Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Kate Robinson
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Kate Robinson
Kate Robinson (Wirral Council) 2nd September 2015
This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. After the cross-examination of Surjit Tour there was a break and the hearing resumed at 11.25 am.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Why does Wirral Council want to control where people sit?
Why does Wirral Council want to control where people sit?
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Below is an email from Surjit Tour to myself today about the seating arrangements for tonight’s Council meeting. Seems Wirral Council likes playing the “Let’s pretend John isn’t the press games” again! See if you can guess what my reply was!
From: Tour, Surjit <surjittour@wirral.gov.uk> to: “john.brace@gmail.com” <john.brace@gmail.com> cc: Mayor <mayor@wirral.gov.uk>,
“Stuart, Paul C. (Councillor)” <paulstuart@wirral.gov.uk>,
“McLaughlin, Moira (Councillor)” <moiramclaughlin@wirral.gov.uk>,
“Mossop, Andrew R.” <andrewmossop@wirral.gov.uk>
date: 10 July 2017 at 14:30
subject: RE: Question at Council
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk
security: wirral.gov.uk did not encrypt this message Learn more
Dear Mr Brace
Thank you for your email.
With all due respect, it is not for you to determine where you sit in the Council Chamber.
I have noted your comments and I have asked Committee Services Officers to ensure that the seats around the outer area of the Member seating is kept free from any obstruction. You will be allocated one of those seats and not one at the Press table. Once Agenda Item 5 – Public Questions has been dealt with you are required to return to the public gallery.
I trust this clarifies matters.
Regards
Surjit Tour
Assistant Director: Law and Governance
and Monitoring Officer
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Business Services
Law and Governance
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
Employment Tribunal (Alison Mountney v Wirral Council) Day 10 of 10: Judgement
Employment Tribunal (Alison Mountney v Wirral Council) Day 10 of 10: Judgement
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for Employment Tribunal case 2400718/16)
This is a report of a very small part of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended (the judgement). By this point the matter had already been heard over 9 days and this was day 10 of 10. Brief details are below.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2)
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2)
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. Brief details are below followed by the first part of a report based on my notes.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Mr Mountney referred Mr Tour to page 642 and asked him what was his response to number 6?
EJ Robinson asked to let him known of the provenance of the letter to Alison Mountney dated 12th January and asked for a paragraph?
Mr Mountney referred to answer eight with the response at the bottom. In elections, he referred to the appointment of staff above counter staff. He referred to ability and a named member of staff.
Surjit Tour stated he was incorrect, that staff were required after polls closed at the counting centres on the counting tables. This was a change to counting staff. Moving to the requirement for management approval, he pointed out the named member of staff was a poll clerk.
EJ Robinson asked who was responsible for the appointment of polling clerks? Surjit Tour replied that the appointment of polling clerks was the responsibility of Alison Mountney.
EJ Robinson said that at 10 o’clock the polls close and a poll clerk would be sat at the tables in the polling station?
Surjit Tour answered that a poll clerk would be supervised by a presiding officer, but there would be one or two poll clerks at each polling station.
Mr Mountney said he accepted it for what it is and asked a further question of Mr Tour. Mr Tour answered that if there was an issue with a member of staff employed it was not within the discretion of Alison Mountney and that the responsibility for suitability rested with Kate Robinson.
Mr Mountney asked Mr Tour a question about Kate Robinson to which Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall Kate Robinson coming to him regarding that individual.
Mr Mountney referred Mr Tour to paragraph 29 of his witness statement and said as it was important he would go back to the first line. A whistleblowing concern had been made in 2015, Mrs Robinson says she told Mr Tour but Mr Tour says he can’t remember. He asked a question of Mr Tour around being made aware by Mrs Robinson.
Mr Tour said he didn’t recall being made aware of the issue at the time, but it had been made clearer in 2015.
Mr Mountney referred to the whistleblowing report and the reports starting at page 649.
Mr Tour asked for a page number? Mr Mountney referred to page 761. Mr Moore suggested it was 771. Mr Mountney confirmed it was 771.
Mr Mountney referred to the bottom of page 770, at the bottom of the page, 3rd line, P1, he asked if Mr Tour agreed to which Mr Tour answered yes.
EJ Robinson interrupted and said it was his fault but asked for a more explicit reference.
Mr Mountney stated page 770, 6.4.9, third line, P1. He stated that it was here that he never dismissed the integrity of the election was an issue. P2 never refers to him and asked how come is says that?
Mr Tour said he did not recall. Mr Mountney coming to Kate Robinson, he asked a further question to which Mr Tour replied Kate Robinson. Mr Mountney asked wouldn’t Mr Tour know?
