Unity indexMy statement to 13th disciplinary, August 30, 2007
my appeal against dismissal
the transcript of that appeal and
the company's final letter rejecting the appeal.
I have provided nearly all the most relevant documents pertaining to the case because I felt you would want to have all the evidence.
In my view I was sacked for doing exactly what I had always done in nine years of employment, for doing what I believe my contract said I could do, when I was 54 and should have been protected by age discrimination legislation.
Jonathan Brind
Email j@brind.tv, phone 020 8141 0711, mobile 079149 76706.
I think this was the first and the only one conducted by Redacted.
In the subsequent two years there have been seasons when attacks have been launched on me and fairly lengthy periods when things have been quiescent. January to March is off season since GGP has huge issues (sometimes 200 pages) and earns most of its revenue. To swap editor at that time of the year would be dangerous and any poor blighter parachuted in to take over at that time would be completely swamped by over work. The remaining nine months of the year, particularly the autumn, are high season for disciplinaries.
Despite the fact that GGP is producing twice as many editorial pages as another Unity b2b title RCI (which has a staff of two) I have restrained freelance spending to the minimum. I have done this even though I have been bringing out the magazine on my own.
At the same time colour sep income has been maintained at a level of about £50k a year, probably more than any of the other Unity b2b titles. After obtaining the agreement of Dennis Taylor (the chairman) I increased the price of colour seps in September and the response I got from the market was very positive, so there was every prospect that income would increase significantly over the next 12 months.
This month Andy Westhead admitted to Natalie Luck (GGP's advertising manager) that GGP was the number one in the market. Andy Westhead was formerly the advertising manager of Glass Age, the only magazine that claimed to be better read and more successful than GGP.
GGP is meeting its targets. The last morning I was in the office (Friday September 7, 2007) there was a revised flat plan on my desk because the magazine had over sold and needed to go up a section.
Although timekeeping was top of the agenda for the first of the 13 disciplinary meetings I have been summonsed to attend over the last two years, other issues have also been raised. At one stage I was being harassed by a phone pest. Far from supporting me Unity disciplined me. Another issue raised was my shutting my eyes during a charity dinner on a Saturday night. Unity said this imperilled GGP's relationship with an important advertiser, but actually when the advertiser got to hear about it the advertiser was so annoyed about what Unity was doing that it threatened to stop advertising with GGP if the disciplinary procedure continued.
This is what my contract says:
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
It seems clear that the meaning of the world prevail is that 9-5.30 is the office routine. It is when the switchboard is staffed, the accounts, circulation and repro departments are working and the ancillary workers like the warehouse manager can be expected to be available. But in 1998 when I was first employed there was no idea at all that this would apply to me. The idea was that I had to work whatever hours were required to produce the magazine. Dennis Taylor, the chairman, was very proud of the fact that you could drop into the office at almost any time and find somewhere there. We had keys precisely because we were expected to let ourselves in and out when we worked funny hours.
The phrase to apply your hours to cope means to me that I was expected to work the hours needed to meet the deadlines, not to decorate the office by sitting there 9-5.30.
The words as timings dictate means both deadlines and working hours. The idea being that you have to put in more working hours if it is necessary to meet the deadlines.
I accepted this (and the fact that no overtime payments were available) on the basis that I controlled my own working hours and could take time off when the workload was relatively small. So, you will see that the lieu days the company said I should not have taken off, were all scheduled at the beginning of the working month. I have also taken to having my holidays at the beginning of the working month to ensure that I have the best chance of meeting deadlines (at the end of the month). GGP is exemplary in meeting its deadlines.
The company in the disciplinary hearings has usually relied on the Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail and ignored the rest of the paragraph.
In his letter of 3rd May 2007, Redacted, the company secretary took a go at interpreting the second and third sentences in a way that supported disciplinary action against me.
He said
This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home.
My contract doesn't mention me coming into the office, and of course I spend a lot of time, quite often four or five days (for example when I attend the Glassex exhibition which lasts four days), without ever going near the office. This is standard for b2b publishing. Clearly Redacted is just inventing a meaning.
Of late Redacted has been saying the issue has been resolved by the disciplinary process. But I have never worked Monday to Friday 9-5.30, so you might as well say it has been resolved by my continuing to work flexible hours.
For years Unity Media regarded flexible working hours as perfectly acceptable. My pay has increased quite substantially since I was first employed. I had pay rises in March 1999, November 2000, April 2002, October 2003 and August 2005 only a short while prior to the harassment campaign starting. Unity is not the kind of company that gives pay rises to workers who are out of favour.
It is true that I have been attending the office for much shorter periods than I did in the early days. This is partly because I used to make sure I was in the office for a fairly lengthy period when I had staff since the deal with employing these young graduates is that you are training them at the same time as they are working for the company. You have to be there to do that. Not having any staff, my need to be in the office to perform my duties properly has considerably diminished. Of course, this doesn't mean that I am failing to perform my duties or that I am not honouring my side of the contract.
However, it seems to me that if the timekeeping issue had not been available the management would simply have leapt on another issue (like my shutting my eyes at a charity dinner or my being harassed by a phone pest).
I do not believe I have ever been given a fair chance in any of the disciplinary hearings because the people who have organised them have portrayed themselves as investigating prosecutors. Redacted, for example, has often said things like we have got enough to proceed with a written warning, rather than portraying himself in a more neutral role.
In the end I was dismissed for failing to work 9-5.30 but this issue was put on ice for many weeks while the company pursued what it believed was a stronger case (i.e. my closing my eyes at a charity dinner) and the ramifications of that unwound. As a result I have a log revealing that at no stage did I ever work 9-5.30 over a longer than three month period. For much of that time I was on an extended final warning. Doesn't this reveal that the company was manipulating the process in order to find a way to get rid of me whilst minimising the chance of losing at an industrial tribunal? If the company had been honest in its conviction that I had to work 9-5.30 it would have acted far earlier.
The person who has been given my old job, Redacted (former editor of RCI), is a generation younger than me, close in age to the ambitious advertising director who has initiated much of this harassment campaign. I am convinced that part of the reason the middle management decided to get rid of me is the fact that I am 54 years old.
For a more detailed examination of my case about my working hours see the paper I presented to the 13th disciplinary hearing on August 21.
Use of the word timings
Date: 14 October 2005 13:03:41 BDT
To: "Ariane Blok"
Cc: "Jonathan Brind"
Hi
There have been a number of occasions where you have been going out to Sainsburys to get your lunch before 1p.m. - for example today when I was leaving the office at 11.40am you were just coming back with a Sainsburys bag in your hand. I just wanted to remind you that everybody takes their lunch break between 1p.m. - 2p.m., if you could please stick to these timings in the future.
Thanks
Redacted
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held with me on Friday 11th November 2005 at 9.00am in Dennis Taylor's office.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matters of concern.
Statements of grounds for commencing formal action
* Timekeeping
* Objectionable Behaviour
* Staff Control/Management
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. Furthermore, I am obliged to remind you that a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction may be deemed to be gross misconduct, the penalty for which could lead to the summary termination of your employment.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Publisher
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Bead, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Mr J Brind
3 St Helier's Road
London
E10 6BH
2 November 1998
Dear Jonathan,
Following discussions between us, I am pleased to confirm our offer of employment to you as Editor of Glass &. Glazing Products magazine.
As you are aware, we view this position as the platform upon which GGP moves forward. In particular, we have over 20 years experience in business publishing and together should be able to enhance the fortunes of this established publication which, as you know, is very well respected throughout its industry segment.
