< The Grievance Report

2 Adjudication of Complaint

1   29th May 2015 Cllr Tulloch got into my car whilst I was alone one evening and intimidated, shouted, frightened and make accusations towards me. I was extremely upset and very scared by his behaviour.

Both parties agreed that Cllr Tulloch asked if he could sit in the car and that Mrs Cooper acquiesced to this request. While Cllr Tulloch denies that he shouted and frightened Mrs Cooper he admitted that he did use the words, ‘What the hell are you doing talking to the staff?’. It is unlikely that the words referred to above could have been uttered in anything other than an aggressive manner. It was noted that an apology was subsequently sent by e-mail to Mrs Cooper following this incident which implies that something had happened which warranted such an action. The fact that he should have even considered sitting in a car with a female on her own shows a worrying lack of judgement, especially for someone holding such a responsible position.

The Panel unanimously agreed that the evidence they heard indicates that this is just one of a series of incidents in which he has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour and in doing so caused the complainant to be intimidated and frightened.

This complaint was unanimously upheld.

2   29th May 2015 Cllr Tulloch forced me to breach [the] confidence of an ex- employee.

Cllr Tulloch did not deny this allegation but simply claimed that he could not recall the incident.

In the light of the previous finding the Panel unanimously decided on the ‘Balance of Probability’ that this took place as described. Despite this the Panel felt that the word ‘forced’ could not be substantiated but felt that if this was substituted for the word ‘pressurised’ then this would be a more accurate reflection of what occurred.

Subject to the modified wording this complaint was unanimously upheld.

3   27th July 2015 Cllr Tulloch publicly offended me after a Council meeting (appendix 2).

This was admitted by Cllr Tulloch who sent an apology by way of an e-mail and consequently the Panel were not required to adjudicate in relation to this specific complaint. The Panel felt that there was a worrying pattern of behaviour in that whenever Cllr Tulloch overstepped the boundary of what could be regarded as acceptable behaviour he subsequently apologised for his actions. While this is admirable in itself he does not appear to learn from such incidents and appears to regard such matters as being resolved and therefore any subsequent complaint is somehow unwarranted and unreasonable. There appears to be no recognition or comprehension of the cumulative effect that such actions can have on the individual or those in the vicinity who might be affected by behaviour of this sort.

This complaint was unanimously upheld.

4   I was forced to resign from the Hub due to Cllr Tulloch’s behaviour, therefore losing my job.

In her letter of resignation addressed to REDACTED, REDACTED refers to the Hub Board’s ’…dismay at my work’. This does not specifically refer to Cllr Tulloch and although he had made criticisms about the amount of time she had spent on supporting the Clerk and other concerns about issues regarding the accuracy of her advice, that does not relate to her work at the Hub. The Panel are aware that Cllr Tulloch also had concerns about a variety of issues arising from her work at the Hub which may have also been contributory factors but there was also a danger that she was conflating these two distinct areas of e mployment. The fact that the same personalities were involved may have added some justification to this view but the Panel had to act on the evidence before them. In addition there is no evidence that Mrs Cooper sought to pursue her concerns with either the Parish Council or MCHMG prior to her resignation.

The Panel unanimously reject this complaint.

5   January 2016 Cllr Tulloch on several occasions attempted to override my work and reputation by forcing the Clerk to no[t] interact with me.

The Panel were unhappy with the wording of this complaint which they felt was imprecise. In particular they were unsure of what was meant by the phrase ‘override my work’. Accordingly they felt that it was impossible to adjudicate on the first part of the complaint as it stood. Neither did they see the connection between ‘overriding her work’ and her ‘reputation’. In order to consider this part of the complaint the Panel felt that they would have needed more information.

The Panel noted that the previous Parish Clerk had relied on Mrs Cooper’s assistance in preparing the Annual Return in previous years and that such assistance must surely have been expected to continue.

The Panel accepted that there were occasions when Cllr Tulloch complained of the cost implications of the amount of hours Mrs Cooper was expending on supporting the Clerk. As the Panel were informed that the bookkeeper was only charging £20.00p per hour they felt that this compared very favourably with the charges levied by Edge which was in the region of £1,000 per day including 10 hours of follow up support. This equates to £55.55p per hour. The responsibility for this conflict lies squarely with the Council for not having a proper contract in place which meant that neither side had a clear understanding of the work which was required of the Bookkeeper. This created unnecessary stress for both the Clerk and Mrs Cooper which was entirely avoidable. By raising these objections it was clear that Cllr Tulloch did indeed inhibit the amount of work and the interaction between her and the Clerk.

In the light of the above comments the Panel unanimously agreed that they would only uphold the second part of this allegation.

This complaint was upheld in part.

6   18th February 2016 Cllr Tulloch made accusations and was verbally abusive to the Hub caf´e staff causing REDACTED to cry and almost resign again.