Mr Tour answered referring to an incident, canvassing and how steps were taken.
Mr Mountney referred to 6.4.5 and at P2, some time after, people agreed Kate Robinson had made a verbal report to P1 about an alleged canvassing fraud, was Mr Tour told?
Mr Tour referred in his answer to internal audit and how the canvassing book had gone to the individual known as P1.
Mr Mountney asked if a report was made? Mr Tour said that he didn’t recall the conversation with Kate Robinson, but that individual therefore says Kate Robinson. Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall, going on to refer to Bradfield and a canvassing issue.
Mr Mountney asked a question about fraud to which Surjit Tour answered yes. Mr Mountney asked if it was involving public money and he was a solicitor? Mr Tour answered yes. Mr Mountney referred to Mr Tour’s witness statement and matters concerning a polling clerk, he noted these were not issues that concerned fraud and asked a question.
Mr Tour answered that he had seen the context dealing with the issues and that the issues had been addressed. He referred to Mrs Bradfield, he was not belittling the issues, but there were other matters on his mind and his attention and focus had been on those things, he expected it would be dealt with by a manager.
Mr Mountney said he agreed it was, he couldn’t remember where but did it not state Kate Robinson was lying. Therefore it was raised, but Mr Tour had said it was not issue of concern to him. It was not a matter he would expect to be unresolved and pointed out that Mr Tour was the Borough Solicitor.
Mr Tour explained that at the time there was a governance report by Anna Klonowski in early September, the organisation was in turmoil and there were governance issues. In the grand scheme matters prevailing were important, but his attention and focus was on other issues.
Mr Mountney referring to those other issues, said that these election issues might affect the integrity of the elections.
Mr Tour said he was not aware the integrity of the elections was called into question. The issue of Bradfield was how the canvass was conducted as an example.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)
Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. Brief details are below followed by the first part of a report based on my notes.
Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Case reference: 2400718/16
Appellant: Mrs A. Mountney
Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Employment Judge: Judge Robinson
Tribunal Members:
Mr AG Barker
Mrs JE Williams
Clerk: Lynne Quilty
Date: 6.2.2017
Time: 10.00 am
The following is a contemporaneous account of day 6.
EJ Robinson told people present in Tribunal Room 2 to sit down and apologised for the wait. He said that they would carry on with Mr. Mountney (the lay representative for Alison Mountney).
The order of witnesses would be Surjit Tour, Kate Robinson, Joe Blott and Mr. Williams.
EJ Robinson said good morning to Mr. Tour and said that he could say the oath on a bible of his choice. He then asked Mr Tour to read from the yellow card.
Mr Tour read the oath which starts, “I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I will give..”.
EJ Robinson asked him to sit down. He said that he intended to break at 10.45 am, but if Mr Tour needed a break he must tell him. Mr Moore (representing Wirral Council) would introduce the cross-examination.
Mr Moore asked Mr Tour to find the witness statement. He asked Mr Tour his name to which he answered, “Surjit Tour”. He then asked if it was his business address in the witness statement. It was.
The representative for Wirral Council Mr Moore asked Mr Tour if he had read Mr Tour’s witness statement. Mr Tour answered yes.
Mr Moore asked if Mr Tour wanted to make any amendments to his witness statement.
Mr Tour wanted to make some clarifications. The first was in paragraph 101 on page 20. Referring to a reference here it would be “rolled out in phases”, Electoral Services had been passed until the elections in May 2015.
In paragraph 17, the references to public interest reports, there was just one which was about the highways procurement exercise, the other reference was a reference to a call-in of a different decision regarding services.
EJ Robinson said OK and asked if there were other amendments?
Mr Tour answered that a handwritten letter had been provided to him in October, he remembered the date in reference to paragraph 55, to avoid confusion he didn’t remember receiving it.
EJ Robinson said (to Mr Mountney) that although the letter was not discussed he could ask Mr Tour about it to which Mr Mountney replied OK.
Mr Mountney thanked EJ Robinson and said good morning. Starting at the beginning of Mr Tour’s witness statement he referred to Mr Tour starting at Wirral Council in 2009. He asked Mr Tour if Wirral Council was in turmoil at that time?
Mr Tour said that the detail [of the turmoil] had not become apparent until later. Continuing, he said that Cllr Green had commissioned Anna Klonowski to look into whistleblowing concerns of Martin Morton and that the issues that arose needed to be reviewed.
Mr Mountney referred to page 227 and a Cabinet report in November 2013 that summarised the issues. There had been a need to established effective governance. Wirral Council had many whistleblowers and it was clear to those present at that time that there were issues in the way Wirral Council treated whistleblowers with disdain.