This publication has received heavy development investment in circulation quality and fulfilment; design and cosmetics; and editorial appraisal and repositioning where appropriate, all of which we view as continuing elements to aid the well being and expansion of the publication, which is profitable.
Our working relations in Unity Media Communications are very good since we generally use our commonsense and behave in a reasonable manner with our fellow staff. The Company is quite rightly not driven by the rule book and we intend to keep it that way.
Initially, you will commence at the rate of £22,000 per annum which will be paid monthly in arrears. We will require your P45 and present bank account details to enable monthly transfers to be made to you. Once you have successfully completed several issues and mastered Quark Xpress we will review your salary to a level of £24,000. Timing and increment will be by agreement between us.
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
Our holiday period runs from January to December and in addition to public Bank Holidays you will be entitled to four weeks paid holiday per year. Please note there is no carry over.
Payment During Sickness
In the first full year of employment with the Company up to 5 days sick leave will be paid in full. Further days of sickness will result in either loss of holiday entitlement or salary.
After the first full year of employment with the Company, Government Legislation applies and the Company administer the State Sickness Payment Scheme. You are required to produce a certificate for any time off under illness in order to enjoy the (SSP) Statutory Sickness Scheme.
Expenses
You will be reimbursed in full for legitimate out-of-pocket expenses you incur whilst undertaking Company business, provided such items are discussed in advance and agreed. You will need to obtain and supply us with all expenditure receipts, together with our internal expenses claim form on a monthly basis. You will be then reimbursed the following month.
Company Vehicle
In this capacity you will enjoy the benefit of a Company car which will be made available to you for your personal use. This will be maintained, repaired, taxed and insured by the Company, but it is up to you to ensure the condition of your car remains roadworthy and within the legal limit. Private motoring is not paid and you should claim for business mileage at the rate prevailing at that time. It should be understood that replacement cars with alternative makes and models may take place in order to achieve the best value for money and fleet running costs.
Notice
Except in exceptional and serious misconduct circumstances warranting instant dismissal, you are entitled to receive and required to give one month written notice of the termination of your employment with us.
Our mission is to accelerate the successes built upon by this publication under Unity's proprietorship and to expand its profile and influence in reflecting today's modern industry with its requirement for legislative product knowledge which no doubt the positive attitude and breadth of experience you bring to the task will help achieve.
Welcome to Unity Jonathan and we look forward to a long and mutually rewarding association where your experience and maturity should greatly benefit your Publication.
Yours sincerely,
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Please confirm your acceptance of these terms and conditions by signing and returning the attached copy letter.
Jonathan Brind Date
I agree to the above terms and conditions of employment. My proposed start date with Unity is: .....................................................................
UNITY MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Stakes House, Quebec Square, Westerham, Kent TN16 1TD.
Telephone: 01959 565690 Fax: 01959 564390
Registered in England No. 1529036
From Jonathan Brind
November 12, 2005.
I am still chuckling over the fact that you say you like me even though you regard me as "obnoxious", like your brother. Thanks for providing the documents you promised. That was very kind and very efficient.
If you expect me to be a yes man and to simply ask how high when you say jump, I'm afraid I'm the wrong person. I didn't claim to be a yes man when I came for interview with Dennis. Martin James, who recommended me for the job, knew then that I was not a yes man and can hardly have failed to point this out to Dennis. I did not attempt to misrepresent myself. I even told Dennis that I had been forced to leave my previous employment (with Executive Hire News) because I had had a disagreement with the guy who ran the company. In those days I had a wife and two children to support. Today I am divorced, footloose and fancy free. If I wasn't a yes man then I am hardly likely to be one now. There is a difference between a team, which works because it unites people with different talents, and a regiment full of soldiers who salute when given orders. In business life the team usually prospers better than the regiment.
Of course, that does not mean I am going to fail to carry out my contractual duties (so long as you provide the resources to allow me to do so). In this context your offer to find a new editor for Conservatory Magazine makes sense, though it would have been even better not to reduce my staffing. It seems to me that the best person for the job would be Davinia Gill. I understand you have already offered her the editorship of HPM but failed to agree terms. I would have thought she could edit CM by working about two days a week and would guess she would probably expect a fee of about £12k a year. This would clearly save the company money (since Unity would be paying her less than Chris Hotine's salary). Davinia already knows the industry well and could take up the post with a minimum of learning and acclimatisation. Alternatively you could offer the job to Ariane Blok on a freelance basis (similar to the arrangement you have with Richard over Fensa News). As you know I regard Ariane as an extremely competent Deputy Editor and am absolutely certain she would make a first class job. Whilst I would co-operate fully with anyone you appointed, I hope you will understand that GGP is far too demanding to allow me to do anything but produce GGP with a bare bones staff of just myself and Ariane. Even the much smaller GGP I took over all those years ago had an assistant editor (Oliver Maxey).
I was quite startled you admitted you did not understand how the GGP/CM team managed to get through such an enormous workload, but you still chose to reduce our staffing. Your suggestion, however, thatRedacted has a more demanding task is plain erroneous as a simple cataloguing of the facts will soon demonstrate. GGP has about ten competitors (depending on how you count regionalised magazines like Vision and Clearview). Three or four of those magazines are very serious competitors indeed. Ariane and I have had to work extremely hard and very efficiently to establish a reputation as the premier magazine in such a crowded field. It certainly wasn't regarded as such when I started editing it. Evidently the prestige GGP now enjoys has not happened because the advertising department only accepts advertising from premier advertisers, much as I admire the undoubted drive and determination displayed by everyone from Norman Setra to Gavin Rimmer! RCI, on the other hand, only has one relatively serious competitor, Roofing, a magazine I know well since I used to edit it. RCI has long been regarded as the premier magazine in the market and has little to fear from the competition. RCI is considerably smaller than GGP, so of courseRedacted can afford to swan about the country. He probably enjoys it. Good luck to him! But I have to work harder than him.
The roofing industry is an end of line business. Which is to say people order roofs last in the construction process. So it always happens that roofing magazines suffer recessions (such as the current construction industry led recession) last. If that is the case, all things being equal, RCI is likely to have a worse year in 2006 than GGP. There is little RCI can do to avoid this. It has such a large market share that it is virtually impossible for it to increase market share. Switching editorial resources from GGP to RCI at this moment seems eccentric, to say the least.
In 2004 RCI produced 350 pages of editorial. My team produced 750 pages, or more than twice as many. This year so far RCI has produced 300, my team 640. Again more than twice as many. Yet RCI has lately had a staff of two while GGP/CM only had a staff of three. How could GGP/CM be better managed?
According to Lisa GGP/CM is an example to the other magazines when it comes to time keeping. We meet deadlines even when the advertising department re-sizes the issue. This shows my team is professional and working well together. In a context of you recently sending out an email urging all the magazines to meet deadlines, GGP/CM is evidently a rare example of a well managed editorial team.
Dennis has often stressed the need to produce a healthy income from colour seps and I have several written examples on this theme. In 1997/8 the income from colour seps was £34,405. This year with only eleven issues of GGP completed we have already achieved an income of £50k. How could the magazine be better managed than that?
On June 20 Dennis wrote to me to give me a very considerable increase in salary. Dennis has always made it clear that my salary would only be increased if I performed properly. What has changed since June 20 since I was evidently performing extremely well to deserve such a large increase just five months ago?
