rowe David (Mr DE) Cc: Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) Subject: RE: Tasks you were dealing with

-----Original Message----- From: Rowe David (Mr DE) Sent: 13 March 2003 14:33 To: Lawrence Karl (~lr KR) Cc: Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) Subject: Tasks you were dealing with

Karl

As far as I can recall, the following is a list of things you were doing. Have you completed them all?

1. Stakeholder list amendments - you were making some amendments which we discussed yesterday, thenyou had to check some names with Howard before adding them, before re-presenting job me so I could check it. If you've finished it can I see it please. awaits further information advice from Howard and from Jon Griffiths – then that’s it. .

2.-You are compiling a POC Tester list for the next 2 weeks. I'm away tomorrow so can you let me know where we stand with this please. We may need to chase up some replies. On Going ...

3. You were trying to get a list of Commercial Officers Conferences. Done

4. You were making enquiries about Regional Group's distributions / cascading systems. Done

5. I asked you to review Marketing advice on tradeuk.com. I am in the Process …

6. You have asked for E-Bulletin contributions for next week. Anything more to do on this, or can you let me have contributions today. Done

7. I asked you to give some thought to a Team photo for BTI World. Photos can be either in our section or in the foyer - that's my view on it - preferably in the foyer.

8. It would also be helpful if you could find the time to send our 'Club' registered files to the store, as discussed a few times. I have contacted Lawrence Ntale.

I have also had a meeting with Yvonne and made further changes and fine-tuning the e-Business training Calendar.

David Rowe British Trade International Strategy & Communications Group E-Business Programme Communications Kingsgate House, Bay 148 66-74 Victoria St, London SW1 E 6SW

L.awrence Karl (Mr KR) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Importance:

Karl

Rowe David (Mr DE) 18 March 2003 09:37 Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) FW: BTI Portal Project - Testers (17th - 28th)

High

The deadline for responses was last Thursday and I wish you had told me sooner there were so many replies outstanding! I need to chase replies today if Hannah is not to lose valuable testing time while the POC is still available.

However, before I can do this there appear to be a number of inconsistencies between the list in your email and the attached spreadsheet - people like Jo Osborn in Hong Kong who you say below has not yet responded, but is down as "Willing - Yes" on the spreadsheet. Also, I am not clear why you haven't included HQ invitees on the spreadsheet. Haven't any responded? Shouldn't you be on the list? .

All in all, I am not confident I can rely on the information on the spreadsheet and I need to resolve this with you urgently this morning please. We need to move quickly on this to make sure Hannah has a representative group to call upon by Thursday.

David

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Sent: 17 March 2003 17:46 To: Rowe David (Mr DE) Subject: BTI Portal Project - Testers (17th - 28th)

David:

Names in spreadsheet/email that has not yet responded (in accordance with what you have sent out) i.e. times/dates/systems: . Post

Jo Osborn (Hong Kong); Brendan Doyle (France - Lille);

RegionsJohn Williams Robert Driver Richard Webster Graham Percival

Helen Tanner: too busy David Driver: gave an alternative contact who would provide an ITA tester - Marcus Deeley

Sll HQ John Reynolds Peter Tibber Ian McKenzie Simon Tapson Gillian Baker Ian Gavin Rosemary Ogilvie (not on list) Paul Blackmore (not on list) Andrew Lapworth Andrew Strachan Hannah Gautrey Jonathan Griffiths Howard Gladwell Sarah Dodd

1

22.

Ken Morris Rukhsana Aziz

Spreadsheet attachment: • Participants Testing.xls

Please Use Information below to. contact me

Best Regards 'J:::MtL~ - bay: 148 ( www.tradepartners.gov.uk ) British Trade International Strategy & Communication Group - 5aiii (KMT) E-Business Programme Communications & Training Tel.: (02072154429) Fax: (0207215 2482) • karl.lawrence@dti.gsi.gov.uk

2

/'

Lawrenc e Karl (Mr KR)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) 18 March 2003 10:26 Rowe David (Mr DE); Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) RE: BTI Portal Project - Testers (17th - 28th)

David This is disappointing. It is important we provide swift and accurate responses for the Portal team.

Also, Karl's email message and the spreadsheet don't matchup and contradict themselves; I do not feel you can rely on them. Please ensure Karl records thing accurately, on the spreadsheet; there are some basic mistakes and Karl must double-check his work if we are to rely on it.

Andrew Lapworth Strategy & Communications Group British Trade International Bay 148, Kingsgate House 66-74 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6SW tel: 020 7215 2457 fax: 020 7215 2482 mobile: 07802 257241 email: andrew.lapworth@dti.gsi.gov.uk

--Original Message-- From: Rowe David (Mr DE) Sent: 18 March 2003 09:37 To: lawrence Karl (Mr KR) Cc: lapworth Andrew (Mr AL) Subject: FW: BTI Portal Project - Testers (17th - 28th) Importance: High

Karl

The deadline for responses was last Thursday and I wish you had told me sooner there were so many replies outstanding! I need to chase replies today if Hannah is not to lose valuable testing time while the POC is still available.

However, before I can do this there appear to be a number of inconsistencies between the list in your email and the attached spreadsheet - people like Jo Osborn in Hong Kong who you say below has not yet responded, but is down as "Willing - Yes" on the spreadsheet. Also, I am not clear why you haven't included HQ invitees on the spreadsheet.Haven't any responded? Shouldn't you be on the list?

All in all, I am not confident I can rely on the information on the sreadsheet and I need to resolve this with you urgently this morning please. We need to move quickly on this to make sure Hannah has a representative group to call upon by Thursday.

David

--Original Message-- From: lawrence Karl (Mr KR) sent: 17 March 2003 17:46 To: Rowe David (Mr DE) Subject: BTI Portal Project - Testers (17th - 28th)

David: .

Names in spreadsheet/email that has not yet responded (in accordance with what you have sent out) i.e. times/dates/systems: . Post

Jo Osborn (Hong Kong); Brendan Doyle (France - Lille);-

1

)

Regions John Williams Robert Driver Richard Webster Graham Percival

Helen Tanner: too busy David Driver: gave an alternative contact who would provide an ITA tester - Marcus Deeley

8TI HQ John Reynolds Peter Tibber Ian McKenzie Simon Tapson Gillian Baker Ian Gavin Rosemary Ogilvie (no on list) Paul Blackmore (no on list) Andrew Lapworth Andrew Strachan Hannah Gautrey Jonathan Griffiths Howard Gladwell Sarah Dodd Ken Morris Rukhsana Aziz

Spreadsheet attachment:

• Best Regards Karl Lawrence - bay: 148 www.tradepartners.gov.uk) British Trade International • Strategy & Communication Group - 5aiii (KMT)• E-Business Programme Communications & Training Tel.: (02072154429) Fax: (02072152482) karl.lawrence@dti.gsi .gov. uk

2

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrew/David:

Lawrence Karl (Mr KR) 18 March 2003 11: 16 Lapworth Andrew (Mr AL); Rowe David (Mr DE) Spreadsheet and eMail

23.This email is in response to Andrew's email to me, I would like to have a meeting today between all three of us, because J believe Andrew's statement about I cannot be rely upon is completely off the mark.

David and I had a meeting on the above, and it was established David email to me was inaccurate - I point this out at that meeting. So, I need to have this understood.

If both of you find you are unable to resolve it we will take it to someone more senior.

Best Regards

Karl Lawrence - bay: 148 (www.tradepartners.gov.uk) British Trade International Strategy & Communication Group - 5aiii (KMT) E-Business Programme Communications & Training Tel.: (02072154429) Fax: (02072152482) • . karl.lawrence@dti.gsi.gov.uk

1

Case no: 230310212004

IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS LONDON SOUTH

BETWEEN: - KARL LAWRENCE

v

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

Claimant

Respondent

WITNESS STATEMENT OF KARL LAWRENCE

Karl Lawrence WILL SAY as follows:

This statement is intending to give the parties’ involved knowledge and scope of

my intended defence. I will not cover the various areas in any great depth, given

that the depth of my concerns and on which I will need to draw on can be seen

from the layout of the evidence presented in the ring binder(s).

I will approach my defence in accordance with the layout in my ring binder, thus

refraining from confusion. My first area of defence will seek to address the

charges on which I was ostensibly dismissed (all references in my statement

points to Karl Lawrence's ring binder):

Continued to raise issues

1. Sir Robin Young (Permanent Secretary), along with Ms Patricia Hewitt

(Secretary of State for Department of Trade and Industry), gave leave

(refer to: Sir Robin Young, 3 and 7) to all minority staff to approach them

if they were experiencing difficulties in the workplace. How could I have

known that the DTI HR&CM could override such a request?

Karl Lawrence; Statement oOntent: 6'" March 2005

24.

Case no: 2303102/2004

2. But further to that, I did not ask Sir Robin Young on 13th January 2004 to carry

out any investigation. I wrote to Sir Robin thanking him (refer to: Sir Robin

Young, 6), and how much I appreciated him looking over my case. I would not

have been in a position to ask Sir Robin to investigate, given he had written: ' ...

he read all my papers but was unable to open the case, given para. 938 of the

Guide'.

SAR report

This issue, the incident of the derogatory comments/remarks, was never

discussed or investigated because for it to have been investigated Andrew

Lapworth would have had to defend those remarks (refer to: Andrew Lapworth,

21 and 22). For Andrew Lapworth to have successfully done so, he would have

had to show that:

a. David Rowe (my former line manager) did hold a PAP, Personal

Achievement Plan, (refer to: Shirley Pointer & Rosemary Heyhoe,

17) review with me and pointed out my 'shortcomings', and therefore

made provisions in the PAP to improve those shortcomings;

b. If he didn't but spoke to Andrew Lapworth, did Andrew Lapworth

advise him to bring those shortcomings to my attention and have them

included in the PAP for my improvement; and

c. If he didn't, why?

2. I can assure the panel that they were never included in the PAP, yet Andrew

Lapworth stated these 'shortcomings' has always been there (the

Case no: 2303102/2004

period 2001/2002 - even though this period has nothing to do with the

issues in question); yet, when Andrew Lapworth took over from David

Rowe as my line manager (2004), he did not include these shortcomings

(he spoke of) in 2003/2004 PAP (for which he was now responsible). If

there were shortcomings why weren't they addressed?

3. The issue of Andrew Lapworth's derogatory comments/remarks, led directly

to the charge of refusing to complete my SAR, Staff Appraisal Report. His

line manager, Ken Morris, Deputy Director of e-Business Programme, gave

Andrew Lapworth the opportunity to explain himself, this he refused (even

though an arrangement was reached between: Ken Morris, Jane Law (UKTI

HR), Dil Joshi (union rep) and myself); yet this was never pursued not by

Ken Morris nor by DTI HR (Rosemary Heyhoe, the officer who terminated

my employment). Rosemary Heyhoe completely ignored this piece of

evidence-base argument (refer to: Ken Morris, 1, page 3).

4. David Rowe, my line manager up to the period, March 2004, was the original

source of this problem and thus contributed to the above in that he made a

blunder in his handling of a spreadsheet I sent to him. He requested to see the

spreadsheet, which consisted of six sheets/pages (refer to: David Rowe, 2), he

printed off three pages and when the cover-note, which was attached to the

spreadsheet, didn't match-up with the pages he had printed off, he informed

Andrew Lapworth (his line manager), by email (refer to: David Rowe, 3),

that I was unreliable, and he couldn't depend on me to complete the task. On

receiving a copy of the email, I sat down with David Rowe and showed him

where he went wrong, he

25.

Case no: 2303102/2004

accepted/acknowledged this, but did not inform Andrew Lapworth (his

line manager) that he was to blame. On the contrary, an hour or so later, I

received an email from Andrew Lapworth (refer to: David Rowe, 4),

again making it clear I was unreliable and David needed to watch me

closely. In response to this, I called a meeting (refer to: Andrew

Lapworth, 20) - attended by David, Andrew and myself. At this meeting

I informed both David and Andrew that I wanted to be removed from the

section, and it is at this point Andrew Lapworth made his derogatory

comments/remarks.

5. (I will be seeking to show, by the evidence presented in the ring binder

under David Rowe's name, that David Rowe's illness, which the DTI has

attributed to my behaviour (refer to: ET & CSAB, 2, para 8) which

actually had nothing to do with me. His illness had more to do with the

embarrassment he suffered, amongst his colleagues and senior

management, as a result of spinning a simple procedure completely out of·

control- printing three pages of a six-page spreadsheet and then trying to

match up/compare an email cover note that came with that spreadsheet,

giving a summary of its findings. The cover note could never in a million

years match up with only three pages, when that cover note was drawn up

on the data consisting of six pages. Consequently, I asked for an apology

for his handling of this matter, which has caused me so much grief and

distress, neither him nor management were prepared to discuss this

situation/matter or acknowledge the fact that David Rowe admitted, in his

response to me (refer to: David Rowe, 7), he made a mistake, reluctantly.)

Karl Lawrence; Statement o[intent:6'A March 2005

26.Case no: 2303102/2004

6. Henceforth, my argument throughout, concerning the SAR (Staff Appraisal

Report), was, given the derogatory comments/remarks made by Andrew

Lapworth, and the fact that I had reported this breach/matter weeks before the

beginning of the SAR period (mid-March 03), plus there was going to be a

delay in submission of SAR reports because of the new SAR procedures

implemented: I would have expected management to investigate my

complaint, submitted to senior management, before imposing Andrew

Lapworth on me as the SAR reporting officer. When I drew management's

attention to this contradiction and objected on the grounds that there had not

been an investigation, they would have nothing of it, claiming Andrew

Lapworth had nothing to answer for. Nevertheless, eventually, management

conceded and an arrangement was reached (refer to: Ken Morris, 1, page 3).

However, Ken Morris (the senior officer who agreed the arrangement) never

honoured it.

7. It is stated in the dismissal letter (7th April 2004, refer to: Shirley Pointer· &

Rosemary Heyhoe, 11, para 2) that Ian McKenzie repeatedly instructed me to

complete my SAR report: on 28 November 2003 and again 6 February 2004.

To put all this into context, please refer to: Ian McKenzie, 4, 5, 6 and Shirley

Pointer & Rosemary Heyhoe, 6, 7. It will be seen that Ian McKenzie agreed

to extend the time to return the SAR report; why then was it included in the

list of charges.