Mr Tour said that although there were issues, that Wirral Council was addressing them which was made clear arising from the Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd review relating to Mr Morton.
There had been a Cabinet report in September 2011, which was a supplementary report which set out the issues of governance in the organisation. Wirral Council had worked to address the governance issues and the failings.
Mr Mountney referred to page 281 and asked a question to which Mr Tour answered yes.
Mr Mountney referred to 2.8 and 2.9, the Anna Klonowski Associates report and the culture at Wirral Council about whistleblowing. The culture was one were there was fear of reprisals (against whistleblowers). He asked a question about this. Mr Tour replied that he accepted it.
Mr Mountney said that the concerns whistleblowers had that they felt they were not listened to, treated fairly and that whistleblowers were conscious of reprisal.
Mr Tour said that in the context of the whistleblowing raised by Martin Morton it was spread out, in 2009 he was not told the large issues but it was clear in the report that Anna Klonowski prepared.
Mr Mountney said he was correct. Referring to the Public Interest Disclosure Act reports, he referred to the major issues. Mr Tour said that the public interest report into highways was to do with the procurement arrangements.
Mr Mountney asked that if someone was working for Wirral Council at that time might they be fearful of blowing the whistle or raising a grievance?
Mr Tour said that he recognised that improvements needed to be made, there was a revised whistleblowing policy and a follow-up report.
Mr Mountney asked if most employees were fearful of whistleblowing or raising a grievance?
Mr Tour said that they “would or could be concerned” but referred again to the revised whistleblowing policy and the commissioning of the Anna Klonowski Associates report.
Mr Mountney asked how long it took to resolve Martin Morton’s whistleblowing?
Mr Tour answered that it took a few years to resolve.
Mr Mountney referred to paragraph 14 in reference to the major impact on Mr Tour’s time due to day-to-day issues.
Mr Tour replied that much time was spent on the Improvement Plan and sustaining improvement.
Mr Mountney asked if it was really the case that Mr Tour had dropped one?
Mr Tour admitted it was “challenging”, as there was a “lot to address” and then commented on the “level of work”.
Mr Mountney asked a further question if whistleblowers got the time they deserved?
Mr Tour said it was clear there were conversations with Mrs Mountney and that all staff were communicated to about the improvements. There had been work undertaken. Mr Tour felt that Wirral Council dealt with the issues needed to be dealt with effectively, but there had been demands on time.
Mr Mountney referred to Mr. Tour’s witness statement and that for two to three lives it had been a priority to address the issues which were compounded by two public interest reports. One of the issues had been called in and at the time it was described as a “dysfunctional Council” and a damaging place to those who brought grievances over whistleblowing complaints.
Mr Tour said he was aware of the issues of Martin Morton and other whistleblowers. That they were linked was not something he was sure of. However he said, “it was a challenging time”.
Mr Mountney referred to another public interest disclosure and asked if it was resolved to which Mr Tour said it was still ongoing.
Mr Mountney asked when the second note was made? Mr Tour answered that the public interest report by the Audit Commission was in June 2012 and that it had been prior to this.
Mr Mountney asked if that was before it was published in June 2012. Mr Tour answered 5 years but it was not resolved, but that wasn’t through lack of trying.
Mr Mountney asked how many employees Wirral Borough Council had to which Mr Tour responded four thousand.
Mr Mountney asked if the HR department had eighty staff? Referring to paragraph 23, he asked Mr Tour to clear up a date which had been referred to also in Kate Robinson’s witness statement. He asked if it referred not to February 2012, but December 2011?
Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney again referred to that Mr Tour had told Kate Robinson he could not recall, but this didn’t mean he hadn’t been told?
Mr Tour said that he genuinely didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked another question to which Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked if he [Mr Tour] was told or made aware of Alison Mountney’s whistleblowing? Mr Tour said that he didn’t recall, but that if it had been raised with him that he would have been addressing it. Mr Mountney referred to page 28. Someone asked if he meant paragraph 28 to which Mr Mountney replied yes.
Mr Mountney asked a question about Mr Bradfield to which Mr Tour replied with a comment about Mr Bradfield and part responsibility.
Mr Mountney referred to page 10. EJ Robinson said, “What?” to which Mr Mountney replied 6.10. He referred to the bottom appearing above the reference to poll clerk and other posts and asked if it wasn’t up to Alison Mountney, it was up to Kate Robinson?
Mr Tour referred to promotions. He said that Alison Mountney couldn’t remove where an appointment had been made.
Mr Mountney asked another question about staff to which Mr Tour answered no.