The Panel had to have regard to the statement signed by REDACTED as well as five Hub employees and one ex-employee none of whom expressed any complaint about the behaviour of Cllr Tulloch. Despite this they were very concerned that some if not all of these statements were obtained in a manner in which it would have been very difficult for the employees to have refused. They were satisfied from the Facebook transcript that REDACTED had considered resigning on at least one occasion.

An additional factor for the Panel to consider was that none of these individuals were employees of the Parish Council and while incidents occurring in the Hub provided useful background information, no direct complaint had been made by any of these employees. Even if complaints had been received the Panel had no brief to deal with such matters.

The Panel were also concerned that on two occasions Mrs Cooper had involved other staff in this dispute (REDACTED and the Clerk) without seeking their prior consent. While it is right that serious matters should be reported to the relevant authority it should have been done in confidence so that someone could be appointed to make further investigations.

For the reasons outlined this complaint was unanimously rejected.

7   19th February 2016 Cllr Tulloch made slanderous comments to Sarah Adam regarding my personal and professional status, and my private business. Cllr Tulloch made both me and Sarah Adam cry with his comments. I was forced to send a Cease and Desist letter on the advice of my regulators.

Once again the Panel had concerns over the wording of this complaint. These concerns can be summarised as follows:

1. The question of whether the comments made by Cllr Tulloch were slanderous or not is a legal matter and not one on which the Panel felt able to adjudicate. In particular they were unclear as to what evidence they could adduce about the ‘slanderous’ personal comments made about Mrs Cooper and her private business.
2. The use of the word ‘force’ was deemed inappropriate as no compulsion was used. Despite this the Panel accepted that she may have felt that she was left with no alternative given the advice that she had received from her regulators.

The panel did accept the evidence given by both the Clerk and Mrs Cooper that the conduct of Cllr Tulloch had made them cry. Such conduct by any Councillor let alone the Chairman is clearly totally unacceptable and should be a matter of grave concern. There was also evidence that he had made criticism of Mrs Cooper’s work although whether he is competent to make such judgements is highly questionable. It is true that REDACTED did make some criticisms of the bookkeeper’s work, but since he is less qualified than she this must be treated with caution. Most of these accusations were answered in detail by Mrs Cooper.

The Panel unanimously upheld part of this complaint but not the sections referred to as sections a) and b).

The complaint was upheld in part.

8   I was forced to resign from Melbourne Parish Council, again therefore losing my job.

The Panel accepts that the concern expressed over Mrs Cooper’s working hours and criticism relating to her perceived mistakes had made her working situation problematic. The fact that her work base for the Parish Council was located in the Hub must have made it difficult to separate her work for these two organisations. Moreover the fact that Cllr Tulloch was implicated in the criticism regarding her work for both the Hub and the Parish Council must have heightened her feeling of insecurity.

Despite this, the criticism of her work circulated to all Parish Council members by REDACTED was put to the vote and rejected by the Council.

While the Panel recognises that her position had become very stressful the question is whether the situation was sufficiently acute to justify an employee resigning her post without giving notice. Once again Mrs Cooper uses the phrase ‘I was forced to resign’. The Panel noted that at no time had Mrs Cooper sought to invoke the Grievance Procedure or to invoke the Dispute Conciliation Procedure at any time throughout the three plus years that she had worked for the Council.

In her evidence Mrs Cooper also adduced the effect her presence was having on the Clerk, but the Panel did not believe that this could be construed as ‘forcing’ her resignation.

The Panel came to the conclusion that while they had considerable sympathy for Mrs Cooper and understood that she might well have felt that her position was untenable, the fact that she had not first sought redress within the Council’s procedures means that she had failed to satisfy the high test required to uphold a complaint of this nature.

The Panel therefore reluctantly, albeit unanimously, rejected this complaint.

9   Cllr Tulloch on several occasions would belittle and make inappropriate comments about other Councillors and the general public in front of me whilst working in the office. This made me feel very uncomfortable.

Several people commented in their written submissions and during their verbal evidence of inappropriate remarks made by Cllr Tulloch. Whether these comments were attempts at humour or deliberately designed to undermine or belittle others is difficult to say but at the best they were inappropriate and at worst a form of bullying. One written submission claimed that Councillor Tulloch had said on more than one occasion, ‘Did I just say that or did I think it’. If true this reveals that such remarks were not accidental but designed to offend. The Panel reluctantly concluded that Cllr Tulloch was indifferent to the effect that his comments had on other people and the fact that his attitude was often perceived by others as being intimidating. Unfortunately the butts of many of his comments were employees who were not in a position to respond.

The Panel unanimously concluded on the balance of probability that this complaint was justified and was therefore upheld.

This complaint was unanimously upheld.

Click here to read the recommendations

Recommendations

< The Grievance Report