Refusing to take instruction

As regards the Travel Arrangement issue, I sent Andrew Lapworth an email

(refer to: Andrew Lapworth, 7 and 8); and in that email I pointed

27.Case no: 2303102/2004

out: given that my Job Description had changed (for the period

2003/2004), and the new Pay Range 6 was now in place and this was now

one of her duties/tasks (a specific requirement in her job description) could

he please clarify my position. I heard nothing from Andrew Lapworth.

When he approached me I asked about the email I had sent (this email was

copied to Howard Gladwell (UKTI), and Dick Graham (Union rep)) he,

Andrew Lapworth, did not respond, even though I asked a number of

times, and it was at this point that I decided I would need to speak to my

union. (Andrew Lapworth has always responded promptly to my emails,

but on this particular occasion he wouldn't even acknowledge receipt - the

email was sent at least two days earlier to the date stated in his account to

DTI HR and me.)

There are six further issues I wish to bring to the attention of the tribunal panel, along with those above:

1. After the exchange of documents between the treasury solicitors and I, by

7th April 2005, as agreed by the Tribunal 17th February 2005, I was

informed, 21st April 2005, that the Respondent's solicitors wanted to

include additional papers in their trail bundle. I made it quite clear to the

union adviser/go-between I was not prepared to countenance this action.

My concern was duly reported back to the treasury solicitors. (Documents

can be double checked using the list sent before 7th April 2005 and what is

included in the Respondents trial bundle.)

2. Sir Robin Young (permanent secretary) is no longer working for the

department and is replaced, for an interim period, by Ms. Catherine Bell.

She has informed me, 26th April 2005, she will not attend the hearing; and

Karl Lawrence; Statement ofintent: 6'" March 2005

28.Case no: 2303102/2004

that she has been informed that my representative has requested a witness

order "requiring Sir Robin Young's attendance at the Tribunal". The

Chairman of the Tribunal, Ms. Taylor, did not grant the witness order that

she speaks of, yet Ms. Catherine Bell is aware a witness order was requested.

The Tribunal and my representative informed me that in such situations this

should not happen.

3. At the CSAB hearing 25 Oct 2004, on the morning of the hearing, I and my

union representative (Dick Graham) informed the usher, who maintained

communication between the Appellant and the chair of the CSAB board, that I

would like to make a statement (refer to: ET & CSAB, 8), bring to the

boards' attention inaccuracies in the Respondent's submission document, and

areas of my evidence that Rosemary Heyhoe (the dismissal officer) flatly

failed to address. This request was granted; and, in the presence of the board I

began the delivery of my statement, but no sooner had I started the deputy

chair (Mr M Fogden CB) ruled that he was not interested in what I was saying

but rather in the "big picture" (whatever that may be), and refused to allow the

agreed statement. At this action by the chair, I offered the written statement to

the chairlboard, given the refusal to air it, but to this the chair also refused -

this is after agreeing I could make the statement. Hence, I was not allowed to

deliver the statement nor was the chairlboard prepared to consider it, even in

the light of the agreement.

4. The telephone incident that took place 13th Feb 2003 (refer to: Andrew

Lapworth, 1,3,5), between Andrew Lapworth's wife and myself, for which

his wife and Andrew have since apologised; but which took four to

Karl Lawrence; Statement o[intent:ft' March 2005

Case no: 2303102/2004

five months to obtain that apology; and this is after pursuing every avenue

open to me via the Guide, the DTI procedural guidance for staff and

managers. And during that time every effort was make to get me to admit I

was wrong and contributed to his wife's behaviour on the 'phone. What this

incident showed is that one needs to pursue an issue if one has the evidence to

support one's argument and line of defence.

5. David Rowe's complaint that I did not allow access to my email inbox, which

was raised by the Respondent in their submission to CSAB (refer to: Shirley

Pointer & Rosemary Heyhoe, 22: Karl Lawrence Chronology - October

2002) and formed part of their, DTI's decision to terminate my employment;

my account of that incident/issue is as follows:

a. I came into work quite early one morning only to see David Rowe

searching through my electronic files on my PC, I enquired as to

way he should have accessed, using my password, to my PC given I

had not 'phoned in sick or would be late into work. His reason for

searching through my files was, he had mislaid a file and he wanted

to see if it was on my computer (disk). I told him I was very

unhappy with this state of affair, and that I would change my

password and it would not be left in the unit's night safe any longer.

b. I further pointed out to him, that putting a password in the night safe

where others could have access to it was against DTI security policy,

and therefore access to my PC from now on would be

Case no: 2303102/2004

denied. He made a great fuss over this and lodged a complaint with

Andrew Lapworth, who passed the complaint on to Ken Morris. Ken

Morris checked with DTI security and it was eventually confirmed

that I was correct in not leaving my password in the night safe. It was

no longer required, hence, for anyone to leave his or her password in

the night safe.

c. David Rowe came back to me and apologised verbally for

disputing my knowledge of DTI security (my feeling was that he

was told to do so).

d. Now, given staff could no longer place their password in the night

safe, the section used the Microsoft mail service to give authorisation,

nominated named ELGAR (DTI computer system) users access to

their Mailbox (this system was never used until the security check by

Ken Morris, the reason it was never used was that no one knew how

to access/put it into operation).

6. I would also like to raise the three issues, which, I believe have lead to my

victimisation by David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth; and those issues are:

a) Mailbox access;

b) Screensavers issues; and

c) The union and I caught Andrew Lapworth out in a lie.

Please refer to: Karl's Comments, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9

29.Case no: 2303102/2004

The six issues above (excluding 1., 2., and 3.) were covered; I wrote a note/report on

them immediately they occurred. These notes were sent to senior managers as well

as to DTI HR.

Karl Lawrence; Statement o[intent: 6'" March 2005

30.KARL LAWRENCE: WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I was Karl Lawrence's trade union representative during the period leading up to and following his dismissal from the Department of Trade and Industry. I attended his disciplinary hearings with Sally Morgan, Head of Performance Management Unit, on 27 February 2004, and with Rosemary Heyhoe, Director HR Operations, on 25 March 2004.

2. I had a number of concerns with the way the disciplinary hearing with Ms Heyhoe was conducted, and the reasons for his dismissal as set out in Ms Heyhoe's letter of 7 April 2004, which I raised with Shirley Pointer, Director of Human Resources and Change Management, in writing (letter dated 30 April) prior to the appeal hearing against Mr Lawrence's dismissal which was held on 2 June 2004, and orally at the meeting.

3. My concerns included:

In paragraph 7 of her letter of 7 April, Ms Heyhoe referred to a note of a meeting Mr Lawrence had with Barbara Lindsay and Monica Hinds, Career Development Advisers, that it was claimed showed that Mr Lawrence had refused to take up the offer of coaching that had he had been instructed to undertake. Neither Mr Lawrence or I had been shown this note nor were we aware of its existence. Considering the gravity of Mr Lawrence's situation any material evidence used to support the charges against him should have been made available to Mr Lawrence and his trade union representative prior to the meeting with Ms Heyhoe on 25 March.

In paragraph 10 of her letter, Ms Heyhoe said that Mr Lawrence had little to say at the meeting on 25 March when asked what he would do to avoid problems in workplace relationships were he to return to the workplace. My note of that meeting records Mr Lawrence as responding by saying that were he given the opportunity to return he would seize it with both hands, that he would turn a new leaf, keep his head down and get on with his work. He also said that he accepts that criticism from line managers is a way of improving work and getting it done.

Ms Heyhoe went on to say that she asked for details about relationships and his reasons for leaving employment in the past and, in marked contrast to his behaviour throughout the rest of the interview, he was hesitant and slow in his replies. The reason why Mr Lawrence was slow in responding, and somewhat hesitant, was that he was surprised to be asked such questions. He had prepared for the meeting with Ms Heyhoe by going over the events that had led to the charges being made against him. He had not given any thought to his previous employment before joining the Department. Ms Heyhoe then went on to say, "My conclusion from this is that you may have a history of similar behaviour". This was pure conjecture on Ms Heyhoe's part and had no basis in fact. The questions asked by Ms Heyhoe about Mr

31.Lawrence's previous work relationships were inappropriate and had absolutely no bearing on the charges brought against him. Ms Pointer, in considering Mr Lawrence's appeal against dismissal, agreed to disregard this part of the 'evidence'. However, this line of thought had helped Ms Heyhoe reach her decision that dismissal was appropriate.

In paragraph 12 of her letter, Ms Heyhoe said that Mr Lawrence was given an opportunity to demonstrate contrition and a will to change but neither were evident in his discussion with her. This is not my recollection. As stated above Mr Lawrence made clear he would welcome a fresh opportunity and would turn a new leaf. Additionally, at the meeting with Ms Morgan on 27 February 2004 she asked him, "if he could turn back time would he take the same course of action". Mr Lawrence said, "no, he would not". Ms Morgan then asked if he were allowed back to work, "what his approach would be towards his relationship with management". Mr Lawrence replied that, "he wanted to work". He said that "he is known as a person who wants to work. He would 'keep his head down' and get on with his work".

4.Ms Pointer, in hearing Mr Lawrence's appeal against dismissal, considered these concerns, and others raised in my letter of 30 April, but still upheld the dismissal. However, I still felt that the reasons given for Mr Lawrence's dismissal in Ms Heyhoe's letter of 7 April contained sufficient errors of fact and misunderstandings to make that decision unsafe.

DICK GRAHAM Former Public and Commercial Services Union representative

4 May 2005

South Corydon Employment Tribunal Open speech to the Panel Members - 18th May 2005

Karl's Note:

I am conveniently removed/sacked because I seek to use the facility made available by the DTI to pursue my "concerns": the Guide, and to make clear notes/reports about those concerns and bring them to the attention of management.

What I find very striking and remarkable is the fact that the person who put me into this position and claimed he had to take a month off work sick because of me, has not submitted a statement and have no intentions of giving evidence in this hearing. This person, David Rowe, I wrote to him inviting him to attend the hearing, as well as writing to Sir Robin Young, inviting him to attend and both men refused to give participation.

While we, the union, Ian McKenzie (Head of management Unit) and I, were in the process of advancing/progressing the Staff Appraisal Report, it was added as a misdemeanour charge (one that help to build their case for gross misconduct). Refer to Ian McKenzie's 4, 5, 6; Andrew Lapworth 6.

Also, an agreement/arrangement reached by management, eventually, to take up one of my concerns: Andrew Lapworth's derogatory remarks/comments on my work performance, this arrangement was never honoured by the senior manager - Ken Morris - who officiated the meeting with HR for that agreement/arrangement.

Everything was entrain, there were no objections - an email sent to Ian McKenzie endorsed by Mr Dick Graham (my union rep), Refer to Shirley Pointer and . Rosemary Heyhoe 6 and 7, for the delay in returning my SAR report - I received no response, and took this to mean that management was in agreement with current position. The question therefore is (why was it added as a charge):

What has changed between my email to management (concerning the SAR report) and Andrew Lapworth's charge of 'refusing to carry out instruction' (concerning hotel and flight bookings, which trigger the whole process of Gross misconduct)?

I believe an opportunity was now found to stop me from bring a grievance charge (para 900 of the DTI Guide). This charge would be based on the sequence of commentary in the report (Staff Appraisal Report); the commentary has to take a particular sequence. Line manager gives his or her comments on you for the year from April to March (of whichever year); you in turn, in this case me, give my comments, concerning the way the manager viewed your/my performance over that year; the report is then pass to the countersigning officer, who gives his comments on both the line manager and member of staff s comments. The sequence adopted by the DTI management, in my particular case was that line manager and countersigning officers gave their commentaries before I had a chance to give mine, this was actually saying we don't care what you have to say, you may say whatever you want, we have said what we want to say!

Karl Lawrence: 14th Nov 2004

32.Also, the charge of 'refusing to carry out instructions', would not have warranted dismissal (even though I could prove I had good reason to speak to the union on this issue), so the charge of not returning the SAR (Staff Appraisal Report) report was added. But there was an explanation for this, and they, management, knew it! Thus the fabricated charge 'Vexatious' was appended.

Having three charges would now give the semblance of Gross Misconduct, which would warrant immediate dismissal. We need to bear in mind that the last charge: vexatious, has no basis nor can it be substantiated, as a charge. This statement by me can be exonerated by the fact:

1. Sir Robin Young (permanent secretary) and Patricia Hewitt (SoS) invited us, at the conference of minority staff, to make complaint(s) to them directly (a conference attended by the head of DTI HR&CM);

2. They, Sir Robin (permanent sec) and Ms Hewitt (SoS), didn't indicate, nor did they state that we had to go through DTI HR (Rosemary Heyhoe, Head of Operations) before petitioning them; on the contrary, we were assured: no repercussion would be forthcoming (members of the conference were very sceptical); in other words, we were protected because it was coming directly from him, Sir Robin, and SoS Ms Hewitt;

3. They, Sir Robin, and Ms Hewitt, did not say I could not continue communication with them, on the contrary, I wrote Sir Robin Young to get clarification on this point (Refer to Sir Robin Young 7 and 9; and

4. Neither of them told us their invitation could be overridden by DTI HR (Rosemary Heyhoe, Head of Operations).

Sir Robin and SoS Ms Hewitt made their pronouncement at a gathering of minority DTI staff, 1st July 2003. This gathering took place at: 1 Victoria Street - head office of the DTI. The gathering came under the banner of "Raising the Barriers Conference" .

I should like to know: what is the definition of Job Description, what is job description: my interpretation of job description is a listing of what is expected of one in their job role, whatever that role might be - I do need the DTI to clarify this.

Also, Was it right that an officer under investigation and complaint should write a report (Staff Appraisal Report), an annual report, a report that could affect my future with the DTI, before those investigations were completed?

Base Defence on Procedural Policy

1. Ask questions on procedures a. Not followed by management and HR & CM

2. Everything will be based on procedures and regulationsa. In the DTI Staff Guide

3 Internet interception/spying (Refer to 102 and 106 dti): my managers were told that items would be delivered at my place of work; and this was because no one was at home to collect; they were also told these items were bought via internet shopping; they took that to mean I used my work computer to obtain

Karl Lawrence: 14th Nov 2004

these items - these items were bought from home, it can be check with receipts and/or with btinternet.com;

4 Then in this same period I am being accosted for time keeping/flex i-time something I have never had problems with I am know to work until 7/8 pm to complete my work - everybody knows this within and outside the unit, they were aware of my pattern of work, you gave me work and it's completed in a fraction of the time.

