Hafal’s injunction threat

On September 11^th 2015 Hafal Chair of Trustees Elin Jones threatened me with an injunction. The threat was made in order to prevent me contacting AMs – primarily Health and Social Services Minister Mark Drakeford AM – with my genuine public interest concerns about Hafal.

After chatting with my family I decided to make Elin’s threat public by mentioning it on Facebook and Twitter. I wrote that: “no member of the public should ever be threatened like this: politicians are there to serve us and are accessible to everyone.”

Within a few hours of publishing the posts I received an e-mail from Hafal’s solicitors. They asked me to remove the posts stating that Hafal may protect itself by taking “injunctive relief” – another threat.

I did not remove the posts. No “relief” was taken – more Hafal money wasted on solicitor’s fees.

Elin’s threat prompted a number of my former colleagues to get in touch with me which was kind and greatly appreciated. All were shocked by the injunction threat. Some shared their bleak experiences of working at Hafal and were happy for me to share their views anonymously and in the public interest.

Comments included:

• “They are a terrible company to work for.”
• “The fact that you have been threatened with an injunction speaks volumes.”
• “Anyone with any spirit and independent thought leaves Hafal eventually and often, unfortunately, in difficult circumstances, the list of casualties is endless.”
• “Hafal eats away at you like nothing else I’ve experienced. I used to be quite a confident person but Hafal stripped that away and I feel like I’ve been left with a cloud over me and my professionalism called into question.”
• “After a grievance brought by myself, Hafal senior management offered me counselling. This action left me feeling isolated, alone and with nobody to turn to. I have no doubt the offer of counselling was deliberately done to make out I had a mental health issue. I now know that offering counselling is standard practice for anyone that brings important concerns to light.”
• “Hafal took all my confidence away and questioned the person I am. When I told a senior member of staff that I felt bullied I was offered counselling instead of the alleged bullying issue being dealt with directly. Working at Hafal also had a massive impact on my family; at one point I seriously thought my long-term relationship with my partner was over because of all the stress at work.”
• “It’s about time someone spoke out. They can’t be allowed to treat people the way they do, it’s disgusting. I’ve bumped into two former colleagues in the last few weeks both of whom loved their jobs but couldn’t take anymore of Hafal and so have left.”
• “I had a horrible time at Hafal. The managers I worked with were dishonest and unprofessional. How they handle funding and treat service users as well is, in my view, disgusting and I couldn’t take it anymore. Their conduct can’t go on; it’s people’s lives they are messing with.”
• “I never expected to end up suffering with mental health issues because I worked for a mental health charity.”

On October 9^th I wrote to Hafal Chief Executive Alun Thomas. I included virtually all the quotes above in the letter. In addition, I asked him 13 legitimate public interest questions on a range of issues raised in discussion with some of my former colleagues. Alun still hasn’t responded or even acknowledged receipt of the letter which I think is disappointing and unacceptable.

Health and Social Services Minister Mark Drakeford has, however, acknowledged my letter; the Welsh Government’s External Assurance Group are currently determining whether an investigation is warranted.

If you would like to share your public interest concerns about Hafal in confidence please e-mail me at: john.gilheaney@btinternet.com

Employment tribunals “don’t do morality”

I decided not to take Hafal to an employment tribunal for two main reasons:

• I didn’t think I would get a fair hearing;
• The potential costs involved.

Mediation is the first step towards a tribunal. If mediation fails – Hafal took no part in my mediation phase – you are entitled to a certificate for the next part of the process. The certificate costs £250. To finally reach a tribunal you must pay an additional £950 four weeks before a full hearing.

In addition to these costs there is of course the chance that you lose your case and have to pay your ex-employer’s legal fees. It means you may pay thousands of pounds in the pursuit of fair play when the chances are you’re stressed and unemployed.

I thought I had a decent case for constructive dismissal against Hafal (see my previous posts). However I was ultimately dissuaded from going to a tribunal after some stark advice from Linda Jones, my ACAS mediator. Linda said: “employment tribunals don’t do morality” a phrase which stopped me dead in my tracks.

I was informed that it doesn’t matter if you think your employer reached an unfair verdict on your grievance/suspension as all the judge will consider is whether correct grievance/suspension procedures were followed.

In my view this narrow remit means unethical employers can go through the motions when a grievance is raised and manufacture an unfair judgement. This effectively leaves their employee isolated and fighting an uphill battle before a costly tribunal looms. For me going to a tribunal which “doesn’t do morality” made no sense as we all need a level playing field.

Employment tribunal claims in Wales have fallen dramatically since fees were introduced in July 2013.  I think Welsh AMs need to review and reverse this decision if they can.