If you consult the reader enquiry department you will find that I am probably the most conscientious editor when it comes to producing the information they need, on time and in a very clear manner.
Accounts will also confirm that I am a joy to work with when it comes to producing the information they need to collect colour seps.
In general despite the way you picture me, I get on extremely well with the other departments of Unity. I even get on better with Repro than most of my colleagues, and often defend them when they annoy the other b2b editors as they did recently by putting a sign on their door. You may recall the level of anger about Repro at the meeting of editors in Dennis's office on the day you went to the dentist.
Jonathan Brind
Copy to Sandra Baldock.
November 18, 2005.
It is now a little over three years since you joined the staff of GGP (your appointment was announced in the November 2002 issue) and it is more than time for me to congratulate you on the tremendous impact you have made on GGP. There is little doubt that you have become the anchor person who makes the magazine work, the bed rock of its very considerable success.
I understand that you met Redacted about three weeks ago at which time he expressed the view that everything was going well. For myself I would go further than that, to express my personal thanks for the huge contribution you have made so far, and will, I am convinced, continue to make in the future.
You have learnt a great deal about dealing with the sometimes very difficult characters who make up the conservatory and double glazing industry, and achieved the almost impossible feat of being popular with everyone you have come across.
I have recently analysed the production of RCI (which has two staff) and to my astonishment discovered that you on your own actually produce more pages than the two of them put together! Not only that, but the pages you produce are of a higher quality than those generally found in RCI. I am a good judge because I know that industry well. I edited a roofing magazine a lot longer thanRedacted has edited RCI.
You are amazingly diligent. You only have to be asked to do something for me to know that it is done. You get on with your work with little or no supervision.
You have become a first rate designer and clearly know Quark extremely well.
You have a surprisingly mature attitude to what can be a very demanding job and even seem to enjoy dealing with crises, such as late breaking news.
You took the lead in recruiting a junior journalist and have nurtured him to the point where he too is beginning to develop useful skills. For a long time I thought he must be almost super human to have caught on so quickly. But the penny eventually dropped. It wasn't that he was a good learner but that you are a brilliant teacher. I wonder if you will eventually find your vocation in journalistic recruitment and training.
I know that you have achieved all this despite the fact that you suffer headaches and problems with your balance. On occasion well meaning but not very well informed people have complained about you sleeping at your desk, reading, arriving late and taking mobile phone calls in the stair well. Given the huge output you achieve it is clear that you do not do these things all day! However, Redacted has expressed concern that these things could create the wrong impression, so I pass this useful advice on. We have already talked about these matters extensively so I will not labour them.
All in all your performance has been excellent. Well done Ariane. Keep it up!
Jonathan Brind
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Following our meeting on Friday 11th November 2005, you are required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held with me on Monday 28th November 2005 at 9.15am in Dennis Taylor's office.
The purpose of the hearing is to discuss additional matters of concern and to further discuss the original matters of concern. This will allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matters:-
Statements of grounds for commencing formal action
*Timekeeping (9am - 5.30pm)
*Alleged failure to conduct a meeting with a subordinate in accordance with a management instruction from myself.
*Alleged failure to provide a copy of the taped meeting on the 11th November as agreed and further instructed by Sandra.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. Furthermore, I am obliged to remind you that a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction may be deemed to be gross misconduct, the penalty for which could lead to the summary termination of your employment.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me.
General
"I love the magazine (GGP). I love what it does. I love the way it is and looks and everything else," Redacted on November 11, 2005.
Jonathan Brind: "We have intense competition, unlike RCI, which is largely a monopoly with no serious competition. We have ten other magazines yet even with that competition we meet the deadlines, we produce far more pages per person...
Redacted: "..I'm not questioning any of that."
Jonathan Brind: "and we have a very good reputation in the market."
Redacted: "I'm not questioning that."
Jonathan Brind: "and when people like Emap do surveys they find we are top. When the Epwin Group do surveys among fabricators they find we are top."
*Timekeeping (9am - 5.30pm) '
My contract of employment says:
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
So I determine my own working hours and benefit from the fact that back up is available from the office 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday. It is very hard to see how any other reading of this is possible. I do not believe that in seven years working for Unity I have ever worked 9-5.30 once.
However, should I for any reason work 37.5 hours in the office and then go to any jobs which run into the evening, I would be putting the company at risk of prosecution under the European Directive on Working Hours. I work long hours not short.
It is established custom and practice that I attend the office at hours designed by me to ensure that the magazine is of the highest possible quality and produced in a way which meets its deadlines. According to Lisa GGP is exemplary in this respect. From Redacted's recent email (following) it seems GGP is certainly unusual in meeting deadlines!
Subject: Copy Deadlines leading up to Christmas
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:24:47 +0100
Hi All
Its that time again, believe it or not, where we are leading up to Christmas and where I start getting very scared of our magazines not being on schedule and repeating the situation of a couple of years ago when December was the worst time I've had in my life.
I had a word with Ian D-J this morning and it looks as though most magazines are behind schedule - some worse than others. On top of the fact that Christmas is coming and we close down for 10 days, we have also got the situation that we are now using in-house Repro. I won't go over it all again but being late really does have a bad impact on the Repro department so could everyone please just make sure that we stay on schedule, so we can all have a nice time leading up to Christmas.
Thanks
Redacted
Unity Media Plc
And as for the quality achieved I cite no higher authority than Redacted who at a meeting with me on November 11 said: "GGP's a good mag and you do a good job about getting the magazine out." I would also point out that this year I have raised something like £55k in sep charges, considerably more than any of the other trade magazine editorial departments.
Finally, my colleague Mike Pinkney presumably has the same contract as me and goes for months without ever attending the office at any time between 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday, let alone the full day. I know he takes advantage of the fact that the office is open 9-5.30, using the facilities available, but he clearly doesn't feel it necessary to be there all the time.
To take disciplinary action against me for poor timekeeping would in these circumstances be perverse.
*Alleged failure to conduct a meeting with a subordinate in accordance with a management instruction from myself.
At the meeting on November 11 Redacted said: "I would like you as her editor to point out all these things she's doing. I would like it to be done within seven days... I want you to tell Ariane and basically tell her all the things that she's doing and tell her the things that she's going to have to do.
He had earlier said: "I don't know how heavy; I would (just) like to make sure it's done. However heavy we make it, I don't know. But the only way I can make sure that you do it is by Sandra being there."
To clarify I specifically raised the issue about whether or not this matter had to be an official warning. Redacted replied: "I'm not a legal ... (person?) but the idea is that I want Sandra in taking notes and it will be a file note on her file, that's what I want."
In the following days I spoke to Ariane several times and then presented a summary in a meeting with Sandra. The summary made it quite clear that the matters complained about where "sleeping at your desk, reading, arriving late and taking mobile phone calls in the stair well".
I made it easier for Sandra by providing a written statement. Clearly I have done everything asked of me and there have been no complaints about Ariane since.
Redacted said his objective was "basically, when I see Ariane or anyone sees Ariane, and certainly when you're not in, she needs to be working". This objective appears to have been achieved.
*Alleged failure to provide a copy of the taped meeting on the 11th November as agreed and further instructed by Sandra.