5. It is important to state David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth, because of the way I work, would ask me not to complete the work too early; David Rowe would ask me not to work beyond 6:30 pm; Andrew Lapworth actually warn me to take lunch; when I have urgent work I would work through the day without taking lunch or if I did, take it 3 or 4 in the evenings. Everyone in the open plan area new my pattern of work;

6 The object of the exercise, from management point a view, was to build a profile of me as a complete troublemaker and useless.

The above occurred in the midst of my concerns and my pursuit of finding someone in management to address these concerns and complaint; it is therefore arguable and very suspicious given the explanation above.

At this point I would like to remind the panel and draw to your attention my statement:

addressing the way the Treasury solicitors' (minded of the Respondent) delivered the documents that should have been exchanged by 7th April 2005; as later as the 6th May 2005 they were still handing over documents; and

providing no reference when prospective employers made a request.

Don't forget to mention that Hannah Gantry thank you for preparing the spreadsheet.

Karl Lawrence: 14th Nov 2004

Case no: 2303102/2004

IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS LONDON SOUTH

BETWEEN: -

Date: 20 th May 2005

KARL LAWRENCE

v

DEPT. TRADE & INDUSTRY

Concluding Arguments

Claimant

Respondent

I have listed below the various areas that contested with the charges brought against me. These areas are the abstracts from the statements and cross-examination of witnesses:

1. As will have seen and heard, the Respondent was not prepared to allow (or request that) my former line manager, David Rowe, submit/present a statement or give evidence, even though this person accused me of the illness that cause him to take one month off work. I gave this prospective witness the opportunity to submit a statement and/or come in person to give evidence, yet David Rowe refused; one would imagine with such an allegation the Respondent, notwithstanding the refusal of David Rowe, would encourage this person to put in front of the hearing his actually experience which cause him such suffering.

2. Rosemary Heyhoe has admitted there were a number of errors in her penalty letter of 7th April 2004 when it is compared with her two note takers and Dick Graham's (union rep) minutes of the hearing of 25th March 2004.

3. Rosemary alleged I said my job description had not changed; and referred to the previous years SAR job descriptor (200212003). The job description that was actually in dispute was 2003/2004 - which was changed by Andrew Lapworth during the PAP review (September 03) for that year.

4. Rosemary went on to say I "had little to say when asked, in the hearing on 25 March, what you would do to avoid problems in workplace relationships were you to return ... ". The recollection of Dick Graham and Rosemary's note takers contradicts that statement.

5. Rosemary fail to acknowledge in her penalty letter that in my defence against the vexatious charge the argument and the evidence was that the SoS Patricia Hewitt and the Permanent Secretary Sir Robin Young invited minority staff to lodge complaint; and that this was taken to mean there was an open door

Karl Lawrence: dated: 20th May 2005

Case no: 2303102/2004

policy and that there would be no repercussions; and that I could not have know HR&CM could override/overrule the permanent secretary.

6. Shirley Pointer on the other hand was not altogether comfortable/easy with this, she found difficulty in responding to the fact that Sir Robin Young was unable to address the questions raised in my letter to him in October of2004. When it was put to her I could hardly have expected to have known that the most senior officer in the DTI (the SoS Patricia Hewitt) could be overridden my HR&CM, she conceded this point.

7. Mrs Heyhoe went on to say, "You were given an opportunity to demonstrate contrition and a will to change but neither were evident in your discussion with me". That is in complete contrast to my recollection as well as Rosemary's note takers.

8. Rosemary Heyhoe made no reference, in her penalty letter, to the three key indicators for the delay in the completion of the SAR:

a. She did not state that the SAR initially failed to progress because an agreement/arrangement was not met by Andrew Lapworth and his line manager (Ken Morris); this sorry state of affaire was also mention at the appeal hearing with Howard Ewing (refer to Minutes/Notes 14); it was again mention at the Gross-Dismissal hearing 25th March 2004;

b. The appeal process was not completed until 2nd December 2003; and c. The irregularities regarding the commentaries of line manager and

countersigning officers were brought to the attention of the union. The union and I informed management in good time pertaining to advice sort from the union. (I have provided no reference given we have dealt with this issue.)

9. On the 19th May 2005, Thursday, Rosemary Heyhoe stated no mention was made to her of the arrangement made with management to discuss the remarks made my Andrew Lapworth; she eventually had to retract when the Chair of the panel showed that it was mention in my submission to her, for the 25th March 2004 hearing (by Dick Graham).

10. My note dated 27 June 2003: "My Account of the Meeting, (including background information) 24th June 03" was presented to the hearing. This note clearly stated that Kenneth Morris, Jane Law (UKTI HR), Dil Joshi (union), and I came to an arrangement on 24th June 2003 that Andrew Lapworth would explain/discuss or give justification for his remarks about my work performance before actually moving on the pre-SAR discussion.

11. Shirley Pointer's notes of appeal, 2nd June 2004, acknowledged this fact but declined to rule against Andrew Lapworth and Kenneth Morris's dishonour of the arrangement/agreement.

12. No substantive reasons were given for the irregularities in the SAR report with both the countersigning and line manager's commentaries. Rosemary Heyhoe and Shirley Pointer were unable to show that this was a valid decision. They were unable to show it was valid because it was not cited in the DTI Guide.

Karl Lawrence: dated: 20th May 2005

33.Case no: 230310212004

13. Neither Rosemary Heyhoe, Shirley Pointer nor Ian McKenzie provided any arguments against (me) speaking to my union concerning the commentaries (in the Staff Appraisal Report), which went against the spirit of the DTI guidelines for staff

14. Ian McKenzie, Rosemary Heyhoe and Shirley Pointer acknowledged management were kept up-to-date on the SAR by the union and I; they also acknowledge I was not informed of any penalty to follow for awaiting the union's response for a form of words to add to my commentary, stating my intentions to pursue a grievance/complaint route. In point of fact, I had no response from Andrew Lapworth or Ian McKenzie in response to the email sent 22nd January 2004, incorporating the union explanation for any delay in getting back to me, and hence to management.

15. Shirley Pointer was surprised, however, by the fact I received no response from Ian McKenzie for the email dated 22nd January 2004 (as above)

16. Neither Rosemary Heyhoe, Shirley Pointer nor Ian McKenzie were able to say conclusively that Andrew Lapworth should have been given the task of writing the SAR report, given he was being investigated concerning complaints; and the effect it was having on him that caused this reaction: "You can imagine having an allegation like this makes for a very uneasy working relationship with him", referring to me.

17. Shirley Pointer and Rosemary Heyhoe actually found nothing sinister, and unprofessional, about the fact that Rosemary brought two note takers, Sandra Gordon and Richard Shepherd, to the hearing and completely ignore their notes when such cross reference would have provided an ideal reference on which to base her conclusions for the penalty letter. Sally Morgan at her hearing used these two note takers. So there can be no excuse for ignoring their notes, Rosemary Heyhoe would have known of their experience (Rosemary claim one had no experience).

18. Sandra Gordon wrote up the notes of Sally Morgan's hearing (on behalf of Rosemary Heyhoe); Richard Shepherd wrote up the notes for Rosemary Heyhoe - which of them was the trainee?

19. As a consequence of going it alone, ignoring to reflect on notes, grave injustices were done; Rosemary's decision did not reflect what transpired at the hearing on 25th March 2005.

20. Shirley Pointer was gracious and humble enough to admit, she did show alarm when it was brought to her attention that we, the union and I were not given the notes; and therefore took steps to rectify the situation by sending us the notes. She went on to say Dick Graham should have ask for them; but conceded in the end that the reason Dick Graham did not request them was that we were told by Rosemary Heyhoe they would not be handed over, it was not usual practice to do so. Shirley Pointer, finally admitted, the reason Dick

Karl Lawrence: dated: 20th May 2005

34.Case no: 2303102/2004

Graham submitted his handwritten notes was that we were not believed when we said Rosemary categorically stated there would be no notes.

21. It has been established, 18th May 2005, that the spreadsheet issue was never investigated properly and if it was the conclusion reached by the hearing i.e. that David Rowe's confusion was the cause of printing off three sheets instead of six would have put this matter/issue to rest; the evidence that was available, to resolve this issue one way (or the other), leave one to believe management did not take this issue/matter seriously enough, with regard to me and my concerns pertaining to it and how this might affect or colour my opinion on how management see me.

22. The information provided by Ian McKenzie (330 dti) to Rose Baker (in Rose Baker's own words) was that I was faking my illness; he has admitted such suggestions are inappropriate.

23. Andrew Lapworth acknowledged that not only did he apologised to me, but his wife did as well, which goes to show she must have felt bad about her own behaviour and issue as a whole.

24. As shown to the panel, 19th May 2005, refer to 84a and 97f dti, management decided not to clarify if I wanted to take a grievance procedure - as Sue Brown had asked but decided to avoid this route by resolving the issue. Andrew Lapworth offering an apology letter achieved this. By taking this step it avoided an independent investigation that a grievance procedure would have triggered. Hence, the only reason I got the apology letter was to avoid going down the Grievance Procedure path.

25. I have shown the panel I reminded Andrew Lapworth of the change to my Job Description by email and the fact that the new PR6 (pay range 6) would now carry out that task, this email was sent to Andrew Lapworth before he approached me on the travel and hotel bookings. I also posed the question to the panel, why would I reminded Andrew Lapworth of this change if it had not taken place? I went on to demonstrate to the panel that Andrew Lapworth's denial that he was asked about the email could not have been true e.g. AL stated in his note to Conduct and Disciple: "On return to my desk I also found the attached email from KL to me confirming his view" (AL 11 - para 7); by this statement he, Andrew Lapworth, is referring to an email mention to him prior! Thus he is acknowledging the email was mentioned during our meeting.

26. I also established that "Administrative Support" could not be regarded/considered as an appropriate Job Description; that would be a job title; job description would list the duties expected of the jobholder. I went further, I ask to see the job description for "Administrative Support" and no one was able to direct me to this information. A member of the panel asked questions on this issue, and was unable to obtain any definitive information.

27. (Shirley Pointer attempted to answer this question and she was unable to give a steer.)

Karl Lawrence: dated: 29th May 2005

35. Case no: 2303102/2004

28. I explained to the panel that given Andrew Lapworth's refusal to acknowledge my email, I felt I had no alternative but to seek advice from the union, and I informed Andrew of this.

29.I was also able, eventually, to show the panel and the hearing that an email from Ian McKenzie to Sally Morgan made it quite clear that my job description was altered (even though the phrase job description was not mention); but the statement reinforced the argument I have been making all along. The statement went on to give justification for the reduction in tasks as "quite narrowly defined ... we could not trust him to perform and deliver at a key stage".

30. With regard to my Job Description changes, I told the hearing the person who was making the travel arrangements, when this task was removed from me, was the secretary of Ian McKenzie, Elaine Barley. David Rowe and Andrew Lapworth would request her help in this regard.

31. The DTI is a government organisation with numerous departments, it's not a private organisation, it is not owned nor possessed by anyone individual; and because of that I am asking the panel, after due consideration of all the facts involved, if the hearing is found in my favour I should like to be restore/reinstate to one of those departments of Dpei (formally DTI).

32. As noted by Shirley Pointer in her closing statement yesterday, she has re-instated staff back to the DTI (Dpei) for whom it has been proven/considered the basis for their dismissal was not wholly secure or sound. So, with due consideration to the panel's deliberation, if! am successful I should very much like to return to the DTI (Dpei).

Karl Lawrence: dated: 20th May 2005

Staff Reporting Page 1 of 6

Human Resources I Select a topic I . ____._. __ . , ____.. ____.... _. __ ._,

__

Home -> The Guide -> Staff Reporting

THE GUIDE --STAFF APPRAISAL

Principles Coverage Staff Appraisal Participants of Appraisal Process Eligibility to Complete Reports Reporting Cycles Personal Achievement Plans Issue and Routing of Reports The Performance InterviewGuidance Notes Types of Forms Break Reports Return of ReportsTraining Accredited Trade Union Reps g Appeals Procedure

STAFF APPRAISAL

-r- 1286 The general principles of Staff Appraisal in the Department of Trade and Industry are those established for the Civil Service as a whole.

r- back to top

Coverage

-r- 1287 The appraisal system and the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) form covered by these guidance notes apply to DTI staff, including specialists, except:

staff in the Senior Civil Service; DTI staff in Government Offices in the Regions (GOs) those DTI Agency staff and staff in ACAS who have their own appraisal

procedures.

The current system was introduced in April 2002 and the associated Staff Appraisal Forms and Guidance Notes were revised in May 2002.

-r- back to_ top

The Purpose of Staff Appraisal

The Guide outlil terms & conditi. for DTI staff wit detailed guidan·

Access

The

36.

Staff Reporting

-r- 1288 Staff Appraisal at all levels:

provides a framework within which line managers and job holders can focus on what it is that the jobholder needs to achieve, based on the Management Unit's and the team's objectives;

provides a consistent and comprehensive framework for a dialogue between all members of staff and their line managers to promote regular feedback throughout the year and not just when the annual performance report is being completed;

provides a tangible record of this on the form of the staff appraisal report and the Personal Development Review so that other line managers can base decisions about moves either laterally or on progression or promotion;

informs decisions on performance pay; recognises achievements; assesses the individual's contribution to the Department's objectives and encourages

high performance.

-r- back to top

Participants of the Reporting Process

-r- 1289 There are four main participants in the reporting process:

The job holder - the person on whom the report is being completed and the person who drives the process to suit their career needs;

The reporting officer - who completes the end of year Staff Appraisal Report; The countersigning officer - who countersigns the report and oversees the process; The Head of Management Unit (HMU) who upholds standards and consistency in their

Directorate and ensures the arrangements are applied in spirit as well as according to the guidelines .

-r- back to top

Eligibility Rules for Reporting and Countersigning Officers

-r- 1290 Eligibility of reporting and countersigning officers

To be eligible to complete reports:

The reporting officer and countersigning officer should have attended an appropriate training event and have a detailed knowledge of their responsibilities in the process.