I also think employment grievances should be heard by an independent party to prevent unethical managers – the initial judge and jury – from closing ranks. I think the current system is a playground for anyone with dubious ethics.

Here’s the link to a WalesOnline story on the fall in employment tribunals: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/employment-tribunal-claims-drop-50-9912194

My next blog post will explain the background to the injunction threat I received from Hafal Chair of Trustees, Elin Jones, in September 2015.

After the grievance

On May 14^th I was suspended from Hafal when my Line Manager, Sharon Jones, alleged I: “acted in a threatening and abusive manner towards another member of staff and that acting in this way in a public place I behaved in a manner that might damage the reputation of the voluntary care sector or reduce the trust and confidence of the public.”

Ridiculous.

My suspension followed a brief conversation I had with Hafal’s Head of Communications, Mathew Pearce, the manager I raised a grievance against a few months earlier.

I spoke to Matthew before work on a campaign event in Cardiff Bay begun.  The conversation was witnessed by Hafal’s Event’s Co-ordinator Emma Billings and also Jacki Chard. I said: “Hello, how are you? Are you talking to me after the grievance?” Matthew smiled and mumbled: “Yes”. I then said: “Don’t ever do that to me again.”

It was a spontaneous comment. By “that” I meant: don’t lie about my job prospects; recommend I get the sack when my work was fine; send me job applications I didn’t want or take an overly keen interest in my private life, that kind of thing (see my previous post).

Matthew stormed off and that was it. The conversation – I didn’t shout or swear – must have lasted four seconds. However that was enough to see me sent home from the event a few hours later and suspended at 4pm that day.

I was shocked by what I considered to be the malicious severity of the allegation and by Sharon, my Line Manager’s willingness to act swiftly on the words of a manager with a record of lying behind my back: Sharon did not witness the conversation that morning nor did she phone me for my account of what happened either before I was sent home or before I was suspended. No-one from Head Office sought my account. One of my colleagues, who works at Hafal Head Office, later wrote privately to me saying I was “stitched up.”

After Sharon’s ridiculous offer of counselling, the grievance “whitewash” and this allegation I thought “I can’t work here anymore” so I e-mailed in my notice a few days later. I was gutted to leave Hafal as I loved working with virtually all my colleagues, service users and carers.

An investigation into the conversation was eventually held. I was told it would be “full and transparent” however no verdict on whether I was “guilty” or “not guilty” of the allegation was given. Also my request to see signed written witness statements was refused. When I asked Hafal Company Secretary Nicola Thomas if I could see the statements, she wrote that “as it’s the summer holiday season seeking any further information may take some time.” The investigation into my four-second conversation with Matthew took over two months to “complete”.

In hindsight my days were numbered after I raised the grievance; subtle changes took place shortly afterwards, I became increasingly isolated. For example Sharon excluded me from meetings and tasks I was promised and accustomed to doing; I had no appraisal or support and supervision; I was also tipped off that one senior member of staff had suddenly started using the work computer I worked on when I was away from my desk.

When I asked a colleague why this might be I was told: “That’s what they do to people they want to get rid of.” When I found the senior staff member in question at my desk he said: “I was just keeping your seat warm.”

This, like everything else in this blog, is on the record. I’ve documented it all in an exchange of letters during the summer; nobody at Hafal has disputed this post-grievance conduct.

It’s not the kind of behaviour you expect from senior managers at a mental health charity.

In my next blog post I will explain why I didn’t take the charity to an employment tribunal as that may help others facing a tricky, potentially expensive decision.

POSTSCRIPT – CLEARED

After leaving Hafal Emma, who witnessed my conversation with Pearce, got in touch. Her words clear my name and show the behaviour of  Pearce, Chard and management in their true light.

Emma wrote: “I just want you to know that I stood up against all of them for you. It did me no favours but I did. The day in Cardiff Bay was just awful and I was the only one who told them that there was no way that you were causing any disruption. There was a lot of selfish people there and not just the most senior either.

“They (Pearce and Chard) were both utterly incensed and every time I stood up for you they couldn’t bear it. I dread bumping into them round Swansea.”

Thank you for telling the truth, Emma.

If you would like to share your public interest concerns about Hafal in confidence please e-mail me at: john.gilheaney@btinternet.com

“A whitewash cooked up behind closed doors.”

This post looks at three public interest issues: a whitewashed grievance; the use of counselling (by a mental health charity) for staff that don’t need it; and whether it is right or wrong to lie about your colleagues.

I worked at the mental health charity Hafal (www.hafal.org) from September 2008 – May 2015. I worked hard for service users and carers and raised the profile of Hafal’s communications department.