Neither Richard Kruger nor I can recall any agreement to provide you with a copy of the tape. Even if such an agreement was made, it does not form part of my job and can not be a matter for discipline. Unless you can provide a compelling reason for handing over a copy of this tape I feel it right to decline the request at this stage. It is not part of my job to provide you with tapes. This is not mentioned, either implicitly or explicitly, in my contract. Further I should point out that the first time you raised the issue of this failure to provide a copy of the tape is in the letter sent on November 21 instructing me to attend a disciplinary hearing.
Jonathan Brind
Private and confidential
April 12, 2006.
Dear Dennis,
Last summer you suggested that I work with one of the receptionists who had a degree in web site design, to produce a web site for GGP. I started work on this and was developing a way of using the sep charge system to produce revenue for positions on the web site, when Redacted called me into his office and instructed me to stop work on this project. I had already received promises of hundreds of pounds of payment and had to tell the potential customers that they were out of luck and could not pay for positions on a GGP web site.
Redacted gave no reason for over ruling you. He merely said that he intended to get consultants or an outside agency to produce a web site.
This has probably cost the company thousands of pounds in the intervening period. And it was only a short time after the last time I reminded Redacted of his promise to get an outside agency to produce a web site, that the campaign of harassment against me began.
This campaign has had various forms including disciplinary hearings on November 11, November 28 and two on April 11. My staff (when I had one) was vilified (Ariane Blok who was the most hard working and diligent b2b number 2 in the building was alleged to do no work and ordered to get to the office earlier in the morning, even though she had worked the same agreed hours routine for the three years she had been at Unity. Not surprisingly, Ariane left.)
Yesterday (April 11) we had the farcical situation of Redacted holding a disciplinary hearing against me at 9 a.m. and then holding a meeting at 3p.m. to actually find out what happened! This disciplinary followed by investigation (or putting the cart before the horse) is a sure sign that something is seriously wrong. If it is not harassment it certainly points to incompetence, which is probably worse in a manager.
In conversations I have had with you, you have expressed concern that I should work closely with the advertising department. From this I speculate that you have been told that there are problems in this area. This is nonsense. I am a very commercially minded editor. That’s one of the reasons why I do so much better in terms of earning seps incomes for the company than any of the other b2b editors.
Redacted’s objective appears to be a rapid turnover of b2b editorial staff. For example, a little over a year ago the two Sarahs suddenly disappeared and then Dan was sacked a few months back. Looking back a bit further one recalls Chris Thornett whose leaving also seemed to be unhappy. To put that into context the only b2b editorial people who have been on the payroll since the Sarahs disappeared areRedacted and myself, an attrition rate that makes the trenches at the Somme during the First World War look like a comparatively safe place to be!
If you ask Redacted (as I have) he will tell you it’s a good idea to have a rapid turnover of staff, an opinion he is probably passing down from Redacted. I can see why it would be in Redacted’s interest (new staff tend to be more compliant and easier to manage) but it is hardly in the company’s interest.
There are considerable advantages in having a long serving b2b editor, since it takes years to get to know a market as complex as the one served by GGP. This is recognised by most of the competition so that even after seven years I am still one of the newer editors on the block. Richard Schwarz, John Roper, Dominic Bentham, Mike Gannon and John Cowie all started in the window industry before I did. The only magazine that has made a practice of keeping editors for a short time is WFI, a very interesting case study. WFI has advantages over the other magazines since it is able to attract advertising from large organisations who want to reach the huge circulation available by advertising through the various Hamerville titles (notably Professional Builder). Yet it has never made much of an impact on the window business. Is this because it has changed editors every couple of years?
People who knew GGP when it was owned by Emap say that one of its greatest problems was that it kept changing editors. In ten years it had ten editors! There is little doubt that this contributed to the unhappy financial state it found itself in when Emap decided to sell it.
In any case any argument that fresh people come in with new ideas, while old employees just get stale, is disingenuous.
Some time ago I suggested to Redacted that I should swap and take over HPM. I am confident that suggestion was reported back to Redacted. I also spoke to Jenny about it who seemed to welcome the idea. If the aim is to get rid of me from GGP because I am stale, then why not let me go to HPM instead of attempting to harass me out of the building?
Does it all come down to company politics? Is Redacted’s real problem with me the fact that he is seeking an employee who asks how high when he says jump and I am not likely to be that person? If so are you prepared to tolerate the very substantial costs?
GGP could hardly have achieved the amazing growth in the extraordinarily competitive window and glass market, if I had been unco-operative to the advertising department over the years. It would also be an astonishing coincidence if I was co-operative throughout the years of growth and then suddenly became unco-operative at exactly the moment when the bottom fell out of the window market, a year ago.
In addition to the extraordinary success of GGP, the magazine comes top of almost all the independent readership surveys carried out by organisations like the Epwin Group and Emap, I also came up with the idea for Fensa News, suggesting it to the chairman of Fensa and getting his support before bringing the idea to the company. Fensa News was 100% my idea. No-one else from Unity was involved at all. Yet I have never so much as been thanked by you for this.
In addition I launched and nurtured Conservatory Magazine, maintaining it when all the other conservatory titles (Conservatory Design and Build, Conservatory Industries, Conservatory Active and FGI conservatory supplement) were all collapsing. Conservatory Magazine was taken away from me as part of the campaign of harassment!
GGP produces far more editorial pages than any of the other Unity b2b magazines:
GGP
HPM
RCI
CM
In the January to March (2006) issues I was responsible for 162 pages of GGP editorial and 29.5 pages of CM editorial a total of 191.5 pages. I did this on my own , except for a couple of weeks of Ariane’s notice period. RCI with a staff of two takes more than six months to produce the same number of pages. Yet RCI has very little competition while GGP has masses of serious competitors (about ten) and still manages to top readership surveys done by independent organisations like Emap and the Epwin Group! I must be doing something right but you would not think so if you listened to Redacted.
I achieved this and at the same time as I kept spending on freelance to a minimum. During 2006 I have been producing the magazine on my own, saving the salaries of the two assistants I had at the same time last year (about £35k on wages alone, a year) whilst only fractionally increasing freelance spending.
It is very difficult to believe that any new editor could learn about the market, cope with the enormous workload involved and produce the kind of out turns I have achieved. Given the extraordinary amount of competition is it worth taking the risk of getting rid of me?
Trade publishing should be about the bottom line. In that respect my performance has been exemplary. Isn't that what you want?
Jonathan Brind
Some media organisations have systems to deal with phone pests like this woman. Unity is probably the only company to blame the victim.
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E107EB
Dear Jonathan
You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held with me on Tuesday 11th April 2006 at 9.00am in Dennis Taylor's office.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matters of concern.
Statements of grounds for commencing formal action
*Objectionable Behaviour and rudeness toward incoming
editorial client
*Extreme rudeness toward fellow staff member
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. Furthermore, I am obliged to remind you that a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction may be deemed to be gross misconduct, the penalty for which could lead to the summary termination of your employment.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Sandra Baldock
From: Redacted [adunn@unity-media.com]
Sent: 04 April 2006 16:45
To: sbaldock@unity-media.com
Cc: 'Dennis Taylor'; cwilkinson@unity-media.com
Subject: Jonathon Brind
Hi Sandra,
I would like you to be aware of a conversation which took place today.
Natalie took a phone call from a client earlier today who was complaining about the way that she had been spoken to by Jonathon. She said that she called to speak to Jonathon regarding some editorial and wanted to know how many words she should submit.
His reply quote "that's for you to work out" and put the phone down!!
She then called back thinking it must be a joke and assumed that they got cut off, but when she spoke to Jonathon again his next quote was " I don't want to talk too you and I'm going to the kitchen now"
She then replied " but I haven't finished my conversation" with that Jonathon hung up again!!!