The reporting officer must be at Band B level or above.

The reporting officer must be at least one range above the job holder.

The countersigning officer must be at least one Range above the reporting officer.

Staff on probation must have satisfactorily completed this period before acting as reporting or countersigning officers

Staff should not act as a reporting or countersigning officer if they are on temporary promotion and the jobholder is at their substantive Range or above.

Page 2 of 6

37.

Staff Reporting

If the reporting officer is not eligible to complete the report, or they are not available to write the report, the countersigning officer must take on the role.

-r- back to top

Reporting Cycle

-r- 1291 The reporting cycle runs from 1 April to 31 March. A single reporting cycle for all staff (excluding the Fast Stream) ensures that the SAR procedures can more easily relate directly to the planning arrangements that contribute to the Departmental exercise for the setting and monitoring of objectives and targets. The cascading of objectives from Departmental level through to a work programme for each member of staff is best practice.

-r- back to top

Personal Achievement Plans (PAPs)

-r- 1292 The Personal Achievement Plan plays a pivotal role in the SAR process. It provides a link between objectives agreed for the management unit as a whole and the personal, management/supervisory and work objectives of the individual. It is intended to be a flexible working document agreed between the job holder and reporting officer, and will be consistent with the management unit training and development strategy.

-r- 1293 The Plan should be reviewed during the year alongside team and Directorate workplans. This will enable the job holder and reporting officer to reexamine the validity and relevance of objectives contained in it.

-r- 1294 The Plan should ideally record objectives; how success will be measured; target dates for their achievement; related training and development needs; and action planned to achieve the objective; and the outcome (including comments on why specified objectives were not met). There must be no more than 7 work objectives, a Management and a Diversity Objective and no more than 2 Personal Objectives. This information will make an important contribution to the completion of the SAR at the end of the period.

-r- back to top

Issue and Routing of Reports

-r- 1295 The main SAR form is available on MANDRIN. When reports are due Staff Directorates will remind all management units of the need for completion and return of reports. The system for internal routing of report forms within management units will be determined locally. Senior management will decide on the most effective basis for triggering the issue of reports and for monitoring progress on their completion in their management unit.

The Personal Development Review (PDR)

-r- 1296 Personal Development Reviews are held in late autumn between the jobholder and their Reporting Officer. They should cover:

self assessment by the jobholder against the Success Profile;

a discussion of the jobholder's development needs and career plans;

Page 3 of6

38.39.Staff Reporting

a discussion about the job holders readiness for further progression' and for higher levels or responsibility .

--r- back to top

The Performance Interview

-r- 1297 The Performance Interview between the job holder and the reporting officer is conducted at the end of the reporting period and must take place before the report IS written. The interview should provide for:

a discussion about the job holder's performance against the agreed objectives and their achievement of personal development goals, as reflected in the year's Personal Achievement Plan(s);

a discussion on the performance category being given and the reasons for it.

-r- back to top

Guidance Notes on Completing Staff Appraisal Forms

-r- 1298 Guidance is available on MANDRIN.

-r- back to top

Types of Forms

-r- 1299 There are two main types of Staff Appraisal forms:

The Staff Appraisal Report The Probation Report Flysheet.

The use of the forms above is explained in further detail in the Staff Appraisal - Notes for Guidance referred to in paragraph 1298 above. Line managers must ensure that the final printed copy of the form is checked and signed, and all electronic copies of the form deleted before being sent to the relevant personnel section.

-r- back to top

Break Reports

-r- 1300 If a job holder or reporting officer changes jobs before the end of the job holder's reporting year or the jobholder works as part of a project team a report must be completed and sent to the reporting officer for inclusion in the end of year report. Further details are available in the Staff Appraisal. Notes for Guidance (see paragraph 1298 above).

-r- back to top

Return of Reports

-r- 1301 Staff Appraisal Reports should be completed and returned to the relevant Personnel Section two months after the end of the period of the report. For staff on

Page -4 of 6

40.41.42.

Staff Reporting the 1 April - 31 March reporting cycle this will be 31 May. The late return 'of reports should be avoided at all costs because:

the late return of reports could have a direct financial consequence for the job holder in that it may delay payment of an increment to which they are entitled; and

any delay could also disadvantage the job holder if they respond to an advertised vacancy or an interdepartmental trawl. Line managers who delay the return of SARs should be correspondingly penalised in their own SAR for poor management

-r- back to top Training -r- 1302 In addition to the mandatory staff appraisal course for all those who complete reports and a basic overview covered in Induction Training for new entrants to the Department, the Personnel Training Services Consortium also offer workshops for experienced reporting officers at all levels. Further details are available from Training and Development Officers. -r- back to top Accredited Trades Union Representatives -r- 1303 There are special arrangements for staff engaged on industrial relations duties. Accredited trade union representatives who undertake industrial relations duties or trade union activities under the Departmental Facilities Agreement should enter a description on Form C. In the case of accredited representatives who do not hold full-time representative posts, this form should be inserted in the full SAR form which should be completed in the normal way in respect of that part of the officer's time spent on official duties (ie. those not connected with industrial relations or trade union activities). -r- back to top Appeals Procedure

-r- 1304 The SAR procedures are designed to provide a framework in which job holders and their line managers can discuss past performance and future plans in an open and constructive way. When job holders see their completed SAR they will have had the benefit of an interview with the reporting officer before the report was written. They will also have had the opportunity to write their own comments on the report before it went to the countersigning officer. Any concerns about the detail and the tenor of the report should have been discussed at these stages in the procedures. -r- 1305 However, if at the end of the process the job holder feels that he or she has substantial reasons for being dissatisfied with the overall marking or any of the comments in

the report, there is a right of appeal to a senior officer, within 15 working days of receiving the completed version of the report. -r- 1306 For full details of the appeals procedure please refer the Staff Appraisal Notes for Guidance referred to in paragrapn 1298 above . -r- 1307-1330 unallocated Page 5 of6

Staff Reporting

-r- back to top

Page 6 of6

Staff appraisal

Human Resources

select a topic

Page 1 of 29

"r~· . Home -> Staff~ appraisals and performance -> Staff appraisal

Staff appraisal

WHO THIS GUIDANCE APPLIES TO (Paragraph 1.) g WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FLOWCHART (1.3) ELIGIBILITY OF REPORTING & COUNTERSIGNING OFF!CERS (28.) RESPONSIBILITIES OF JOBHOLDERS REPORT!NG &. COUNTERSIGNING OFFICERS

(5.) RESPONSIBILITIES OF HEADS OF MANAGEMENT UNITS (8.) g SUCCESS PROFILE (4.) EQUALITY &. DIVERSITY (29.) 'PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT PLAN (11.) STANDARD SETTING & GRADING GUIDANCE (12.) S GUIDELINE DISTRIBUTIONS (8.5) PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW (14.) ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT (15.) BREAK REPORTS &. PROJECT WORKING REPORTS (17.) "3 Overall Performance Assessment (15.4) Poor Performance (30.) Inefficiency Probation (19.) Temporary Cover & Overbearing (24.) E Sick Absence, Pregnancy &. Disability (15.23) .3 Special Leave (15.27) Staff on Loan & Secondees, ADP and Fast Stream (22.)Specialists (26.) PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (13.) Progression &. Promotion Assessment (13.15) :3 DISAGREEMENTS &. APPEALS (16.) TRAINING (2.) FURTHER ADVICE &. GUIDANCE (10.) Frequently asked questions

1. WHO THIS GUIDANCE APPLIES TO

1.1 This guidance explains how to use the revised staff appraisal arrangements that came into effect on 1 April 2002 and applies to DTI staff in Pay Ranges 2-11, including specialists, staff in the Civil Service Fast Stream and in the Department's Accelerated Development Programme.

1.2 These arrangements do not apply to:

• staff in the Senior Civil Service

• DTI staff in Government Offices in the Regions, and

• DT1 staff in Agencies and ACAS who have their own staff appraisal arrangements.

1.3 You should please:

/' Staff appraisal Page 2 of29

use this guidance if the period covered by the Staff Appraisal Review report (except probation reports - see below) begins on or after 1 April 2002.

use the previous arrangements and forms if:

• the period being reporting on ended before 1 April 2002

• you are progressing an appeal against an SAR report covering a period which ended before 1 April 2002, or

• the person being reported on has yet to complete successfully a period of probation

Paper copies of the previous guidance and forms are available from Martin Rumsey in the Staff Development Unit/HR&CM.

An automated system of triggering and transmitting Staff Appraisal forms (e-SAR) is being introduced to begin operating for the 2002/03 end year reports.

Staff appraisal Page 3 of29

STAFF APPRAISAL CYCLE Feb / Mar Standard setting meeting

led by HMU Feb/Mar

End of cycle PAP review and forward setting objectives

Mar/April Performance interview held JH completes job description and forwards eSAR to RO CSO & RO

discuss reporting standards RO has to include break rep0rts from previous posts

April/May End of year eSAR completed by RO eSAR forwarded to JH for Comments JH forwards eSAR to CO

••PO includes reports sent to them by other' managers

for whom the JH has worked(i.e. special projects)

CSO agrees overall comments, eSAR then forwarded to the JH who can comment if desired,

~JH forwards eSAR to RO, who then

triggers mechanisms to feed details into pay ( eSAR is locked against further updates) by 31 May Consider drawing UP a Career Development Plan

At least one mid cycle PAP review

Nov / Dec / Jan Personal Development Review held

2. FURTHER HELP AND TRAINING 2.1 This guidance cannot cover all circumstances, nor is it a substitute for formal training: see Where to go for advice for guidance on who to contact with queries it is mandatory that the Staff Appraisal for New Reporting Officers Course be attended before writing or countersigning

a staff appraisal report for the first time. However, the Staff Appraisal for Experienced Reporting Officers Course is available as a refresher and may be sufficient as conversion training for managers joining the Department with reporting experience in other Government Departments or in other organisations with comparable appraisal processes, and

the on-line course Getting Started - your guide to Personal Development Reviews will help you with this forward looking element of the appraisal process .

-r- back to top Staff appraisal

Feb / Mar Blank form electronically created and

JH and RO advised by email

I

Page 4 of 29

43.3. MANAGEMENT OF PERFORMANCE IS NOT JUST ABOUT FILLING IN FORMS

3.1 Staff appraisal is an essential part of the way the DTI manages its performance. The Department aims to manage and develop its people by agreeing clear objectives related to wider Departmental objectives, reviewing performance regularly and discussing it openly, and committing to future development and training. An appraisal system that treats all people fairly is key to the Department's commitment to equal opportunities and diversity. Making this happen depends crucially on the commitment and actions of line managers.

3.2 Appraisal arrangements provide a framework so line managers and Jobholders can focus on what it is that the Jobholder needs to achieve, based on the management unit's and the team's objectives. They provide a consistent and comprehensive framework for a dialogue between all members of staff and their line managers to promote regular feedback throughout the year and not just when the Staff Appraisal Review (SAR) report is being completed. The SAR, Personal Achievement Plan and Personal Development Review are intended to be a tangible record of this - on which line managers can base decisions about moves either laterally or on progression or promotion and to inform decisions on performance pay.

3.3 The Department wants appraisal arrangements that recognise achievements, assess the individual's contribution to the Department's objectives and encourage high performance. Management is a continuous process and integral to our work, it should not be something line managers step outside their 'day job' to do or that just happens once a year when the SAR report form is completed. Management is about the way you and your colleagues achieve your objectives, with and through other people.

3.4 Agreeing and reviewing objectives is essential in order to:

Objectives:

help organisations achieve what they were set up to do; guide future direction and planning help changes to be implemented successfully; to measure progress; focus individuals on achievement rather than activity.

3.5 Your PAP should be consistent with your team and Directorate work plans. These work plans will be reviewed on a regular basis throughout the year to ensure the team and directorate objectives are being met. Individual PAPs will need to be reviewed at the same time to check whether objectives are still on track. If there are any shortcomings in performance, or any objectives that are not on target, you need to know as soon as possible so that you can take steps to address the problem. Your Reporting Officer should be talking to you throughout the year about how well you are doing, and you should be keeping them informed about whether you are on target to achieve your objectives. Holding regular reviews of your performance gives both of you the chance to discuss what you are achieving and how you are doing it. These do not need to be long drawn out meetings; a short chat on a regular basis may be more effective, where that suits both parties.

3.6 The Department's appraisal processes are consistent with the Investors in People (liP) National Standard which sets a level of good practice for improving an organisation's performance through its people. The IIP Standard is about results - not procedures. It is a practical tool for the continuous improvement of both the organisation and its people. The Standard is based around four principles: commitment, planning, action and evaluation.

-r- back to top

4. THE SUCCESS PROFILE

4.1 The Success Profile is a summary of the sorts of behaviour and ways of working that you will need to work successfully. It should help you answer the question "what do I need to be able to be effective in my Job?".

4.2 The effective behaviours described in the Success Profile support and make achievable the Department's commitment to Reach Out, Value People and Be Courageous. All staff need to consider

file: D: HR 3 :::.htm

Staff appraisal Page 5 of29

how their roles, responsibilities and work objectives are translated into making these commitments happen.

4.3 Effective performance in achieving your objectives is a combination of skills and experiences, and behaviours - the way you use your skills when you work effectively. The Success Profile is filled with behaviours that, if demonstrated consistently, could make a huge difference to the way the Department operates. For example, if we all shared the information, knowledge and ideas we have, we could spend less time searching for contacts, answering questions from colleagues and reinventing the wheel. If we give our customers clear reasons for our actions and decisions, again it might save time and effort in answering protracted correspondence and reduce stress levels caused by appeasing irate customers.

4.4 You may not feel that you have developed all the skills in the Success Profile, but this need not matter. It is intended to help support continuous improvement. It could help you to develop within a post, or to plan a move to one which will broaden your skills.

4.5 The Success Profile describes how we do our job. It is an important tool at both the SAR and the Personal Development Review stages. It is designed to sit alongside your agreed work objectives and help you assess how you have carried them out. This can then feed into the Personal Effectiveness section of the end of year appraisal report form. This describes exactly how we do our job; how we work with, and through, other people; our attitude to change and how we get things done - in essence, a pen picture of what it is about us that makes us effective.

l' back to top

5. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A JOBHOLDER

5.1 Appraisal should not be something that is "done to you". You must take an active part in the process, particularly as you are now being asked to self-assess against the Success Profile. This does not mean that your Reporting Officer should leave everything to you; what it does mean is that you are now responsible for, and encouraged to drive the process.