Unfortunately my efforts were not always appreciated by Hafal’s Head of Communications, Matthew Pearce. Matthew often made my work-life difficult both when I worked in his department and when I left it. For example:

• He recommended I get the sack when there were no issues with my work;
• He lied to the Chief Executive about me applying for a job I never knew existed when my contract was about to expire;
• He sent me an e-mail encouraging me to apply for work at another organisation;
• I was even warned in writing by a former colleague not to leave my mobile phone unattended on my desk in the office I shared with Matthew and his assistant, Jacki Chard. The same colleague also confirmed in writing that Matthew undermined my work.

However despite expressing these and other concerns with my Line Manager, Sharon Jones, nothing was done to stop Matthew’s poor behaviour.

So when he complained unfairly about my work yet again, in August 2014, I felt compelled to put my concerns in writing. I sent an e-mail to Sharon and to then Hafal Deputy Chief Executive, Alun Thomas, about Matthew’s antics. Here’s an edited version of the e-mail.

Hello Alun

I just wanted to clarify what happened with the case study for the journal as I always feel a little uneasy when Matt’s on the warpath behind my back…

The thing I’ve learnt about Matt is he likes to have a pop at my work. At various times I believe he’s recommended I get the sack; trashed my work ethic; lied to Bill about me applying for jobs and, to top it all, one weekend last April, he sent an unsolicited e-mail to my personal account encouraging me to apply for a broadcasting job at Swansea Sound.

I think it’s fair to say Matthew is not a fan of mine!!! Anyway, I’ll keep on doing my best for him although I have understandably become rather wary of his behaviour at times. Sorry to have to write this but I’ve learnt I’ve got to keep the record straight with Matthew.

Alun’s e-mail reply (dated August 26^th) which was sent to Sharon and myself was as follows:

Thanks John – points understood and as I said I knew you had a number of very helpful case studies that we used in recent bids.

So Alun, like Sharon, knew what was going on but did nothing.

I soldiered on but in February 2015 Matthew was at it again. He claimed he was “rocked” by my assertion that he should treat Hafal clients equally whether they are “nice or otherwise”.

Sharon called me into her office to talk about this. I expressed amazement that Matthew could be offended by my words then, to my dismay, Sharon offered me counselling to cope with his behaviour.

At the time I thought the offer of counselling was totally inappropriate though well-intentioned. However, I have since learned that I am not the only Hafal employee who has wrongly been offered talking therapy when they don’t need it.

These are the words of one of my former colleagues: “After a grievance brought by myself, Hafal senior management offered me counselling. This action left me feeling isolated, alone and with nobody to turn to. I have no doubt the offer of counselling was deliberately done to make out I had a mental health issue. I now know that offering counselling is standard practice for anyone that brings important concerns to light.”

This issue is clearly in the public interest. Health and Social Services Minister Mark Drakeford AM has been informed and has noted what’s been going on.

I informed Sharon that the best type of counselling I could receive was if Matthew apologised in writing for his poor conduct and then stopped his unfair behaviour. I wasn’t given this assurance so I raised a grievance. I felt I had no alternative. I thought: “I have to stand up for myself and stop this.” My family agreed.

At this point Sharon, who had been supportive, did a U-turn. Despite criticising Matthew for years she backed him throughout the grievance. I felt betrayed, isolated and shocked by her disloyalty.

The subsequent grievance was a farce. It was described by my National Union of Journalists’ representative, one of the best journalists in Wales, as “a whitewash cooked up behind closed doors.”

During the grievance crucial evidence was ignored. There were other evasions, too. For example Alun claimed my words to Matthew about treating all clients equally was “near the knuckle” – an extraordinary statement given that Hafal means “equal” in English.

Meanwhile Matthew, who had been so vocal about my work, suddenly became silent: when I asked him to explain his conduct in writing – a fair request – he refused. I think that says a lot.

Another extraordinary aspect of the grievance was Sharon’s view on lying. Nobody doubts that Matthew lied to the former Chief Executive, Bill Walden-Jones MBE about my employment prospects; it’s on the record. Sharon supported me at the time and used very colourful language to describe Matthew.

However during the grievance Sharon had a different take on matters. She informed me in writing that Matthew’s lie had “no bearing or effect on your position within the organisation”. He was not disciplined for his deceit.

I have asked Alun, Sharon and Hafal Chair of Trustees Elin Jones, a simple question in writing this year: is it right or wrong for staff to lie about their colleagues? They have all refused to comment. Elin actually claimed this moral matter was beyond her remit. So let me ask again: Alun, Sharon, Elin: why is lying amongst staff at Hafal acceptable?

None of the complaints I raised in the grievance were supported.

In my next blog post I will explain why I left Hafal shortly after the grievance.

If you would like to share your public interest concerns about Hafal in confidence please e-mail me at: john.gilheaney@btinternet.com