Dear Mr Robinson
Thank you for your reply.
However, I do not think it is satisfactory.
In the first instance, the Charter makes clear that complaints may be directed EITHER to the body concerned OR to WCBC. It does not state that complainants who contact the council may be redirected to the organisation.
Secondly, I sent you the complete findings of the Employment Tribunal over six weeks ago and I am sure that you are aware of the contents of the judgment. In the words of the Tribunal Judge “This is a conclusion that we reach in only exceptional cases, but we have reached it in this case without hesitation: from start to finish, the grievance processes were a sham.” You will recall that I made a serious complaint about the Chief Officer’s behaviour and the Trustees COMPLETELY failed to deal with it AT ALL. It was not the case that they just did a bad job. They didn’t do ANYTHING. The Tribunal panel was shocked. The same Chief Officer is still in place and the same Chair of Trustees, as well as several of his colleagues on the Board of AVOW. Do you seriously expect me to start another fiasco of a grievance/complaint with AVOW all over again? I have still not fully recovered from the stress and depression which were the result of my last encounter with AVOW.
Further, when I contacted Chair of Trustees Mervyn Rosenberg recently, I was then contacted by AVOW’s employment legal advisers RBS Mentor to tell me that I must direct all correspondence to them. RBS Mentor behaved appallingly in the conduct of this Tribunal case in many different ways, some of which are detailed in the judgment. For example, they apparently advised their clients to produce witness statements that, again in the words of the Judge “barely complied with the letter, let alone the spirit, of the requirement to disclose evidence in chief by the provision of statements.” ( para. 14) Presumably, it was the advisers who were also responsible for the unreasonable late disclosure of documents (para. 47) and for “adding unnecessarily to the issues in dispute, the size of the bundle and the length of the Hearing” by not accepting I was a disabled person but not meaningfully challenging me at the Hearing on this point, which the Tribunal Judge again found to be unreasonable (para. 65). They knew perfectly well what the results of their behaviour would be for me, as an unrepresented claimant already suffering with stress and depression and I am not going to start another round of correspondence with these unreasonable and vindictive people.
I would also refer you to paragraphs 211 to 213 of the Tribunal’s findings, which detail the victimisation I was subjected to (211-212) and the discriminatory way in which AVOW conducted a meeting with me. It is notable that the Tribunal, having heard all the evidence including the oral testimonies of witnesses including John Gallanders, noted in its findings: “The fact that the respondent has sought to the last to defend its approach to this meeting in the Hearing before us demonstrates that it still has no appreciation of the nature of migraine and the mechanism of warning signs and delayed response.” This is not simply the position of AVOW as it was at the time I was employed there. It demonstrates that nothing had changed over two years later, by last March.
If WCBC’s One Wrexham Charter is to have any credibility at all, you need to be taking seriously complaints such as this and not simply trying to deflect them.
I am therefore writing now to ask WCBC again to investigate AVOW’s fitness to continue to be a signatory to the One Wrexham Charter as per the One Wrexham Charter complaints procedure. To this end I have copied this email to Sue Bywater.
cc Sue Bywater, Acting Corporate Complaints Officer; Aled Roberts, WCBC Councillor and AM; Mark Isherwood AM