5.2 You are as aware as your Reporting Officer and Countersigning Officer of the timetable of the appraisal arrangements. If something has not happened when it should, you are arguably in the best position to judge if there is a good reason why it has not and whether you should remind your Reporting Officer about it.

5.3 Unless you actively decide not to have a Personal Development Review, your Reporting Officer must hold one. You should keep your Reporting Officer informed on a regular basis as to whether you are on target to meet your objectives and what else could be done if they are unlikely to be met. At the end of the year you should make sure your part of the annual appraisal is completed on time so that the forms can be sent back to your personnel records manager on time. Also - requesting reports on working as part of a project team, and break reports at the time they should be done - not six months later when they're needed.

Personal Achievement Plan (PAP)

5.4 At the beginning of your reporting period, usually 1 April, you should discuss and agree your work objectives with your Reporting Officer and complete your Personal Achievement Plan at the beginning of your reporting period, usually by 31st March.

5.5 You will need to think about and understand why your job exists and what your work objectives are. You should then discuss these and agree them with your Reporting Officer and complete the PAP following this discussion.

5.6 If your objectives change during the reporting period you should discuss this with your Reporting Officer and update your PAP to reflect these changes. It is important to keep your PAP up to date as it will form the basis of your appraisal.

5.7 Your Reporting Officer should review your PAP with you during the Reporting Year.

5.8 For more detailed guidance on see Personal Achievement Plans.

Staff appraisal

Personal Development Review

Page 6 of29

.. -,/

5.9 Towards the end of the calendar year you should have a Personal Development Review (PDR) with your Reporting Officer. As part of this PDR:

You should carry out a self-assessment against the effective ways of working as set out in the Success Profile and discuss this with your Reporting Officer;

Consider writing a CV which captures your skills, attributes and expertise developed in your current and previous posts and consider whether you want to add this to KnowHow@DTI.

Discuss with your Reporting Officer whether you would benefit from moving to a new post and your readiness for progression or promotion.

5.10 For more detailed guidance see Personal Development Review.

Staff Appraisal

5.11 Your Reporting Officer should arrange a performance interview with you at the end of the Reporting period (usually March/April). The Reporting Officer should discuss with you the key objectives and achievements that will De taken into account when assessing your performance.

5.12 You will be shown the completed form by your Reporting Officer and given the opportunity to add your comments before the SAR goes to the Countersigning Officer.

5.13 You will also have an opportunity to add further comments when the Countersigning Officer has added his/her remarks. You should then sign and date the form and return to the Reporting Officer. Your Reporting Officer should return the form to the relevant personnel section by 31st May.

5.14 If you have any concerns about the detail or tenor of the report you should discuss these with your Reporting Officer early in the SAR process, (i.e. at the performance interview and when your Reporting Officer shows you the form). However if at the end of the process you feel that you have substantial reasons for being dissatisfied with the report there is a right to appeal to a senior officer. See Appeals Procedure for further information.

5.15 For more detailed guidance see Stages in the SAR.

6 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A REPORTING OFFICER

6.1 The role of the Reporting Officer has always been key in the appraisal arrangements. This continues to be the case, but we are additionally asking Jobholders and Countersigning Officers to playa more prominent role; the Jobholder to take more responsibility for making sure that key events happen when they should; and the Countersigning Officer to ensure that the arrangements are handled fairly and consistently.

6.2 As cross-Departmental teams become a more common way of working in DTI, you may be responsible for staff who report to another Reporting Officer. You will also need to contribute to their annual report. There can only be one Reporting Officer for each Jobholder, even if they work to a number of managers.

Managing and developing your staff

6.3 You, a

s a Reporting Officer, are responsible for managing people you work wit

h. You need to let them know what they need to do and help them to acquire the right skills and knowledge to do the job. Remember too that the way the work is carried out is also important - the Success Profile is designed to help you here.

6.4 If something is not going well, for example, the Jobholder is lacking the necessary skills to do their Job you should work with the person concerned to put things right. If this does not work on an informal basis, you may need to take more formal steps to rectify the situation. You should do this

Staff appraisal Page 7 of 29

44.promptly and in accordance with the inefficiency guidance. Contact details of those in HR&CM who can help you with this can be found in Contacts.

Carrying out your responsibilities correctly

6.5 It is your responsibility to ensure that the people you manage are appraised fairly. The best way for this to happen is for you to follow the advice set out in this document. Your Reporting Officer will appraise you on how you manage, which includes how you appraise your staff and your staff will be asked to give upward feedback on your performance as their manager. In addition to formal performance reviews, you should work with your staff to keep their Personal Achievement Plan under review throughout the year to monitor progress and to update or revise objectives. You should give the Jobholder regular feedback, so that where progress against objectives is less than satisfactory, or a weakness has been identified, the Jobholder is told at once and given sufficient time and resources to improve performance.

Timeliness of the process

6.6 Performance pay cannot be paid to anyone without knowing which performance category, (highly successful, successful or acceptable) they fall into. The only way Pay Section can find this out is for this to be entered on CALIPSOE by the Personnel Records Managers. The only way this can be done is for a completed SAR form to be returned to them.

Personal Achievement Plan

6.7 You should follow the guidance in Personal Achievement Plan. You will need to discuss and agree the Job Holder's work objectives with the Job Holder at the beginning of each reporting period or when a new member of staff starts. The Diversity Objectives should be discussed and agreed at management unit level or team level.

6.8 You should review the PAP with the Job Holder during the reporting period.

6.9 For further information see Personal Achievement Plans.

Personal Development Review

6.10 You should hold a Personal Development Review with the Job Holder towards the end of the calendar year (November/December). As part of this you should:

Encourage the Job Holder to carry out a self-assessment against the effective ways of working as set out in the Success Profile.

Discuss with the Job Holder their capabilities relevant to their work and encourage them to consider writing a CV.

Discuss with the Job Holder whether they would benefit from moving to a new post, and your assessment of their readiness for progression or promotion.

6.11 For more detailed guidance see Personal Development Review.

SAR process

6.12 Blank electronic SAR forms will be sent to you in February/March each year.

6.13 You should discuss the arrangements for completing reports, including the criteria and reporting standards to be applied, with the Countersigning Officer.

6.14 Arrange a performance interview with the Job Holder before you write the SAR. You will need to discuss with the Job Holder the key objectives and achievements that will be taken into account when assessing their performance.

6.15 If the -Job Holder also works to other line managers their contribution to the overall SAR should a1so be discussed and taken into account when writing the report.

file: D: HR .htm 18/05/2005

Staff appraisal Page 8 of29

6.16 If the Job Holder has particular requirements e.g. is on probation, is a Fast Streamer, is on secondment, has flexible working arrangements etc, you should see the guidance beginning at paragraph 18.

6.17 You should then complete the SAR form and pass to the Job Holder for comments before the SAR goes to the Countersigning Officer.

6.18 The Job Holder may add further comments following the Countersigning Officers remarks, signs the form and then returns it to you for signature. It is your responsibility to alert the Countersigning Officer to any further comments that the Job Holder has made.

6.19 You should then send the completed SAR, by 31st May, to the relevant personnel section for updating staff records, for monitoring purposes and so that any pay action can be taken.

6 .. 20 If at the end of the SAR process the Job Holder feels that he or she has substantial reasons for being dissatisfied with the report which have not been resolved at an earlier stage, the Job Holder has the right to appeal to a senior officer. See Appeals Procedure for further information.

6.21 For more detailed guidance see Stages in the SAR.

Asking for help

6.22 A list of contacts on a number of aspects of appraisal and related subjects can be found in contacts.

-r- back to top

7 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER

7.1 The role of a Countersigning Officer has always been an important one. This role has been reinforced under these arrangements

Ensuring the process is carried out correctly

7.2 Whilst it is the Reporting Officer's responsibility to carry out most of the process within the appraisal arrangements, the Countersigning Officer is responsible for ensuring this is done within the spirit of the arrangements as well as within the guidelines. Because of this, you should ensure that you see enough of the Jobholder's work throughout the performance cycle to enable you to assess the Reporting Officer's judgement of performance and make your own judgement of performance and suitability for progression/promotion. In the event of a dispute between the Jobholder and Reporting Officer, the Countersigning Officer needs to act as mediator. And if the Reporting Officer can't complete the report for some reason, you will be required to do so.

7.3 One of the major responsibilities is ensuring the text of the appraisal matches the category awarded the Jobholder. You should also ensure that comments made are an accurate reflection of performance and that the wording is not discriminatory in any way. Remember that appraisal documents are used in applications for posts and are the main source for the interview panel ascertaining whether a person appears suitable for the job and, therefore, merits an interview. It is vital, then, that the comments reflect accurately the performance and do not dwell excessively on any positive or negative aspects. Great care should be taken in the use of language too so that the meaning of comments is very clear. Nothing should be left open to misinterpretation.

Achieving equal treatment across the team

7.4 At Countersigning Officer level; it is likely that you will fulfill that role for more than one person and will be Reporting Officer for others. It is vital that you ensure everyone you appraise, at whatever level, is treated fairly and consistently. Any statement put in the appraisal documents must be a true reflection of the situation, not an assumption made on the grounds of gender, ethnicity etc.

8. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN HMU

file: D: HR 3 2.htm

18/05/2005

Staff appraisal Page 9 of29

8.1 HMUs have responsibility within these arrangements as Reporting and Countersigning Officers. In addition, they have corporate governance responsibilities for their Directorate although, if the Directorate is large, it may be more practical to devolve some of these responsibilities to Directors.

Ensuring the process is carried out correctly

8.2 Countersigning Officers have responsibility for ensuring Reporting Officers take appraisal seriously and carry out all the steps the appraisal process requires. HMUs are responsible for setting the backdrop for this activity; a culture which values good management as part of work and not as a separate activity and where good managers are rewarded and poor managers encouraged and helped to improve.

Achieving equal treatment across the Directorate

8.3 The Department is an equal opportunity employer and reports should be based solely on what was achieved over the period and how this was achieved. Expectations in one area should not be higher than in another, so that equal performance should receive equal recognition.

8.4 Reporting Officers and Countersigning Officers should be careful that any statement put in the appraisal documents is a true reflection of the situation, not an assumption made on the grounds of gender, ethnicity etc. The best way to ensure this is happening would be for HMUs or Directors to look through all or a sample of the end of year appraisals of staff within their directorate to check whether the comments are consistent with the category assessment, and that there is no apparent bias.

Guideline Distributions

8.5 Each year, the Executive Board will set the span of percentages for the top three performance categories. This should apply across Groups and across Ranges. Individuals should continue to be assessed on their own merits and receive an appropriate performance category mark. There is no justification for marking someone higher or lower than they deserve, given their achievements against the objectives set for them because of the guideline distributions. The aim is to address inconsistencies in performance ratings between management units and across Ranges.

8.6 For 2002/2003 the expected outcomes are:

Highly successful performance Successful performance Acceptable performance

20 - 25% of staff in Ranges 2-11 65 - 75% of staff in Ranges 2-11 5 - 10% of staff in Ranges 2-11

8.7 The guideline is not a quota and it should not be applied rigidly. It would be absurd if a high performing team or management unit was only allowed a limited percentage of staff rated 'Highly successful'. Likewise, for a management unit that has performed less well, it would be absurd to try and 'make up numbers'.

Why are guideline distributions set?

8.8 A similar level of performance by two people in the same Range, in different areas of the Department should receive the same performance category marking. This has not always happened in the past. In addition, figures from previous years have shown that people in the higher Ranges, on the whole, receive higher box markings than people in Band A. The guideline distribution seeks to address this by providing a benchmark that allows HMUs to check that objective setting and ·reporting standards in their Management Unit is consistent with that which is expected across the Department.

What do I have to do?

8.9 HMUs will need to collate statistics for their own Management Unit and compare these with the distribution suggested for the Department as a whole. If there are any variations, you should be prepared to justify them to the Board under your Corporate Governance responsibility. The comments in the annual reports will help you to do this. You will need to satisfy the Board that objectives have been set at a level appropriate to the Range of every Jobholder (as set out in the '

Staff appraisal Page 10 of29

Grading guidance), and that reporting standards are consistent across pay Ranges. If the discrepancy is caused by staff in particular Ranges being asked to perform at a standard which is either too low or too high, the Executive Board will consider whether this is representative of all Management Units and, if it is, they will ask HR and CM to investigate what action should be taken.

At the beginning of the year - HMU responsibilities

8.10 On the basis of the Directorate's plans you should agree with team leaders in your Directorate the priority tasks for the year ahead. Everyone in the Directorate should be given clear objectives and you need to ensure consistency in setting individual's objectives in their Personal Achievement Plans. There is a lot of support, from academic research and in other parts of the public and private sector, for limiting the number of different objectives that any individual is working on at anyone time. You should ensure that no member of your Directorate has more then seven objectives.

At the end of the year

8.11 In February/March you should hold a meeting for all staff in the Directorate to:

explain the guideline distribution set by the Executive Board and whether you think the Directorate has good reason to fall outside these guidelines (either above or below)

remind everyone of their responsibilities under the appraisal arrangements set standards of report writing .within your Directorate e.g. the fact that comments on management should by

visible in the report, stress the importance of fairness to all (diversity) and that meeting objectives is not enough to get into the highly successful category, you need to demonstrate Success Profile behaviours as well

announce any changes to the arrangements in the forthcoming year

8.12 Larger management units may want to hold smaller Director-led meetings for this, but it is important that everyone in the Management Unit hears the same message.

8.13 You may wish to consider using PTSC as facilitators at this meeting.

9 THE RELATIONSHIP WITH 'JOBS AND VACANCY MANAGEMENT'

9.1 Staff Appraisal Review Report forms will continue to be used when applying for internal postings either laterally or on progression or promotion. You will need to provide your Staff Appraisal Review Reports covering the last two years alongside your application form. This may include break reports.

9.2 New procedures are being developed for vacancy filling, which will be introduced in 2003 and will reflect the new arrangement for SARs, PAPs, and PDRs. Full guidance and training will be issued in due course.

