Karl Lawrence

7 Albury Buildings

Boyfield Street

Bermondsey

London SE1 0SB

Tel.: 0207 928 7394

Mr Simon Hughes MP

C/o (Ms) Fran

Date: 25th May 2006

Re.: Response to the Union Report

Dear Simon Hughes,

This is in response to the Union’s (PCS) report, from Janice Godrich (by Mike Duggan), which defended the way they conducted themselves with respect to my (dismissal) position, as outlined by them, and the legal advice received from Thompson Solicitors, used by them to back up the support they had given. I will refer to particular paragraphs in Mike Duggan’s report:

  1. With reference to: Background, page 1 of 6. I believe it is disgraceful, and a dereliction of duty, to think I paid four and one half years subscription into the union’s coffer and on the charge for being vexatious the union did not set out to discredit this charge nor to show that this charge was trumped up and malicious. It was made quite clear at the Employment Tribunal that the individual charges could not have lead to Gross Misconduct and therefore summarily dismissal. Why was this charge for which the union had ample evidence, evidence of their own making, not dealt with more vigorously? After all they, the union, were deeply involved in the organising and promotion and was present at the “Raising the Barriers Conference”, 1st July 2003, held at 1 Victoria Street, the DTI HQ. They were fully aware of the announcement that the Permanent Secretary (PS) and Secretary of State (SoS) would be making at that conference to black and minority staff. There can be no ambiguity about the charge, for in his report Mike Duggan states: “that he had continued to raise issues, which had been dealt with, to an extent, which could be considered vexatious; his actions included written communications with the Permanent Secretary, Sir Robin Young on three occasions …”. Why did the union not defend me vigorously for petitioning the Permanent Secretary? I was completely in my right to petition the PS. The union was aware of this, they were at the conference when both the PS and SoS advance and promote the new procedure (open office policy), that all DTI staff, but especially black and minority staff should have the opportunity to put their complaints directly to them (PS & SoS). The PS and SoS went as far as reassuring the audience that there would be no repercussions. The whole purpose of the announcement was to inform staff that they could bypass the DTI HR complaint system and go directly to the PS and/or SoS. We were even told how to go about lodging our complaints: email, letter or arrange an appointment to speak to the PS or SoS.

The reasoning behind this new procedure was that there were an awful lot of complaints that managers, in departments, did not take complaints from black and minority staff seriously enough and most of the time ignored. The union was fully aware of this. Yet in my particular case they, the union, did not defend my right to communicate with the PS.

Hence, that in itself was procedural irregularities conducted by the DTI HR i.e. denying me the right to communicate directly with the PS. Yet the union did not defend this position. (I made mention of the Case Management Discussion document below, where Herman Cobham, legal advisor, failed to secure procedural irregularities as part of my defence. Again this was a failure by the PCS to properly advise and give assistance. Please remember the ET1 submitted by Dick Graham, union, was concern solely with procedural irregularities.)

  1. With reference to: Appeal to Civil Service Appeals Board (CSAB), a heading in Mike Duggan’s report. It is stated at the bottom of the 1st paragraph that I, “Mr Lawrence had been given the opportunity to comment on the note of the disciplinary hearing but had declined to do so!” Mr Duggan has failed to be consistent by following through with how he started the paragraph i.e. that Dick Graham represented me throughout and it was Dick Graham’s decision not to provide comments because the decision to dismiss by Ms Rosemary Heyhoe was taken without reference to the notes of her note-takers and without passing those notes to us; and in that case her decision should have been overturned. Mr Duggan is therefore stating I refused to comment on the notes, when, in reality, Dick Graham and his immediate manager, Ron Webster, took all decisions throughout. Please see page 2of 6, paragraph at bottom of page, where Mr Duggan makes it clear that “The CSAB noted that Mr Lawrence had had the considerable assistance of his trade union representative throughout in presenting his side of the case.” If this is the case how then can I be held responsible for failure to comment on the notes as he, Mike Duggan, so implied.
  1. On page 3of 6, top paragraph, last sentence, it is state the CSAB concluded the DTI was in its right to dismiss, but those were the views of the CSAB and the views of the union, via Dick Graham, was to submit an ET1 (a provision application to the Employment Tribunal); Dick Graham had to resort to this step because all attempts to contact Phillip Bickerstaffe (PCS legal advisor), at the PCS HQ Civil Service General Bargaining Centre, failed. When the ET1 was submitted I only had one or two weeks remaining before the time to submit to the Employment Tribunal run out (three months period); no one from the PCS HQ got in touch with Dick Graham. (It was as if they wanted the time allowed to submit my ET1 to be expired.) And if that was not the case, can he, Mike Duggan, please explain way Phillip Bickerstaffe or no one from his office/department responded to Dick Graham’s emails requesting advice, this was before Solicitors got involved.
  1. Please refer to page 3 of 6, under heading: Employment Tribunal Application & Initial Legal Advice, 2nd paragraph, and beginning at line 5. They, PCS and Mike Duggan, claim they did not have “the originating employment tribunal application (ET1). They did not have it because no one from the PCS HQ was interested in responding to Dick Graham’s request for advice, and therefore Dick Graham had to take it up on himself to submit it to the ET. This was not the fault of Dick Graham or myself. And in any case, something as important as this PCS HQ should have requested the ET1 from Dick Graham or from the Employment Tribunal (this is easily done).
  1. Please refer to page 5 of 6, under: Proposed Claim against PCS, 3rd paragraph. It is claimed that Herman Cobham conducted the Case Management Discussion “on the basis of the issues referred to in Mr Lawrence’s original ET1 application, which included the issue of procedural unfairness”. If this was the case why was the procedural unfairness issue rejected at the Employment Tribunal? And, why is it stated in the Case Management Discussion document that “The case for the Claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed because the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the events.”? This is the document Herman Cobham negotiated with Ms CE Taylor of the Employment Tribunal. And, it was on that basis the Chairman decided he would not entertain my defence on procedural irregularities. So, can Mike Duggan explain this situation?

I would very much appreciate, as stated in your letter (dated 11th May 06), if you would take up these points with PCS HQ (including Ms Janice Godrich). I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,


Karl Lawrence

1