I heard about this and went to speak to Jonathon to hear his side of the story but as usual I was confronted with a barrage of abuse!!!!!!
And interestingly he didn't deny any of the conversation!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Redacted
04/04/2006
Objectionable behaviour and rudeness toward incoming editorial client.
IQ Glass is a company which produces an off the wall product, that is of little or no interest to our readership. At about 2pm on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, I had a conversation with a very pushy representative of this company during which I explained that she should submit a press release (preferably by email) and that I could not help her write the release. I was not rude to her but she refused to take "send a press release" for an answer. She insisted I tell her what she should write. I explained she would need to do this herself. I then thanked her for the call, said goodbye and put the phone down. I was not rude or hostile in any way. It was a polite and quiet conversation. But this did not satisfy her and she rang back about seven times demanding attention in a very rude way. Some media companies have policies to support staff who are the victims of phone pests like this woman. Unity Media is probably the only one that proposes to discipline staff for being a victim.
Extreme rudeness toward fellow staff member
A few minutes later Redacted came up to my desk to berate me about the conversation I'd had with the woman from IQ Glass. His attitude was hostile and confrontational and if my behaviour appeared rude it was simply a reflection of his hostility. He was clearly not there to support me. He was there to get me to change my ways. I have been an editor for more than 20 years and I know how to deal with people on the phone. I am good on the phone.
Redacted refused to listen to what I said maintaining that we had to help everyone, even when they do not advertise and are very rude like this woman. It was difficult to see what possible commercial benefit there could be to Unity from this. There certainly wasn't any editorial purpose and my job is editorial. So I said probably the only words in the conversation which could have been regarded as rude. It went something along the lines that I was much busier than he was and didn't have time to have endless conversations with this sort of pest. I would be very surprised if an industrial tribunal regarded this as extreme rudeness.
GGP is an extraordinarily successful editorial product. It produces amazing results in terms of deadline meeting, the high quality of its editorial, page production for the minimum cost and very substantial sep charge income. It has the best reputation in a highly competitive and very crowded market, not a situation that existed prior to my joining the company. I suspect this would convince any industrial tribunal that I am working pretty hard.
I reiterate that some media organisations have systems to deal with phone pests like this woman. Unity is probably the only company to attempt to blame the victim.
Jonathan Brind
Subject: URGENT
11 April 2006 13:05:1 OBST
To:
Jonathan
Following our meeting this morning, I have considered your written statement, however need further clarification on a few points and therefore would like to hold another meeting with you at 3.00pm this afternoon in my office (Tues 11 April 2006).
This meeting is to ensure we have all the evidence to carry out a balanced decision and give you the opportunity to put your points forward.
Regards
Redacted
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to the disciplinary hearing held on Tuesday 11th April 2006, I am writing to inform you of my decision.
At this meeting you were afforded the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade union official.
The matters of concern to me were.'-
Objectionable behaviour and rudeness toward incoming editorial client
Extreme rudeness toward fellow staff member
At the hearing you gave no verbal reason for your behaviour save to reply "it's in my written statement".
We then decided, with your best interests in mind, to reconvene a further hearing to again afford you the opportunity to offer your explanation.
At this reconvened meeting your verbal response to me differed from your previously supplied written response when asked about the telephone conservation held between yourself and the IQ Glass representative.
Having now listened to your explanations I consider them to be unsatisfactory because I feel you have acted inappropriately toward this client and the way in which you dealt with this situation was totally unacceptable.
As a consequence therefore you are now being issued with a written warning which will remain on your file for 12 months. Should there be any repeat of this conduct, or indeed any misconduct in general during this period, you will be subject to further disciplinary action.
You have the right of appeal against my decision and should you wish to do so, you should write to Dennis Taylor, Chairman within 7 days giving the full reasons as to why you believe the disciplinary action taken against you was either inappropriate or too severe.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Publisher
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road/ Sevenoaks/ Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001 Web: www.unity-media.com Registered in England No 1529036
11th April 2006 @ 9.00am
Present: Redacted/Jonathan Brind/Sandra Baldock
This is a formal disciplinary hearing conduction between Jonathan Brind and Unity Media and is being held in accordance with the Company's disciplinary procedure. On behalf of the company I will chair the hearing. Sandra is here to take a written record of the hearing and will have no part in the decision making process. For the avoidance of doubt I will not be making a decision on this issue today, my role is to hear all the evidence, establish the facts and determine after due consideration of all the evidence whether the company has proper grounds to take disciplinary action against you. "Do you understand?"
JB-I Do
Unaccompanied
"I note that you have not brought anyone with you today, my letter to you of the 4th April 2006 explained that you are entitled to be accompanied by a union representative or fellow employee. Do you wish to be accompanied. I can if you wish adjourn this meeting whilst we find an employee to accompany you"
JB-No
MATTERS OF CONCERN
The matters of concern are listed on the letter dated 4th April calling you to this disciplinary hearing. I propose to address each issue in turn. I will ask for your response, if there is witness evidence I will listen to that in relation to each issue, before I conclude on each of the issues I will ask you if you have any further points that you would like me to take into consideration.
1. Objectionable behaviour and rudeness toward incoming editorial client.
As stated in Redacted's email dated 4th April 2006. Natalie took a phone call from a client earlier today who was complaining about the way that she had been spoken to by you. She said that she called to speak to yourself regarding some editorial and wanted to know how many words she should submit.
Your reply was "that's for you to work out" and put the phone down.
She then called back thinking it must be a joke and assumed that they got cut off, but when she spoke to you again your next quote was <(! don't want to talk to you and I am going to the kitchen now".
She the replied "But I haven't finished my conversation" with that you hung up again!
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DID THIS?
JB's response - this is in my written statement.
JB was asked to read the statement out to which he refused.
2. Extreme Rudeness toward fellow staff member (Redacted)
Redacted came down to speak to you after hearing about the above to get your side of the story but was confronted with a barrage of abuse.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DID THIS?
JB's response - this is in my written statement.
Redacted ended the meeting stating "the issues of concern have been addressed and I will be concluding the meeting.
Jonathan then got up and walked out.
11th April 2006 @ 3pm
Present: Redacted/Jonathan Brind/Sandra Baldock
CW stated that following our meeting this morning, we have considered your written statement how^ever need further clarification on a few points. This meeting is to ensure we have all the evidence to carry out a balanced decision and give you the opportunity to put your points forward: -
1. Telephone Conversation with IQ Glass Representative
On the first call you informed the IQ Glass marketing exec that she would have to write the editorial herself and submit to us, you then say you thanked her for her call and said goodbye.
a) The Marketing Exec phoned to find out how many words of editorial she should submit and stated that your reply was that's for you to work out" and put the phone down. Is this correct?
JB's response - this is more or less correct but slightly garbled. The Marketing Exec asked JB what she should write and JB responded by saying that "it is down to you not me, it is your product".
JB stated that he did thank her for her call and said goodbye.
JB added that "she sounds like a confused lady". b) Can you explain why the rep then phoned back seven times if you had clarified everything in the first call? JB stated that yes the client did call seven times however only spoke to him once. He suggested we speak to the client to find out any more information and why she called seven times.
c) The client stated that she thought she may have got accidentally cut off , phoned you again and has informed us that your next quote was "1 don't want to talk to you and I am going to the kitchen now". Is this true?