10. WHERE TO GO FOR ADVICE

The Staff Development Unit

10.1 The Staff Development Unit (SOU) in Human Resources & Change Management Directorate (HR&CM) is responsible for Staff Appraisal policy and provides advice on how the system should be applied in cases that are not straightforward, Contact Martin Rumsey on 020 7855 4720, and holds the budget for related training. The SDU's responsibilities also include the Mentoring Scheme, training and development policy (including Investors in People, management of the Learning Gateway, provision of training services and the Career Development Advice. See Personal Development for guidance and advice.

The Recruitment Unit

10.2 The Recruitment Unit in HR&CM can advise individuals on internal vacancy filling arrangements, contact Stephen McCaul on 020 7855 4717.

The Personnel Support Team

r"".,. :--IT" : ""'1' __________

Staft' appraisal Page 11 of29

10.3 The Personnel Support Team in HR&CM can support and advise line managers and their staff on their delegated personnel responsibilities, career matters and on problems affecting them at work. Please see 'How the Personnel Support Team can help you' for further information.

Pay policy

10.4 The Pay Policy section in HR&CM is responsible for the non-SCS pay system (that is the system for Ranges 2-11). Part of this process is negotiating annual pay awards with the Trades Unions and the way in which appraisal markings will be used in delivering the performance-related elements of pay. If. you have any questions on the pay system then please contact Simon Cooper (020 7855 4701) or John Blaker (020 78554699)

10,5 For further sources of help please refer to our comprehensive list of contacts, with links to guidance.

-r- back to top

11. PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT PLANS

11.1 The Personal Achievement Plan (PAP) plays a very important role in the staff appraisal process. The Plan provides a link between an individuals work objectives and the wider Departmental/Management Unit/team objectives.

11,2 The PAP is intended to be a working document to be used by Jobholders and their line managers. Objectives can and do change, whether at the management unit or individual level and as a result the nature of our work may take on a different focus, The Plan is a flexible, ongoing record that can be changed during the planning year to meet these changing circumstances. Although the Plan is a separate document from the SAR form it is the foundation of staff appraisal - individuals will be appraised against their success in achieving the objectives in their PAP, and it's in the PAP that progress through the year is recorded.

11.3 Jobholders may be asked to take on additional worker may have the opportunity to work for part of the year on a project, as part of another team. If so they will need to negotiate with their Reporting Officer what part of their existing work needs to be postponed or stopped altogether to make way for this new piece of work. To do this, both need to know how much of the work has been completed, and exactly what still needs to be done. Further advice on PAPs, objective setting and project working is available.

11.4 There is a centrally designed PAP template, but it can be re-designed to suit local needs.

Timing

11.5 At the beginning of the reporting period, usually 31st March, the Jobholder will sit down with their Reporting Officer and agree their objectives for the forthcoming year based on the objectives set for their team and Directorate and put these in their PAP, Ideally both the Jobholder and Reporting Officer will have attended the objective setting training event available from PTSC. They should also agree diversity objectives following discussion in their team or Management Unit about how they will deliver the DTI's diversity agenda, If the Jobholder is a manager, they will also need to agree content and wording of their management objective with the Reporting Officer, following discussion with their staff about how they want to be managed.

11.6 The PAP should reviewed on a regular basis. The number and frequency of the reviews will depend on local circumstances and it will be for individuals and their Reporting Officers to agree what is sensible. There should be at least two review sessions - one at the end of the reporting period and one other at some time during it.

How to use the model PAP template

11.7 The PAP is split into three sections,

Staff appraisal

Section 1. Why does my post exist?

Page 12 of29

11.8 This section should be based on a discussion between the Jobholder and the Reporting Officer. The aim of this discussion is to help individuals understand how the work they do contributes to achieving wider Departmental, Group and Management Unit objectives. It should also ensure that Jobholders understand the importance of their contribution to the work of the immediate team. The outcome of this discussion should be summarised by the Jobholder at this part of the PAP.

Section 2. Objectives

11.9 PAPs should contain no more than seven work objectives. This reflects the importance of prioritising work activities and is in line with best practice in other public and private sector organisations.

11.10 The objectives should be SMART and outcome-focused. It used to seem enough to say "I'll do x, y and z this year", but we need to know why we are doing these things. We need to know what the outcome will be so that we can:

• measure our success in achieving it

• evaluate the usefulness of achieving it

• understand how this fits in with DTI's top level objective of increasing prosperity

• decide whether we should continue to do it

• prioritise our work when new opportunities arise

11.11 Although objectives should be challenging, they should be set at the right level for the range of the post, not the abilities of the Jobholder. For guidance on what the Department expects from Jobholders in each pay range please refer to the pay and grading guidance. Individual work objectives should also appear on team work plans and be revised as part of team-based performance management. What team-based performance management means in practice is that teams.will regularly get together to talk about team objectives and what has been achieved so this can be f-ed into the Directorate work plan meeting and so on up the chain. Individuals' objectives will be discussed at these team meetings, as the team objectives will only have been achieved if individuals objectives have. This series of meetings, together with the Persohal Development Review, will reduce the need for one-to-one in-year PAP reviews, except in the case of poor performers.

What should go in each box?

11.12 An annotated PAP form gives guidance on the approach to take.

-r- back to top

12. STANDARDS SETTING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR

Who sets them?

12.1 Standards should be set locally by the HMU. From time to time, HR and CM may issue guidance on what should be taken into account when setting standards.

How should they be set?

The Theory

12.2 Standards should be set at the objectives stage. HMUs are responsible for ensuring that Jobholders at the same Range have equally challenging objectives, which must be appropriate to their Range. Guidance on setting the right Range for the post can be found in Pay and grading guidance.

file: D: HR 3 .::2.htm

Staff appraisal Page 13 of 29

12.3 Length of time in a post or experience of the work or in the Range should have no bearing on the difficulty of the objectives. Jobholders new to the post or to the Range should have as one of their objectives the need to be 'up to speed' with the job within an agreed period of time. Personal Development Objectives could outline how this is to be done. Once this period is over, they should be assessed in the same way as other Jobholders occupying the same Range jobs and have equally challenging objectives.

The Practice

12.4 It is very difficult to set equally challenging objectives for all staff within a Range, because each post is different. However, the fact that the post has been Ranged at a particular level means a decision has been made at some point about the responsibilities of the post and the level of difficulty of the work. Applying the same criteria to setting the objectives should ensure they are pitched at the right level. Guidance on Pay and Grading will help with this.

12.5 It may also be worthwhile exchanging information about the objectives on PAPs with colleagues from other areas of the Department to compare the degree of challenge involved.

12.6 Training on setting outcome-focussed objectives is available from PTSC. Please contact your training and development officer.

'r back to top

13. PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS (including the progression/promotion assessment)

What is a Personal Development Review?

13.1 The Personal Development Review (PDRs) is the forward looking element of the appraisal process. Concentrating on the development of the Jobholder, the PDR is held in late autumn, and gives the Jobholder and the Reporting Officer the opportunity to discuss the Jobholder's ways of working against the Success Profile, their career aspirations, their suitability for progression and promotion, and, if appropriate, to give upward feedback to the Reporting Officer on their performance as a manager._ This discussion used to take place as part of the performance interview at the end of the reporting year, but by separating the backward looking appraisal and the forward looking development, equal emphasis will be placed on both. Current work objectives should be agreed at the start of the reporting year and be included in the PAP. Any training and development needs related to the achievement of work objectives should be discussed at the start of the year and not left until the PDR. Additionally, in year PAP reviews should continue to be held.

13.2 Reporting Officers must offer their staff a Personal Development Review although staff can decline to have one, e.g. someone who will shortly be leaving the Department or is re-employed after retirement age. If the Jobholder decides not to have one, they must confirm this in writing to their Reporting Officer.

13.3 The PDR should comprise an initial discussion between the Jobholder and the Reporting Officer, followed by the completion of a PDR form. The self-assessment section of the PDR form will need to be completed in draft in time for this discussion but the form should be completed as a final version only after the discussion has been held. Once the PDR process is completed it is the jobholder's responsibility to keep the form.

13.4 The PDR is used if the Jobholder applies for other posts. The Countersigning Officer uses the PDR form to inform their input onto the appropriate forms, such as the suitability assessment of the Jobholder for a post. Individuals can update the PDR form to take account of any developmental actions taken since the last review. They may also wish to review the PDR and update it if their Reporting Officer is leaving. If there is any disagreement over the promotion/progression assessment that cannot be resolved locally between the Jobholder and the Reporting Officer, the Jobholder has the right of appeal.

What should the Personal Development Review cover?

13.5 The PDR should cover the following;

file: D: HR~:3 2.htrn 18/05/2005

Staff appraisal Page 14 of29

A self-assessment by the Jobholder of their current strengths and areas for improvement against the Success Profile headings. This should be drafted by the Jobholder and brought to the PDR discussion they have with their manager. How to undertake this self-assessment is described under the role of the Jobholder.

The Reporting Officer's assessment of the Jobholder's current strengths and areas for improvement. If the Jobholder has line management responsibilities, this should include an assessment of the Jobholder's effectiveness as a manager. How to make this assessment is described under the role of the Reporting Officer.

An assessment by the Reporting Officer of the Jobholder's readiness for progression/promotion.

A review of the effectiveness of development opportunities already undertaken by the Jobholder and identification of future development needs, linked to career goals.

• 360-degree feedback if appropriate. • A discussion of the Jobholder's current job and future prospects.

Roles and responsibilities

Jobholders

13.6 As a Jobholder you have a responsibility for managing your own career, but you may need help with this. Your Reporting Officer is your first source of advice; they have an important role to play in helping you to assess your strengths and the areas for improvement in your current job and for the longer term. The PDR gives you the opportunity to discuss your future plans and any developmental needs you may have so that you are best placed to put the plans into operation.

13.7 You should drive the PDR interview to make sure it meets your needs. In particular you should:

Be actively involved in the SAR process and use it to identify your training and development needs Make sure you take advantage of the training and development opportunities on offer - both for your current

and future needs Consider if a move to another job in the next year would be appropriate to gain more experience or

develop or practise your skills.

13.8 As part of the PDR process you will be asked to draft a self-assessment of your ways of working against the Success Profile. This is important in thinking about how your skills, knowledge and " experience are being used. As you prepare to write the self-assessment you should review your achievements over the last two or three years and think about what you did to achieve those results. Look at the individual behaviours in the Success Profile to see how your approach to the work relates to each of these (using the self-assessment questionnaire will help you to do this). Try not to

~" quote evidence of each behaviour, as you are likely to end up with a list without coherence and depth. Instead give an overview of your performance against each heading, indicating where your strengths and areas for improvement lie which captures the overall flavour of your way of working. One example should be given for each heading.

Reporting Officers

13.9 As a manager you are responsible for selecting staff to fill vacancies and supporting them in planning their future careers in the Department. Training on this is available. And the Department's expectations of its managers at all levels are given in the Success Profile. Reporting Officers should come to the review prepared to:

offer realistic advice on expectations of posts, progression and promotion in the future, balancing the needs of the Department and the career aspirations of the Jobholder

offer constructive guidance on the skills and experience the Jobholder may need to acquire in order to develop their careers

discuss training and development options so as to develop skills and experience for future posts while in their current job

It is often the case that Jobholders will underestimate their capabilities and Reporting Officers have a role to play-in ensuring the self-assessment truly reflects performance. Whilst you cannot require the Jobholder to change their assessment, you should aim to guide them through the process and encourage them to revise it if it is very different from what you have witnessed. There is nothing to gain from having two conflicting views of ability and performance in the assessment of competence.

Staff appraisal Page 15 01'29

Once the self-assessment has been completed Reporting Officers should record their view of the Jobholder's performance in the next section on the PDR form.

Feedback

13.10 If the jobholder has line management responsibility, the Reporting Officer must assess the jobholder's effectiveness as a manager. The Reporting Officer should do this by asking the job holders' staff for upward feedback on the job holder, assessing against the behaviours of a good manager as listed in the Success Profile. So, for instance, they could be asked to look at whether their manager;

Takes time to understand their concerns and aspirations Explains the wider DTI perspective when discussing and monitoring objectives Encourages attitudes and behaviours which respect and value diversity Encourages and values feedback Keeps them and others informed of what's going on Involve them in setting their objectives and deciding how to achieve them Coaches and encourages them to develop their talents and give of their best Delegates work to get the best from others Supports them in achieving their development plans

",", • Ensures team members get credit for good work and new ideas Is approachable Accepts responsibilities for their own decisions

13.11 It is important when doing this to anonymise the feedback before it is given to the jobholder so that individuals feel they can be open and honest and not suffer any repercussions. The jobholders' staff should be asked for their assessment on the above factors, either bye-mail or in writing, or by discussion with the reporting officer.

13.12 Once all the feedback has been received the Reporting Officer should take out any references to specific incidents or use of language that will reveal the identity of a contributor. This can be difficult where the job holder only has line management responsibility for one member of staff, in such cases the reporting officer may wish to ask for feedback from others who the job holder has worked closely with, for example the counter signing officer or team members who the job holder does not have direct line management responsibility for but who have undertaken work for the job holder. It is for the Reporting Officer to judge how many people to ask for contributions from and will vary depending on the nature of the work and size of teams.

13.13 Immediately the feedback has been anonymised, the original feedback should be disposed of, either by deleting e-mails or destroying written notes. This is to protect the confidentiality of those giving feedback, as the information may be disclosed if the job holder makes a request under the Data Protection Act for access to their personal data.

13.14 Further information on giving feedback is available through the PDR e-learning package.

Assessment of readiness for progression/promotion

13.15 Taking together all the evidence in the review, Reporting Officers should add their assessment of the Jobholder's readiness for progression/promotion.

Progression

13.16 'Progression' covers any move upwards from one Range to another within the same Band. The assessment should act as a guide for the individual and prospective line managers by highlighting the particular strengths and areas for improvement that the Jobholder has demonstrated in their current post, and which are relevant in determining whether or not they are ready to progress at the time the PDR is held.

13.17 Where there are particular development needs to address before the Jobholder is ready to progress, these should be discussed and noted in the assessment for 'Progression'. While the assessment should not focus narrowly on the potential for a particular Range of post, Reporting Officers should try to be as precise as possible about the degree of additional responsibilities that the Jobholder, In their view, is ready to take on. In making this assessment, the emphasis should be on

18/05/2005

Staff appraisal Page 16 of29

the broad spectrum of relevant Success Profile behaviours applicable to jobs at a higher level of responsibility but within the same Band. Remember we do not expect Jobholders to display all the behaviours all the time before being ready for progression; you will need to exercise your judgement, but you should be able to give clear reasons for your assessment. It would be helpful to state which behaviours, experience or skills are missing if that is the case. If the individual is known to be interested in pursuing a particular career path within the Department the Reporting Officer should take account of this in the assessment.

13.18 In completing this section Reporting Officers should find it helpful to try to answer a series of questions, including:

is the Jobholder ready to take on more, or more difficult management responsibilities (people, financial, other resources)?

could the Jobholder deal with, or learn to handle, issues requiring deeper or more complex analysis and judgement?

will the Jobholder be capable of more, or more difficult dealings with Ministers? could the Jobholder cope with a wider or more difficult range of responsibilities? has the Jobholder been able to demonstrate a capacity for leadership and handling teams? are there other behaviours, skills and attributes of which prospective Line Managers should be aware that would

be particularly relevant to posts offering higher levels of responsibility?

Promotion

13.19 The term 'promotion' describes a move upwards from one Band to another (or, in the case of staff in Band C, into the Senior Civil Service). Many of the questions set out under the 'Progression' section above will apply equally to the assessment the Reporting Officer makes regarding promotion. Where the Jobholder has demonstrated particular strengths and areas for improvement relevant to the assessment of promotion these should be discussed with the Jobholder and highlighted in the CV. Where there are particular development needs, which the Jobholder needs to address before being ready for promotion these should also be drawn to their attention. In making their assessment, Reporting Officers may also find it useful to refer to the guidance on grading on the HR website.

13.20For staff who are occupying posts at the lower end of a Band it may be inappropriate to assess their readiness for promotion. In these cases Reporting Officers should discuss this with the Jobholder and between them they may agree to mark this section of the report 'Not yet applicable'.

13.21 Please remember that if a Jobholder completes their development action and becomes fitted for progression/promotion during the year there is no need to wait until the following Autumn to update this assessment. The form can be updated at any time during the year and it may be appropriate to do this if the Jobholder is considering applying for another post.

Progression/Promotion of Specialists

13.21 Some staff with specialist skills in the Department are progressed and/or promoted within their specialism, either within the DTI or elsewhere in Government Departments or Agencies. Certain specialists will have a separate assessment prepared on them covering their competence within their specialism, usually by the Head of Profession who will inform those within the specialism of this. In all other cases where specialists are involved the Reporting Officer completing the PDR form should comment on the readiness for progression and/or promotion in both the specialism and in the generality of posts in the Department. As with other staff, the Countersigning Officer will use the information on the progression/promotion assessment of the PDR to help them complete a suitability assessment when the jobholder applies for posts.

The role of the Countersigning Officer

13.22 Countersigning Officers have an important responsibility in ensuring that the PDR process is carried out properly, commenting on the promotion and progression assessment and mediating in cases of dispute.

Discussing long term / career development

Guidance for Jobholders

file: D: HR.3 2.htm

18/()5/2005

Staff appraisal Page 17 of29

13.23 Self-assessment against the Success Profile will have identified where your strengths and areas for improvement lie. Training and development opportunities should focus first on any development needs you have in your current job, but you should also consider the direction you wish your career to take over the longer term and try to steer your development in this direction.

13.24 A good starting point is to consider the type of work you would like to do in the future. Try to identify, with your Reporting Officer's help, the skills you will need to do well in that type of role. It might be that you are ready for this type of work now, or you might identify areas in which you need to further develop. If you do need to develop, consider what you can do in your current job to give you more exposure in these areas. There may be opportunities within your team, or on project teams, to broaden your knowledge and experience, or widen your skills. You may also want to consider other posts within your current Management Unit or Group, or an outside secondment, where the work for which they are responsible, and the skills or knowledge which can be developed there, might help you to address your needs.

13.25 For further advice also see:

Career Development Advisors

DTI Mentoring Programme

Disabled Persons Officer

How to complete the 'CV'

13.26 Following the PDR discussion, the jobholder may wish to capture their previous experience and capabilities that have been demonstrated outside their current role in the form of a CV. A benefit of writing a CV is to ensure that when you apply for posts in DTI all your relevant skills, knowledge and experience are recorded and the information is to hand when applying for jobs. Training on how to complete a CV is available.

14 PERFORMANCE INTERVIEWS

What is a performance interview?

14.1 The performance interview is the opportunity for the Reporting Officer and the Jobholder to have a free and honest discussion about the likely content and tenor of the SAR report. It is not a substitute for the continuing dialogue between the Reporting Officer and the Jobholder that should be taking place throughout the year and in informal performance reviews.

When should it be held?

14.2 The interview should take place at the end of the reporting period i.e. March or April and before the report is written. A mutually convenient date and time for the interview should be agreed which gives both parties time to prepare. You should also allow enough time to discuss fully performance over the year.

What should it include?

14.3 There should be a discussion about the Jobholder's performance over the whole reporting period against the agreed objectives In the Personal Achievement Plan (updated throughout the year) - what was achieved, and how it was achieved. It should take into account discussions at the Personal Development Review and include a discussion on the performance category being given and the reasons for it.

Best Practice

14.4 Prepare well for the performance interview

14.5 Refer to any notes you have made on your PAP throughout the period and at the reviews during the year file: D: HR 3 ::2.htm 18/05/2005

Staff appraisal Page 20 of29

15.8 This will apply to those who have met the great majority of objectives, including those given the highest priority over the reporting period. Performance in meeting challenging objectives will have fully met the expectations of the pest, in terms of quality of output and outcomes achieved. Jobholders will have made efforts to overcome obstacles to progress during the reporting period. Over the reporting period they will have demonstrated their commitment to Reach Out, Value People and Be Courageous, and the effective ways of working in the Success Profile.

15.9 Jobholders with management or supervisory responsibilities will have demonstrated effective ways of managing (and, if relevant, leading) teams as set out in the Success Profile. Upward feedback from staff should be taken into account here. If Jobholders do not have management or supervisory responsibilities they should not be penalised for this.

15.10 The reasons for giving this assessment to the Jobholder should be given on the appraisal form to justify the assessment

Acceptable Performance

15.11 This will apply to Jobholders who have met many of their objectives, including the majority of those given the highest priority during the reporting period. However, there will be aspects of the performance which need strengthening and which will need to be addressed by both the

/./-<C' Jobholder and/or the Reporting Officer. For example, this may be because some objectives or targets given a high priority did not receive enough attention. It may be because the Jobholder did not display the effective ways of working set out in the Success Profile. Those with people management responsibilities may not have demonstrated the effective ways of managing (and, if relevant, leading) also set out in the Success Profile. The upward feedback from staff should be taken into account in this assessment.

15.12 If the Reporting Officer assesses the Jobholder as 'Acceptable' the reasons for this should be given on the appraisal form to justify the assessment. These comments should make it clear what action will be taken by the Jobholder and/or the Reporting Officer to enable a successful performance, appropriate to the Range, to be achieved.

Unacceptable performance

15.13 The jobholder has failed to meet those objectives given the highest priority, either that were within their capacity to meet or, despite the objectives being set at an appropriate level for the range and there being no obstacles to overcome or adverse circumstances, they were unable to meet. It may also be possible for a jobholder to meet those objectives given the highest priority and not demonstrate any of the behaviours in the Success Profile.

15.14 No performance assessment, particularly an unacceptable assessment, should come as a surprise. Before an unacceptable assessment is given, the jobholder must have been given a warning in accordance with the inefficiency procedures and a separate appraisal form for an unacceptable assessment must be used.

15.15 Below is a grid which might help you to decide which performance category is the correct one. You will see that the assessment depends as much on the way the objective is met (whether the behaviours in the Success Profile have been demonstrated and the commitment to Reach Out, Value People and Be Courageous has been realised) as it does on the fact that the objective has been met.

15.16 The Department's guiding principles of Reach Out, Value People and Be Courageous should be recognised. Good management, of both staff and resources, is particularly important and should be recognised and rewarded too. In making your assessment you should reflect what was reasonably achievable by a Jobholder in their Band/pay Range and particular job. This should allow for factors outside the Jobholder's control or influence and for updating of objectives.

Behaviours in Success Profile

Objectives. Exceeded objectives

Demonstrated consistently

Highly Successful

Used most of the time Inconsistently used Not used

Highly Successful/Successful Successful/ Acceptable Unacceptable

Staff appraisal Page 22 of29

15.24 Remember that any assessment of poor performance (whether the result of sick absence or not) should not come as a surprise to the Jobholder. Appropriate warnings and opportunities to improve must De given. See Maximising Attendance guidance.

Pregnancy

15.25 Where a Jobholder's pregnancy has had an effect on her performance, this must be disregarded in awarding the overall performance assessment.

Disability

15.26 Careful consideration should be given to sick absences related to disabilities protected under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when assessing whether a member of staff has achieved their objectives. If you are uncertain whether a particular sick absence, or series of absences, relates to a disability you should consult the Disabled Persons Officer or Personnel Support Team.

Special leave

15.27 Where a Jobholder has been allowed special leave, (e.g. for Justice of the Peace duties) then r/ they should be assessed solely on the work done in official time.

Routing of the SAR form

15.28 Once the achievements against objectives and personal effectiveness boxes have been completed, the Reporting Officer passes the report to the Jobholder who comments on the Reporting Officer's comments.

15.29 The Jobholder then passes the report to the Countersigning Officer who:

adds their comments confirms that the procedures have been carried out correctly puts down the date they last attended an SAR training event signs and dates the report. passes it to the Jobholder

15.30 The Jobholder then:

comments on the Countersigning Officer's comments confirms that they have been offered a Personal Development Review signs and dates the report takes a copy for him or herself passes it to the Reporting Officer

15.31 The Reporting Officer then:

• sends the report to the relevant Pay & Personnel Records Manager

16. DISAGREEMENTS AND APPEALS

16.1 This covers disagreements and appeals against:

16.2 the assessment of suitability for progression or promotion in the Personal Development Review (PDR), and category markings and/or comments in the Staff Appraisal Review report (SAR) at the end of a reporting year and Break Reports written during the year.

16.3 The ultimate aim of the appraisal process is to ensure that the Jobholder has been appraised fairly against his/her agreed objectives. Line Managers will lay themselves open to appeal if the process has not been followed correctly and in particular if mandatory parts of the process have not been carried out.

16.4 jobholders have the right to use the formal appeals process and should be advised of this by the

Staff appraisal Page 23 of 29

Reporting Officer, but the initial aim should be to resolve disagreements in discussion with Reporting Officers (ROs), and Countersigning Officers (CSOs) if necessary, without resorting to the formal process.

16.5 In appealing, the Jobholder will need to explain and support their belief that the assessment and/or supporting comments are not true and/or fair.

Dealing with Disagreements

16.6 Disagreements should be handled in a sensitive, tactful and constructive way and take full account of all relevant aspects of performance, circumstance and any cultural or other differences, and respect the confidentiality of the appraisal process.

16.7 Managers should be alert to the possibility of there being underlying reasons for a dispute about a PDR or SAR. For example the Jobholder may have a hidden disability, there may be perceptions of harassment, bullying or discrimination, or other factors that may make the Jobholder feel alienated or unfairly treated.

16.8 Any underlying or additional issues must be acted on promptly but it is important to deal with these separately if they are not directly concerned with appraisal.

16.9 Jobholders should raise any concerns about the tone, content, wording, category marking or progression/promotion assessment with the RO at the earliest opportunity.

16.10 If this does not resolve the difficulties the Jobholder should express their concerns to the CSO in writing by attaching a note to the disputed PDR or SAR report. (Only if the report has been completed electronically, ie not a paper copy, should the Jobholder's Comments Box be used at this stage).

16.11 The CSO should then discuss the Jobholder's concerns with the RO in an effort to mediate and reach agreement. Changes to a report can be made as follows:

if it is agreed to remove or reword any comments on the SAR report a new version should be produced

changes to the category mark on the SAR report can be made by the CSO by crossing out the original mark, writing in the new mark and signing and dating next to the change. (If the report has been completed electronically the CSO can simply change the mark). In either case the CSO should also explain why the assessment has been changed in the " ... reasons for the assessment..." box on the SAR form. The CSO has the right to over-rule the RO in deciding the category mark on the SAR in cases of disagreement between Jobholder and RO.

when the agreed changes have been made the Jobholder should detach any accompanying notes from the report, write a comment in the comments box if they wish, sign the form and return it to the RO. (If the report has been completed electronically the Jobholder will wish to change any comments they previously typed in the Jobholder's Comments Box).

16.12 If the dispute cannot be resolved the CSO must ensure that they have written their comments on the form, attach the Jobholder's comments, sign and date the report and return it to the Jobholder.

16.13 The Jobholder must then decide whether to accept the outcome or to lodge a formal appeal and may choose to seek advice from a Trade Union and/or the Personnel Support Team in Human Resources & Change Management Directorate (HR&CM).

The Formal Appeals Process

16.14 The-Jobholder has 15 working days from the date of the CSO's signature to consider whether they want to proceed to use the formal appeals procedure (unless an extension is agreed in writing with the CSO). If they decide to do so they should inform the RO, CSO and their Group personnel Officer (GPO) of their Intention immediately.

Staff appraisal Page 24 of29

/.--

'/ 16.15 Lodging a formal appeal begins with the Jobholder sending the PDR 'or SAR form (whichever is in dispute) to the CSO's Reporting Officer with a signed note explaining the basis of the appeal (the Jobholder should keep a copy of both documents).

16.16 The person who hears the appeal should usually be the CSO's Reporting Officer. However, if they have already contributed to the report (PDR or SAR) in any way, the GPO should be asked to nominate an alternative from within the Directorate or Group. The GPO should also be consulted in other circumstances, for example where there is a very short line management chain.

16.17 Within 5 working days of receiving an appeal the CSO's Reporting Officer should write to the Jobholder advising them that they will hear the appeal (or if it is to be conducted by someone else, the name of that person). This advice should be copied to the GPO (and, for SAR appeals only, to the Pay & Personnel Records Manager/HR&CM Cardiff, or to Senior Staff Management/HR&CM if the Jobholder is a Fast Streamer or a Range 10 or 11).

16.18 The officer hearing the appeal must give the RO and the CSO 15 working days from the date of receiving the appeal to submit their views in writing, which he/she must then copy to the Jobholder.

16.19 Within 15 working days of receiving the RO's and CSO's comments the officer hearing the appeal must interview the Jobholder (who is entitled to be accompanied by a representative of a Trade Union or a colleague or friend in the Department) making every effort to do so in a manner that best enables the Jobholder to present their case confidently and fully. The officer hearing the appeal may also be accompanied by someone from within the Department, but not by someone who is involved with the appeal (e.g. not the RO or CSO). This, in the interests of both parties, could simply be for note taking purposes and to assist the officer hearing the appeal in his/her efforts to ensure that the interview produces a clear understanding of all the relevant facts, issues and processes.

16.20 Within 15 working days of the interview the officer hearing the appeal must send his/her written conclusions to the Jobholder, the RO and the CSO. This should, if at all possible, respond to all points raised. A copy should be sent to the GPO (and, for SAR appeals only, to the Personnel Records Manager, or Senior Staff Management/HR&CM).

16.21 The decisions of the officer hearing the appeal are final and must be acted on. Any 'changes to the PDR or SAR form which result from the appeal must be made as explained under Dealing with Disagreements.

16.22 There is no right of appeal against these decisions. If however the appeals procedure has been applied incorrectly the Jobholder can seek to use grievance procedures.

16.23 If, following the conclusion of the appeal process, the Jobholder appears to be delaying signing and returning the SAR report to the RO, he/she should talk to the Jobholder to find out the reasons why and agree a date for the return of the report, confirming this in writing. If the RO has still not received the report by the agreed date, the Jobholder should be advised that retaining the report in these circumstances may be treated as a disciplinary offence.

16.24 The RO or CSO should contact Conduct and Discipline Section/HR&CM for advice in cases where there is continued refusal by the Jobholder to sign and return the report.

17. BREAK REPORTS

17.1 Within a month of a Jobholder arriving in a new post, they should agree with their new Reporting Officer the PAP which will cover the rest of the reporting year. A Reporting Officer arriving in a new post should be given a copy of the PDR agreed between their predecessor and the Jobholder.

17.2 When the Jobholder or the Reporting Officer moves post within the reporting year, a break report is required if a significant piece or amount of work had been done during the time they worked together. The break report should be written on the standard form not more than a month after the move takes-place. 17.3 The grid below shows the different scenarios and what you should do.

Staff appraisal

Scenario

Jobholder stays in post, Reporting Officer moves

Report needs to be sent to Pay & Personnel Records Manager (PRM)?

No - for periods of 10 months or less.

Yes - for periods over 10 months.

Comments

Break report needed. Should be sent to new Reporting Officer, copied to Jobholder. Feeds into end of year report. If report period under 9 months no category marking given. If report period 10 months category marking indicated in narrative only. For periods over 10 months, full report with category assessment box ticked and sent to PRM.

Break report needed. Should be sent to new Reporting Officer, copied to Jobholder. Feeds into end of year report. If report period under 9 months no category marking given. If report period 10 months, category marking indicated in narrative only. For periods over 10 months, full report with category assessment box ticked and sent to PRM.

Break report needed. Affects pay so needs to be sent to PRM.

Page 25 of 29

18. PROJECT WORKING

18.1 As Cross-Departmental teams become a more common way of working in DTI, individuals may have the opportunity to work for part of the year on a project, as part of another team (see the New Ways of Working site for further guidance and help). Those working on projects will need to discuss with their line manager what part of their existing work needs to be postponed or stopped altogether to make way for this new piece of work. They will also need to have an assessment of their work on a project included in their end of year SAR.

18.2 An assessment of an individual's contribution to a project is no different from the assessment of their performance in their permanent post. The same process should be followed, set out below;

Setting Objectives in PAPs for Project Working

18.3 As with a permanent post, the jobholder will need to discuss with the project manager the purpose of the project and how the outcomes of this fit in with wider Departmental aims and objectives. The result of this discussion should be summarised on the PAP form under the "Why does my post exist" section. There will also be a discussion of the jobholder's objectives which again should be recorded on the form; these should take the total objectives on the PAP to no more than seven. Any training and development activities required by the jobholder in order to achieve these current work objectives should also be discussed and recorded.

18.4 The PAP should be formally reviewed on a regular basis, the number and frequency of the reviews will depend on the length and complexity of the project and it will be for the jobholder and project manager to agree what is sensible. There should be at least one review session at the end of the project, the outcome of which will inform the project manager's report on the jobholder's achievements.

Yes - for periods over 10 months.

Jobholder No - for periods moves on of 10 months or

lateral transfer less.

Jobholder Yes moves on progression or promotion

Project Reports.

18.5 The project manager or team leader should complete an appraisal report form once the project has been c-completed, or at the end of the reporting year, whichever is the sooner, but without giving a formal category marking and send a copy to the Jobholder and line manager so it can be reflected in the Jobholder's annual SAR form. As with all appraisal reports, whether end of cycle, break or project reports, the Jobholder will be assessed on their achievements against their objectives and'

Staff appraisal

their performance against the behaviours set out in the Success Profile

Page 26 of 29

45.18.6 Project reports should be completed not more than one month after the period covered by the proJect.

19. PROBATION

19.1 Probation reports are needed at 24 and 48 weeks from joining the Department and should be completed using the previous guidance and report form (guidance available from Martin Rumsey on 020 7855 4720). These reports should be written on the standard form, but a probation flysheet should be completed and attached to the front of the form. See Probation guidance

20. ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (ADP)

20.1 All SARs for staff on the Accelerated Development Programme should be routed through a member of the Senior Civil Service who should comment on their progress and should be involved in the discussion on suitability for progression and promotion at the Personal Development Review.

21 FAST STREAM

21.1 Civil Service Fast Stream staff use the same SAR form as other members of staff. However, there are some differences in the way in which the reporting arrangements are handled. For example, all Fast Stream staff have individual reporting cycles, starting from the date they joined DTI or the date they entered the fast stream. There are also separate 'probation' forms which also assess whether the Fast Streamer is meeting the objectives of the Fast Stream scheme and specific assessments that line managers are asked to make during the period the Jobholder is in post. Reporting Officer's with fast stream staff will be given separate guidance on the procedures they will need to follow.

22. STAFF ON LOAN AND SECONDEES

22.1 Staff who are out of the Department on loan to another Government Department or Public Sector body will normally have their performance assessed as part of the host organisation's reporting arrangements. Staff on secondment to Private Sector organisations remains on DTI's reporting system and HR & CM will provide the Jobholder and their line management chain with the necessary guidance and forms.

23. STAFF ON SECONDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT

23.1 Staff on secondment to the Department who have reporting or Countersigning Officer duties must undertake training in the DTI appraisal system before completing reports for the first time. Depending on the length of their secondment, they might consider booking the course as soon as their secondment begins.

24. TEMPORARY COVER

24.1 Reporting Officer's should continue to assess the performance of people on temporary cover against their substantive level and not against the Range being covered. This includes both the overall performance marking and the assessment of readiness for progression/promotion. For temporary cover lasting longer than a few days, you need to ensure the individual knows what is expected of them and this should be reflected in their Personal Achievement Plan. The objectives should be set for the higher Range, as this is the Job they are doing. A separate report should be written for this period.

24.2 When you make a performance assessment at the end of the report period, bear in mind that the individual will have had to meet the more challenging objectives of the higher Range for the period of temporary cover. The expectation will, therefore, be that the individual, if they have met these objectives satisfactorily and demonstrated the positive behaviours in the Success Profile, has performed above (perhaps significantly above) the requirements of their substantive Range and shouid be marked accordingly. You may also wish to comment on how well the person has performed at the higher level.

file: HR 3 :.2.htm

Staff appraisal

Page 27 of29

24.3 Reporting Officer's on temporary cover cannot have formal reporting responsibility for staff at the same substantive Range as themselves.

25. OVERBEARING

25.1 If the Jobholder is overbearing a post (i.e. covering a post that is Ranged lower than their substantive Range) they should be still be assessed against the achievement of the objectives of that post. In making the assessment, the Reporting Officer must take into account the substantive Range of the Jobholder. The objectives for such a post are not likely to be as challenging for someone who is a higher Range than the post has been designated. Consequently, the expectation of performance for the person overbearing will be higher than someone who is the substantive Range of the post occupied.

26. SPECIALISTS

26.1 Many Jobholders who are specialists may not have Reporting Officers or Countersigning Officers who are in the same profession. There should be, however, an opportunity to include input on their performance in their specialism. Heads of Profession will advise on how this should be done.

27. TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

27.1 There are special arrangements for staff who are trade union accredited representatives and who qualify for time off under the Departmental Facilities Agreement. The SAR should be completed in the usual way in respect of their official duties but they have the option of also submitting a continuation sheet, describing their industrial relations duties and trade union activities. However, their SAR report will relate only to their official duties.

:- back to top

28. ELIGIBIUTY OF REPORTING AND COUNTERSIGNING OFFICERS

28.1 To be eligible to complete reports:

• Reporting and Countersigning Officers must be in Band B or above, have completed satisfactorily any period of probation and have attended the mandatory 'Staff Appraisal for New Reporting Officers' course provided by PTS Consortium. However, a shorter refresher course is also available, 'Staff Appraisal for Experienced Reporting Officers which may be sufficient for managers joining the Department with reporting experience in other Government Departments or in other organisations with comparable appraisal processes.

• The Countersigning Officer should ensure that they are familiar with the Jobholder's work. They must be at least one Range above the Reporting Officer. However, where the length of the reporting chain is such that this is not possible (e.g. Personal Assistants and secretaries working to senior SCS staff), a manager of the same level as the Reporting Officer must be nominated as the Countersigning Officer, by prior agreement with the Group Personnel Officer (GPO). GPOs should consult the Staff Development Unit in HR&CM Directorate in difficult or unusual cases.

• Staff should not act as a Reporting or Countersigning Officer if they are on Temporary Cover and the Jobholder is at their substantive Range or above

• If the Reporting Officer is not available to write the report, the Countersigning Officer must take on the role.

29. EQUALITY OF TREATMENT AND VALUING DIVERSITY

29.1 All staff are entitled to and must receive fair treatment throughout their careers regardless of race, ethnic or national origin, age, religion, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, flexible working, responsibility for dependents, trade union membership or trade union activity or on any other grounds which do not bear on an individual's ability to do the job.

29.2 Reporting and Countersigning Officers should take care to be objective and to avoid discrimination in completing Personal Achievement Plans, Performance Interviews, Staff Appraisal

Staff appraisal Page 28 of 29

Review reports and Personal Development Reviews. They have a particular responsibility to ensure that their judgement of performance is not influenced by irrelevant factors such as stereotyping on the b2Sis of any of the factors set out above.

29.3 While some types of discrimination are easy to recognise, it is important that all staff are aware of the more subtle types of discrimination. These can result from general assumptions about the capabilities and characteristics of particular groups and can happen without any deliberate intention to discriminate. For instance; holding seminars during prominent religious holidays, not making 'reason2ble' arrangements for disabled staff or holding late meetings may have an adverse impact on some members of staff. See here for detail.

Disabled staff

29.4 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees with disabilities and requires us to make 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that disabled people are not disadvantaged due to their disability or long-term health condition.

29.5 Managers should consider what reasonable adjustments enable the individual to carry out their duties more effectively. For example this might necessitate the provision of specialised computer adaptations, additional training or flexibility in working time etc.

29.6 Managers must make sure they are commenting on the abilities of the individual and not on agreed adjustments to overcome a disability or health condition, guarding against any suggestion, intended or otherwise, that disability means inability. When considering whether an individual has achieved their objectives, managers should guard against commenting on periods of absence when the individual is undertaking medical appointments or treatment related to their disability or a long term health condition. The Act places a requirement on the employer to facilitate this as a reasonable adjustment.

Staff working flexibly

29.7 All staff, whether they work full or reduced hours, should have the opportunity to achieve the full range of assessment markings.

29.8 When setting work objectives, line managers of staff working flexibly should bear in mind that some tasks, staff appraisal for instance, take the same amount of time for someone working flexibly as someone working full time. Managers should ensure that overall loading reflects this. Managers should also ensure flexible workers have sufficient time to get up to speed on developments which occur when they are not in the office. Staff working flexibly, including reduced hours, might choose to note their arrangements on their Staff Appraisal reports to help to set their achievements in context.

29.9 Particular care should be given to ensure staff working flexibly have the opportunity to undertake developmental opportunities and training. This sometimes presents practical difficulties, but failure to make training opportunities available could be seen as discrimination if they are not offered similar opportunities to their full time colleagues. See further advice on flexible working.

30. HANDUNG POOR PERFORMANCE

30.1 If someone is not performing satisfactorily, it is very important that the process is handled properly. You should not wait until the end of the reporting year before tackling the issue.

30.2 As soon as a Jobholder's performance falls below an acceptable standard, you should consider possible causes and underlying reasons such as a health condition or disability, and discuss with the Jobholder how the problem should be handled This should include, where appropriate, ways in which an improvement In performance might be achieved, with the developmental assistance and support of the line management team. You should also consult the Personnel Support Team or the Disabled Persons Officer should you consider that the Individual might be protected under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. See Disability Guidance.

31. CONFIDENTIALITY

Staff appraisal

Page 29 of29

31.1 Reporting Officers should discuss performance openly and frankly with Jobholders throughout the year. The staff appraisal form is also completely open and the Jobholder will see and be able to comment on the whole of the completed form, including the Countersigning Officer's comments.

31.2 During the drafting stage and when completed, the report is 'restricted - staff'. Forms completed on computer should be protected by a password, which should be made known only to those who legitimately require access to the document. Where text is transmitted via email, staff should ensure that text is only emailed to others involved in the preparation of the report.

31. 3 If you have any comments or queries on this guidance please contact Martin Rumsey in the Staff Development Unit, HR&CM Directorate.

Staff Development Unit Human Resources & Change Management Directorate

February 2003

7 back to top