Discriminatory Practices Still Prevalent In Craigavon
Craigavon Borough Council in county Armagh has often been a by-word for unionist domination and discrimination.
It was one of the first public bodies in the Six Counties to be found guilty of religious discrimination in a case taken by a former employee. And, in 1988, 17 past and serving unionist members of the Council were surcharged for a total of £225,719.05, and barred from holding public office for 10 years after a court found them guilty of wilful misconduct in their handling of a planning application by a local GAA club.
In recent years the Council was forced to change its policy of flying the Union Jack on council-owned properties and to abandon completely its previous policy of decorating both Lurgan and Portadown town centres with red, white and blue bunting throughout the Orange Order’s ‘marching season’. Both policies were nothing less than exercises in sectarian territoriality.
But discrimination has not just been directed towards catholics in Craigavon. In 2003, even though outline planning permission had been granted for the construction of a mosque, which was to be funded by the local muslim community, final approval was delayed for over a year after unionist councillors voted for it to be reconsidered. As a result of the racial tensions, which had been deliberately stoked up, the muslim community later withdrew their plans.
One year ago, the chief executive of the Council, the first ever catholic to obtain the post, received a threatening letter containing a live bullet in the post. It is understood that the threat, which stated, “We are watching you, your wife and your two beautiful adopted children. Do not go to the police. This is your only warning,” came after he had attempted to initiate a reorganisation of departments.
With such an unenviable record it is surprising therefore that, 31 years after the introduction of the first Fair Employment legislation in the North, elected members of Craigavon Council are now attempting to keep strictly under wraps a potentially devastating report on employment practices within the Council which was compiled by the advisory group Deloitte MCS Ltd, a subsidiary of Deloitte Touche.
The confidential 62 page document, known as the Heaton Report, which makes 47 recommendations reflecting “the scale and seriousness of the situation”, deals with an investigation conducted by Deloitte into the Leisure Services Department of the Council. éirígí has been able to obtain a full copy of the report.
Deloitte were called in earlier this year to investigate “horrendous HR issues” in the Department which, in the last financial year, was responsible for spending £12,492,874 (€17,354,035) out of the Council’s total budget of £25,282,458 (€35,117,786).
Among findings are “the main problems concern management of people and change within the Department and for which management of the Department have responsibility. Organisation restructuring has taken place without clear justification or cost or savings having been identified. Procedures for obtaining approval for organisational change have not been followed properly. Relationships, morale and motivation are very poor. Stress levels are high, as is fear and mistrust… There are sufficient complaints and allegations of bullying and threats of dismissal to warrant further specific and targeted investigation.”
The report ominously warns that, “The Council is at serious risk of failures in service delivery because of inadequacies in management and processes.”
Even more starkly, the Heaton Report alerts the Council to the fact that “failure to take action will mean that the Council is taking the risk of failing the citizens of Craigavon and its staff, and particularly in its duty of care.”
But the Council’s initial response has been to put the report and its recommendations on ice. The decision, akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand, was backed by 20 councillors in a vote at a specially requisitioned 'in committee' meeting from which the press and the public were excluded on Wednesday, November 14.
Councillors also agreed at the meeting that they would not make any public comment or publicly release the report. This attempt to prevent public discussion on a matter about which the Council has been urged to take action is nothing less than a corporate gagging exercise.
Appointment on Merit?
It is clear from reading the Heaton report that appointment to certain posts or securing of promotions has not been done on merit and most likely contravenes fair employment legislation. Certainly, it appears that basic criteria relating to knowledge, experience, skills and competencies were overlooked or ignored.
Among matters which the Heaton Report comments upon is the appointment of a senior manager where “no internal trawl appears to have been carried out, yet LSC (Leisure Services Committee) was informed this would happen – no other employees, or external candidates had the opportunity to be considered for the post. The correct procedure would have been to advertise the post.”
In another case where a redundancy was imposed, the Report says “we have seen no evidence that the redundancy of the post of Parks Manager West was reported to Committee or that there was consultation with the trade unions; and there is a question over the consultation process undertaken with the Head of Leisure Operations and whether this complied with good practice and all legal requirement.”
In a third instance, where a post was upgraded from “officer” to “manager” the report says it was “evident that a new managerial post was being created without proper procedures being followed.” Furthermore, after a review of the job description was carried out, it was “concluded that it would be difficult to justify the additional managerial post.”
And in a similar instance where there was a change in job title and responsibility (and related pay increase) the Heaton Report is unambiguous - “this would have been without regard to or compliance with the Council’s recruitment and employment policies and employment legislation.”
When carrying out their investigations, Deloitte state that they consulted widely among management and workers, although two directors chose not to participate. Feedback from those consultations showed that “The principal concerns and allegations have been:
Vacancies have been created by forcing out the incumbent to make way for a favoured employee to be promoted or transferred;
Person specifications have been geared to facilitate applications from internal candidates who did not have the experience or qualifications required by a previous incumbent;
External potential applicants have been advised that positions are already filled to prevent competition from internal applicants;
Appointments have been made without following the proper procedure; and
Family and friends have been appointed without proper procedures being followed.”
Jobs for the Boys?
Although they anonymise the various sub-departments within Leisure Services, the Deloitte report states that the following was put to them by council staff members:
“Unit A – A manager has several relatives in the unit and sought to appoint a relative who was a casual employee to a permanent post on a higher grade than the agreed grade;
Unit B – A manager employs three relatives in the unit;
Unit C – A manager has two relatives employed in the unit; and
Unit D – A supervisor has a relative employed.”
In relation to this, Deloitte state that “evidence of a high incidence of employing family members when there is a dynamic, diverse and substantial labour market raises doubts (whether or not they are justified) about the fairness of employment practices and processes.”
Deloitte recommends that “the potential for managers employing family members in their business units and the potential requirement for redeployment are the subject of a more detailed investigation” and that “there is a review and development of an explicit policy on the employment of family members within a manager’s immediate business unit.”
The Report singles out one sub-department, deemed Unit X, for special mention where bullying and victimisation of employees appears to have been the order of the day.
“Unit X – This unit is anonymised because of the very serious nature of the allegations being made. We have been advised by a number of staff in Unit X that they are fearful of their jobs and fearful of participating in this investigation as it may result in bullying and victimisation.
“They have told us that they have been warned by their manager not to speak to anyone such as other managers, HR officers or their trade union about any matters at the unit. Staff involved regarded this as bullying and have described threats of dismissal being made by the unit manager.
“We were also given a significant number of examples where its is alleged that health and safety regulations are being repeatedly breached and we wrote separately to the Chief Executive about the risks to the Council when they were brought to our attention. This, taken along with the allegations regarding bullying and potential unfair dismissal statements, are sufficient to require a more detailed and specific investigation into the running of the unit.”
Deloitte then formally recommend that “an urgent and more detailed investigation is carried out into the management and running of Unit X”.
Ratepayers Receiving Best Value for Money?
Although the report is primarily focussed on employment practices, it also refers to “managers seeking to operate quite autonomously and without concern for the wider procedures and processes of the Council. These include…splitting purchase orders for a single service or goods, to avoid the threshold for a single purchase order requiring a tender process.”
In a later section, dealing with all these and other issues, Deloitte make no bones about the cumulative impact: “It is clear from the evidence set out above, and especially in relation to organisation design, that there is a low level of commitment to complying with rules and procedures. This is a serious challenge to the Council as a whole as it not only creates significant legal and financial risks, it also counters the standards of integrity and accountability that are expected of public servants…and what is expected of people responsible for public funds and public services.”
The revelation that there were occasions when proper tender procedures were not followed and, indeed, circumvented, must also give rise for concern.
Furthermore, elected members of the Council must be called upon to explain how those charged with managing and accounting for ratepayers money are able to justify or ignore such actions. After all, during the same period, Craigavon’s 26 councillors were themselves able to collectively claim £233,341 (€324,255) in allowances. Is it too much to ask that, in return, they ensure that the Council and its staff at all times acts with integrity and accountability?
Open and Full Investigation Required
Éirígí spokesperson Brian Leeson said, “Discrimination by local councils since partition was the reason for local government authorities in the occupied Six Counties being stripped of most of their powers in 1972. However, the way that unionist-dominated councils such as Craigavon have been allowed to abuse the little remaining powers they have is an indictment not only of the British government, but also of the political establishment in the Six Counties.
“For many years local government in the Six Counties was a by-word for discrimination.
“There still are serious concerns about the continuing political and sectarian discrimination which exists at local government level. Individuals in the Six Counties are supposed to be protected against discrimination on grounds of race, religious belief or political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age or because of a disability.
“Despite such protection, this damning report indicates that there appears to be an absence of quick and effective channels of redress for citizens who clearly feel that their rights have not been upheld by the Council.”
Brian continued, “Éirígí are of the view that a full and open investigation, based upon the information contained in the Heaton Report, should now be undertaken by the Six County Equality Commission. The Commission clearly has the authority to do this as part of its remit includes: working towards the elimination of discrimination; promoting equality of opportunity and encouraging good practice; as well as overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the statutory duty on public authorities.
“If, as could well be the case, discrimination is proven, the sanctions applied should be proportionate and applicable not just to the council as a corporate body, but to individual councillors or council employees.”
Brian added, “However, in view of what is contained in the Heaton Report, Éirígí finds it somewhat ironic that both the Labour Relations Agency and the Equality Commission have chosen to hold a public seminar in early December to look at the related issues of bullying and harassment. As the venue chosen is the Lough Neagh Discovery Centre, owned by Craigavon Council and managed by none other than the Leisure Services Department, perhaps both the LRA and the Equality Commission should be demanding copies of the Heaton Report or seeking an alternative venue.”