JB stated that on the seventh call he explained that he could no longer talk to her. That there was no point talking to him and that he was leaving the room and going to the kitchen.
This is a formal application to take up my right of appeal to Dennis, as laid down in Redacted's letter dated April 12, 2006.
Nothing in Redacted's letter challenges anything I said in my evidence other than Redacted's statement that "I consider them to be unsatisfactory because I feel you have acted inappropriately toward this client and the way in which you dealt with this situation was totally unacceptable". None of the evidence supplied along with this letter challenges my account or provides any basis for saying my actions were inappropriate. Redacted says that my response differed at the second meeting without giving a clue as to what this difference might be. None of the evidence printed in his document points to any difference.
This is true even though the document is erroneous. For example, it makes the claim that I said the phone pest was a confused lady, when what I actually said was she sounds like an honest lady and I was certain that she would back up my account! But this does not make any difference to the basic facts.
The only reference to the second charge in the evidence provided by Redacted is:
2. Extreme rudeness to fellow staff member
You mentioned in your first paragraph that Redacted approached you in a hostile and confrontational manner and that he was not there to support you. Can you elaborate on this so I can get a true understanding of the events that occurred.
JB had no further information to add. Anything he has to say is within the written statement given earlier. JB stated he responded to Redacted in kind
Since no other evidence is presented it is difficult to understand how this could differ from my written statement or how it could be judged "unsatisfactory" by any unbiased or unprejudiced adjudicator.
The procedure was completely inappropriate. This is partly because the disciplinary hearing was convened and completed and then Redacted started to investigate what had happened by convening a second meeting later the same day. See the attached notice for this further meeting which makes it perfectly clear that the purpose of this meeting was investigation, a process which should have been concluded prior to the disciplinary hearing.
DTI guidance (see attached) makes it clear that the employer must carry out this investigation and pass on the results to the employee, before the disciplinary hearing begins. This was not done, invalidating the process. "Ensure you have carried out a thorough investigation of all the relevant circumstances of the case and communicate them to the individual before the hearing," says the DTI.
I have had to deal with a phone pest, then been pounced upon by Redacted (who was clearly not there to support me) and finally been put through the wringer of a completely unjustified and improperly conducted disciplinary procedure. Having spent some time examining advice on dealing with phone pests, I have discovered that my actions were in accordance with that advice. For example: "In almost every case, your best bet is to say nothing. If you can deny them the pleasure of a response, you're effectively taking away their reason to harass you." See attached for more details. There can be little doubt that this woman was a phone pest since she rang me seven times after we concluded our editorial business in a polite and sensible phone conversation. Once might be excusable, seven times can not be excused!
Unity has employed me for more than seven years. It has more than seven years of records. These records do not contain a single reference to any criticism of my phone manner. Even if I made an error it is completely inappropriate to take disciplinary action. This should be a last resort not a first resort, unless of course some form of harassment campaign is taking place.
Jonathan Brind
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You appealed to me on the 20th April 2006 against the decision of the disciplinary hearing held on the 11th April 2006 when the decision was taken to issue you with a first written warning. The decision was reached following a full and thorough hearing, held in accordance with the company's disciplinary procedures and I am satisfied the hearing was conducted fairly and you were given every opportunity to present your case.
Having considered all the points you raised, I am now writing to confirm that the decision taken to issue you with a First Written Warning has been upheld for the following reasons -
Based on the evidence presented that resulted in the First Written Warning being issued, it is clear you demonstrated rudeness towards a fellow member of staff and an incoming editorial client. Your conduct in relation to these incidents is unacceptable and on this basis I believe the level of warning issued by your Manager is justified.
You have now exercised your right of appeal, under the Company's disciplinary procedure and this decision is final.
Yours sincerely
S Baldock
DENNIS TAYLOR
pp Chairman
(Dictated by the above and signed in his absence)
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
As you know at our journal meeting we all discussed the fact that it was about time that GGP had a redesign to bring it up to date as we are losing business to other magazines like Windows Active & Fenestra, as both of these mags have a fresh and up to date design.
This need to happen quite quickly as I have just finished the budgets and GGP has lost well over £100,000 of business in the last financial year and I believe a large chunk of this is down to the fact that advertisers are choosing these more modern looking mags to place their adverts with.
I will get Redacted and the Design department to start looking at a new design for GGP but if you have any ideas in the meantime please let me know.
Thanks
Redacted
August 23, 2006.
<1> The plastic window business is thought to be down about 20%. The conservatory industry is suffering so badly that Ultraframe, by far the largest company, has been sold off at a knock down price. However, there are signs that things have at least stopped getting worse.
<2> Glassex this year was only a shadow of its former self.
<3> As I mentioned at the time, GGP's advertising staff was hopelessly over stretched in the peak selling months (February & March issues) with Gavin having to manage with just one inexperienced junior, instead of the four on the desk now.
<4>I understand the advertising department is now either meeting its targets, or is close to meeting targets. Editorial separation charges are currently running at record highs.
<5>Last year you stated that the magazine would not be re-designed without my approval.
<6> GGP has around ten competitor titles. The brand consists of the look and feel of the magazine. Change the design and you are throwing away all the effort put into creating that brand. With so much competition this seems like an eccentric thing to do.
<7> When GGP was last re-designed I talked to every one of the advertising team individually to ask if any of their clients or anyone they spoke to had said anything good about the re-design. Not one of them could think of a single positive remark.
<8> According to Redacted the motoring magazines do not generally gain circulation when they are re-designed.
<9>Last year I developed a system of charging PRs for space on a GGP web site. Although you approved my creation of a GGP web site, you subsequently suggested that one of the receptionists should work on the design and when she failed to do that, Redacted ordered that the project had to be abandoned. If GGP needs to make more money why don't you let me go ahead with the web site?
<10> The first thing that was done with Conservatory Magazine when it was taken from me was that it was re-designed. There is no evidence that this has helped CM. In fact given our recent conversation on this subject I suspect the reverse is the case.
<11>Half of GGP is laid out by freelances. If they have to use different fonts then it is going to be a massive job to get them all to install them on their machines. Martin James in particular does not even have System X (the current Mac operating system) let alone the latest version of Quark. If against everything you decide to go ahead with a re-design I need at least two months to make sure all the freelances are able to work to the style.
Jonathan Brind
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held with me on Wednesday 30th August 2006 at 12.30pm in my office.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matter of concern.
Statements of grounds for commencing formal action.
I am in receipt of an email, passed to me by Redacted, in which you have made serious and inappropriate statements. At the above meeting I will be asking you why you "can't really be bothered" to perform a vital part of your role as Editor.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. Furthermore, I am obliged to remind you that a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction may be deemed to be gross misconduct, the penalty for which could lead to the summary termination of your employment.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against (sic.). If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me.
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Natalie Luck
From: Jonathan Brind [jbrind@unity-media.com]
Sent: 22 August 2006 14:47
To: Natalie Luck Subject This is the brief
I run a national b2b magazine for the double glazing industry. Well, we all have our problems in life! I was hoping you might be able to advise me. I need to produce a company profile (puff) on a Coventry company, a window fabricator, but they are all the same and I can't really be bothered to go to Coventry (much as I love the place). 'Would you know anyone who might be interested in producing 800 words and perhaps five digital photos (couple of mug shots, some factory images etc.) to be sent by email. They would have to show the copy to the company and probably the most difficult aspect of the enterprise, get approval (this can sometimes be like extracting teeth). I would pay £150 for the job, but the journalist would have to submit an invoice (by email would be fine) and wait perhaps two months to get paid. The company concerned is: Crown Windows Unit 5 Hales Ind Est. Rowleys Green Lane Coventry Warwickshire CV6 6AG XXXXXXXX 02476666211
Jonathan Brind,editor Glass & Glazing Products.
