UPDATE: CRUEL COUNCIL WANTED TO REDUCE VICTIMISED EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION BY 80 PER CENT

Uncategorized One comment

Victim, whose compensation will finally nbe decided by an employment  appeals tribunal, claims GMB trade union officials were also ‘conniving’ behind his back

By Bill Heaney

Just in case you missed it, the Gourlay v West Dunbartonshire Council case is being widely reported by law firms across the country.

Mr Gourlay was dismissed by the Council for gross misconduct. He claimed that he had developed a serious depressive illness as a result of his discriminatory treatment by West Dunbartonshire Council.

He brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation. His disabilities were MS, Type II diabetes along with severe depression.

His claims succeeded. The employment tribunal accepted that the Respondent’s discriminatory conduct had left the Claimant permanently unable to work.

In assessing the appropriate level of compensation the tribunal took into account past loss (to the date of hearing), future loss of wages to retirement and pension loss also to retirement.

The tribunal then however went on to reduce the amount of computed calculation to take into account the fact that the employment might have ended sooner for another reason.

The tribunal also considered in the alternative that had his employment continued he would have likely taken ill-health retirement anyway. The tribunal reduced the award by 80 per cent.

Mr Gourlay appealed the compensation decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with him and held that the tribunal had been incorrect in its application of an 80% reduction. It gave the following reasons:

  • Compensation for discrimination should restore the claimant to the position they would have been in but for the employer’s unlawful actions.
  • The discriminatory dismissal left the Claimant unable to work. A reduction in compensation was only justifiable if a later lawful dismissal would also have left him unable to work. There was no evidence suggest this would have been the case.
  • The tribunal also reduced compensation based on the possibility that the Claimant’s other health conditions might have led to ill health retirement. This was purely speculative rather than evidence-based. It as perverse to take it into consideration.

The claim will go back to another tribunal to determine remedy.

Mr Gourlay told me today: “While my claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation have all been successful it is notable that the third victimisation head was against WDC councillors.
Those  who rejected my Appeal against Dismissal Without Notice were retired Clr Thomas Rainey and Clr Hazel Sorrell, both Labour. And SNP member Clr Jim Brown.”

Councillors Jim Brown SNP, Tommy Rainey and Hazel Sorrell, Labour.

Mr Gourlay maintains it was especially due to Clr Sorrell’s evidence that findings of discrimination and victimisation against him were produced.
He added: “Evidenced by the minutes provided to me by WDC – but only after 18 months had passed. That is: after my lawyer had to ask on numerous occasions.
“In all respects [this was] absolutely incompetent and demonstrably maliciously vindictive persons, in positions of authority, at WDC.
“Will Audit Scotland or any other competent body ever inquire what’s been going on?
“What of the then Monitoring Officer Peter Hessett whose job it was, among other things, to Monitor what laws and  WDC policies were complied with.
“For example, whistle-blower correspondence from me being covered up.”
Mr Gourlay did not allow the GMB trade union to escape without criticism.
He said: “Perhaps even more so as they, GMB Officers and Secretary, were conniving behind my back.
“I did try to complain against GMB using GMB rule book but was shut down more than once. Another story.
“Although I suspected that to be the case re GMB – that was proven only by the release of 1000s of pages of information released (under DPA) eventually, after much effort by me, whereby the untruths and malevolence of GMB was proven as factually true.
“Absolutely SHOCKING state of affairs from GMB.  That is: my 10-year case has been self-funded.”
The case, which has gone on for ten years, is said to have cost the public purse in West Dunbartonshire around £1 million.
So far as The Democrat knows Mr Gourlay has still not received an apology from the Council for the victimisation and bullying he received from their officials, some of whom are still working with the Council in negotiations with the trade around sensitive matters.
The case is said to have cost the public purse in West Dunbartonshire around £1 million.

Top of page picture: Victimised West Dunbartonshire Council employee Brian Gourlay.

 

One comment

  1. With a bill reported at over £1m the question has to be asked why it dragged on to this.

    What happened to Mr Gourlay was a mistake, an unfortunate mistake, a bad mistake, but mistakes happen

    And if you make a mistake, you settle it, learn from it and move on.

    And so the big question here is why legal counsel and senior officers did not learn and make amends. .

    That is the true disgrace of this sorry situation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply