Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

No declarations of interest were made.

PRIVATE SESSION

AGENDA

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO NOTE

Under the law, the Committee is entitled to consider certain items in private. Members of the public will be asked to leave the meeting when such items are discussed.

The Committee is recommended to consider the following item in private on the grounds that it contains ‘exempt’ information, as defined by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, and consequently that the Committee makes the following resolution:-

“that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following item in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, because it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to an individual, and taking all the circumstances into account, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”.

RESOLVED:

            that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following item in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, because it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in the paragraph detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

Paragraph 1

Information relating to any individual

The Appellant’s Statement of Case and the Management’s Statement of Case are attached for all parties, along with a collection of background and general information.

The Committee considered an appeal against dismissal from employment with the City Council under the Council’s disciplinary policy.

Karen Demmer (HR Team Manager) and Chris Burgin (Director of Housing) were present as advisors to the Committee.

The management representative was Kevin Doyle (Planning and Major Works Manager, Housing).  Sharron Daley (Human Resources Advisor) was present as HR advisor to management.

The appellant was present and was accompanied by Jayden Filali.

Neither the appellant or management called any witnesses.

The Committee considered the written submissions and discussed and took into account the evidence from management and the appellant in coming to its decision.

The Committee also listened to the appellant’s representations of unequal treatment in comparison with other cases, but felt that it could not comment on decisions made in other cases, as it was not party to the full facts of those cases.  The Committee accepted that every case was decided on its own individual factors and mitigations and therefore felt that there could legitimately be different outcomes from what may appear to be similar cases. 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the appeal be rejected and the management decision to dismiss the appellant upheld; and

2)    That it be noted that this appeal concludes the process as set out in the Council’s Disciplinary procedure.

Reasons:

1.    From the submissions made, the Committee was satisfied that the appellant had not carried out the required work for the property in question in line with safety regulations and Leicester City Council procedures and had not accurately completed the safety paperwork associated with this.  This had the potential to put Leicester City Council customers in danger.

2.    The Committee was satisfied that the appellant understood his role and the requirements in regard to the relevant safety regulations, but had failed to ensure that the property in question was left in a safe position after his visit.

3.    The Committee was satisfied that management had come to a reasonable view when they found the appellant blameworthy of the two allegations and was further satisfied that those allegations constituted gross misconduct for which dismissal was an appropriate sanction.

4.    Based on the evidence presented, the Committee concluded that the City Council’s Disciplinary Policy had been fairly applied and the decision to dismiss was reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

The meeting closed at 2.00 pm