Thanks for your letter.
1) This is an improper way to conduct a disciplinary procedure.
2) An editor's role is to produce the best possible magazine for the readers. This involves prioritisation. You have given me a freelance budget. I would not be doing my job if I did not prioritise. This means deciding the work that is most appropriate or most convenient for me to do and the work that is most appropriate or convenient for various freelancers to do. I sent this jokey email to a freelance journalist when I was trying to get her to write a company profile on a Coventry based fabricator, requested by Natalie. Natalie forgot all about her request to me so as a reminder I agreed to send Natalie a copy of the email to the freelance which contained the relevant details. Clearly the fact that Natalie forgot about it reveals that it wasn't even top priority for the advertising department. The style of the email recognises the fact that the outside world does not regard the double glazing business as a particularly honourable one. I regard the magazine as incredibly important and work extremely hard and very long hours (sometimes until after midnight). Just the other day I changed my holiday plans because Latium decided to have a press conference on September 8, a day that had previously been part of my holidays. That is dedication of a kind displayed by few b2b editors. But the outside world thinks of GGP as a double glazing magazine serving companies like U-Fit, another Coventry based fabricator recently the subject of a tv documentary series.
This is a fact of life and nothing you do or I do will change it. I frame my journalist to journalist emails in a suitable language, designed to achieve results, not to change perceptions. As it happens the freelance I originally sent this email to has agreed to do the job. The email was appropriate and effective. Natalie will get the profile she requested.
Jonathan Brind
Dennis asked me what I meant by statement (1), see above. I explained that the company was supposed to investigate a complaint thoroughly before invoking the disputes procedure. No-one had even spoken to me before I received the summons to this meeting. Sandra, who was there to take notes, chipped in to say that all they were doing was investigating the matter. I replied that they needed to investigate before beginning disciplinary procedure.
Dennis explained that 40% of his time was taken up satisfying Government regulation. He said he was forced to go through this procedure as a result of this regulation. He said someone had made a complaint (presumably Redacted?) so he was obliged to go through the disciplinary procedure.
I ventured the opinion that he didn't need a disciplinary hearing over an email sent by one journalist to another (freelance) journalist. I said this was a typhoon blown out of a storm in a tea cup.
We went through my written statement and Dennis seemed particularly surprised about the mention of Natalie. He said now you have involved Natalie I will have to interview her. He didn't seem to have grasped the fact that the email was forwarded to Natalie and that Natalie was the one who had passed it to Redacted.
The following day (today Thursday), the last day before my holidays began, I asked Natalie if she had spoken to Dennis after the disciplinary hearing. She said she had not.
Dennis seemed particularly struck by my recent application to work from home instead of working in the office. He said that at that time I had pointed out that since most material originated as emails it was no longer necessary for me to travel about the country and so I would not need my company car. (What I actually said was that if I wasn't coming into the office the company wouldn't want me to have the car since they wouldn't see it. Mike Gannon (editor of Fenestra a title that Redacted considers a commercial threat to GGP) manages to get to jobs without a car, so I had told him at this earlier meeting I could do the same.) I told Dennis that whilst I had said something along those lines I had also pointed out that I was far too busy to go about the country visiting fabricators simply because the advertising department thought they might advertise. I had a magazine to produce.
Dennis said that he viewed the statement in my email that I couldn't be bothered to do this job as significant. He said he was on the point of saying that if I couldn't be bothered to do the job then he couldn't be bothered... He trailled off. Presumably he meant to employ me.
I pointed out that this was a journalist to journalist email and that I was talking about prioritisation of my time and resources.
Dennis asked me what I meant by resources. I said my own time, the freelancers I hire, the software on my computer, the amount of Broadband bandwidth I could get: the things I had to produce the magazine.
At no time did Dennis venture to suggest why this was a disciplinary offence, how I had broken my contract, what infringement of company policy there had been or why I was there. I like my job (despite the jokey email) but it was almost as if had I not enjoyed the job that would have been sufficient reason to get rid of me.
He also asked one very off the wall question. He said did I have any suggestions as to how GGP could be developed? I replied by editorial excellence, but this answer evidently did not satisfy him. Perhaps middle management (who were running a harassment campaign against me) had convinced him that I was standing in the way of the development of the magazine (they had promoted a re-design of the magazine and I had provided a number of convincing commercial reasons why this was not a good idea. They saw this as interference. I saw it as doing my job.) If Dennis had been convinced I was standing in the way of development of GGP, perhaps that might explain why he was taking this ridiculous disciplinary action.
Jonathan Brind
Thursday August 31, 2006.
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to the disciplinary hearing held on Wednesday 30th August 2006 I am writing to inform you of my decision.
At this meeting you were afforded the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade union official, and you declined.
The matter of concern to me was an email you sent out which contained serious and inappropriate statements.
At the hearing the reasons you gave for your behaviour were handed to me as a written statement dated 30th August 2006 and unsigned.
Having-read and listened to your explanations I consider them to be unsatisfactory because the email you sent on the 22nd August is not considered to be jokey in any way, shape or form and demeans the value of activity of a window fabricator (plural) which is inappropriate and incorrect as window fabricators vary greatly between quality, size, products and so forth.
In your writing that window fabricators are all the same so you "can't really be bothered to go to Coventry" to visit is unbefitting.
As there is already an active Formal Written Warning on your file I have decided to issue you with a Final Written Warning which will remain on your file for 12 months. Should there be any further acts of misconduct during this period you will be subject to further disciplinary action and may be dismissed.
You have the right of appeal against my decision and should you wish to do so you should write to Redacted, Company Secretary, within 10 days giving the full reasons as to why you believe the disciplinary action taken against you was either inappropriate or too severe.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001 Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
First I would like to thank you for taking the trouble to participate in this process. I recognise it places an additional burden on you and know you are a busy person who could well do without the extra labour.
However the process is deeply flawed. The evidence produced at the original hearing was that I said in an operational note to a freelance journalist that I was the editor of a double glazing magazine. I joked that we all have our problems in life. I said I regarded it as a low priority (I couldn't be bothered) to go to Coventry to produce a puff on a fabricator and that all fabricators are the same.
I run a national b2b magazine for the double glazing industry. Well, we all have our problems in life! I was hoping you might be able to advise me. I need to produce a company profile (puff) on a Coventry company, a window fabricator, but they are all the same and I can't really be bothered to go to Coventry (much as I love the place).
I added to this evidence the fact that I sent a copy of this email to Natalie because she had completely forgotten about the matter. Evidently it had a fairly low priority for her as well, even though it was her idea in the first place.
That is the evidence. What is the offence? Up to this point I have been given no clue. It certainly is not a breach of contract and the sole germane point operationally is that the freelance agreed to do the job. Natalie will get her profile. That is a success not a failure. Hardly a matter for discipline!
If the offence is the language used by me talking journalist to journalist then the company needs to spell out what is and what is not permitted in operational discussions with freelance journalists.
It needs to issue a memorandum to say you must not suggest you are anything but joyful about having to do any aspect of your job. You must not suggest that having your job is anything less than a pure blessing. You must not suggest that any of the fabricator companies you deal with are anything but unique and intriguing.
The company will look ridiculous if it does issue such a memo but until it does it can hardly take disciplinary action for failing to live up to standards that have not at any time been laid out.
As it happens I do enjoy my job and put a great deal of effort into producing GGP. That's why it is by far the best magazine in one of the most competitive b2b markets. But my contract does not require me to like the job. The subject is not raised at any point. I could abide by my contract of employment even if I disliked the job intensely. Many people spend their whole life working in jobs they don't like. It is hard to believe they could be disciplined for it or for saying that they would prefer not to do any aspect of their job. This was an operational note. It was not said to a potential customer or reader.
Finally Dennis says he does not accept the email is jokey. Well we all have our own personal sense of humour and it is possible Dennis does not get the joke.
However in the context of a disciplinary procedure Dennis should produce some evidence to back up this assertion. No such evidence was produced at the disciplinary hearing and I was not even questioned about the jokeyness of the operational note.
Consequently Dennis's statement that he does not accept the email was jokey is a breach of natural justice.
On the other hand I know a lot of journalists and recently had a conversation with a public relations man who joked that he was putting poison in his employer's tea. In the event that this gets to an industrial tribunal I will consider calling that person to give evidence as to the jokey conversations conducted privately when operational matters are discussed.
Jonathan Brind
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
25th September 2006
Dear Jonathon
Following on from your appeal against the issue of a final written warning dated 1st September 2006 you attended an appeal meeting dated 19th September 2006 held in the meeting room at 3:00pm. At the meeting you were reminded that you are entitled to have a work colleague or trade union representative present. You declined this right
The decision of the hearing dated 30th August 2006 was reached following a full and thorough hearing held in accordance with the company's disciplinary procedures and I am satisfied the hearing was conducted fairly and you were given every opportunity to present your case.
I have considered your appeal based on the evidence presented to me at the appeal meeting and the notes and transcripts held in your file relating to this incident. I am satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to follow the disciplinary procedure and that the company is correct to issue you with a written warning. As you already have an active written warning on your file this should be in the form of a final written warning. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons.
You presented a two page written report which you signed and dated 19th September 2006. I read through this while you were present. We discussed the content and concluded that you believed that there were no grounds to justify disciplinary procedures because:-
1. In your opinion there is no evidence to suggest an offence was committed
2. You questioned Dennis' interpretation of your Email as he didn't get the joke intended.
3. There was no evidence provided to back up his assertion that the email was not "jokey ".
I gave you the opportunity to bring up any further points you saw fit to which you responded that you were happy with the content of your written statement.
Taking the points in turn:
No evidence of an offence committed.
The offence was an email you sent out which contained serious and inappropriate statements. This offence was stated in the letter dated 25th August 2006 requiring you to attend the disciplinary hearing and in your written warning dated 1st September 2006. The supporting evidence was a paper copy of the email.
The email has been sent to a third party company. The content demeans the value of a window fabricator and it is viewed as though you can't be bothered to visit a particular company. The fabricator company's name and address is stated on the email and it is quite clear that the origination of the email is from you being Editor of Glass & Glazing Products and working for Unity Media Plc. As this is a written statement in electronic format, it is probable that this can be passed around in written and electronic form.
This can be damaging to both Glass & Glazing Products and Unity Media Plc because, if made public, such content can affect our customers' perception in Unity Media's attitude to the glazing industry and could result in the questioning the value of Glass and Glazing Products to its current and future customers. The "laissez faire attitude of the request made in the email can also lead to sub standard articles being written affecting the quality of the magazine.
2 Interpretation of the Joke content in the email
Jokes in written form lack the facial and tonal expressions of ones made in person. There have been numerous cases in many companies where words written in jest have caused severe problems from being misinterpreted. The email you wrote does not give sufficient indication of how it should be interpreted and this can be a particular problem if it is read by someone other than the intended recipient particularly if they have malicious intentions.
Evidence to back up the assertion that the email was not "jokey".
No further evidence was necessary. The disciplinary meeting was held to give both sides the opportunity to discuss all the issues. You chose to provide a written statement and mentioned in the meeting that it was meant in a "jokey way". You were given the chance to add to your written statement during the meeting and you chose not to. In his written warning to you dated 1st September 2006, Dennis addressed your claim by stating that he did not consider the email to be "jokey". This was his considered opinion and it is likely that other people could arrive at the same interpretation.
You have now exercised your right of appeal under the Company's disciplinary procedure and this decision is final.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
Glass & Glazing Products
UNITY BUSINESS PRESS
Stakes House, Quebec Square,
Westerham, Kent TN16 1TD
Phone 01959 568721
Fax 01959 564390
j@brind.co.uk
July 25, 2000
Policy statement
Glass & Glazing Products is a controlled circulation magazine in a highly competitive field. A year ago there were six magazines and these have now been joined by a seventh, Fenestra, launched at the beginning of 2000.
Four years ago GGP was a struggling title, sold by EMAP because it could not meet the profit criteria laid down by that company. Today GGP is by far the most successful magazine in the field, taking the lion's share of advertising and with by far the highest profile in the market.
At Glassex, the annual exhibition for the window industry at the NEC, in March an independent survey of visitors commissioned by EMAP asked about magazine readership (among many other things). The results were startling.
| Magazine | Readers | Percentage |
| Glass & Glazing Products | (469) | = 54% |
| Window Fabricator & Installer | (297) | = 34% |
| Fabricating & Glazing Industries | (282) | = 32% |
| Glass Age | (266) | = 30% |
| Window Industries | (146) | = 16% |
| Fenestra | (52) | = 6% |
| Vision | (45) | = 5% |
| Total sample 869 |
So how has this transformation been achieved? A lot of very basic things have been done right. GGP used to come out at the end of its date month (sometimes in the month afterwards). Many other magazines listed above still do have this problem. GGP has been coming out regularly at the middle of the date month, usually earlier than any of the others.
GGP has also adopted a strongly reader orientated editorial policy, a hard thing to achieve in a magazine whose only source of revenue is advertising. Even so we have carried a higher proportion of human interest stories, larger photographs and newsier stories than most of the rivals. This has been possible because we now have a highly organised products section, using a sophisticated database, mail merging to a fax back system. This makes the process much faster and gives the full time editorial staff of two more time to devote to producing high quality editorial.
It has also given us time to produce large editorially driven features alongside the purely commercially motivated material. For example, GGP's January issued contained a lengthy new millennium section with lots of high quality photos and full colour cartoons. In December the feature was using the media.
Incidentally, the cartoonist is a recent addition to GGP's freelance team and has helped give the magazine a lighter and more colourful look. His work acts as a useful counter balance to our heavyweight columnist, a fenestration surveyor who specialises in legal work and writes the most coruscating material published in any of the glass and glazing publications. GGP's freelance team also includes a writer who has specialised in covering the rapid development of internet use by window and conservatory companies.
Of course, none of the above would have been possible without the enthusiastic support of the industry we serve. This has been coaxed by maximising the information we supply to most of the marketing departments and public relations experts who take an interest in glass and glazing. What we do is send them an email containing information about future issues of GGP including deadlines and a brief explanation of planned features. This email list is developing very rapidly and recent issues have contained a lengthy diary of forthcoming events as well as cuttings from newspapers, a discussion about urban myths of interest to our industry and a competition to find a new name for a section of Conservatory Magazine.
Talking of which, at the same time as doing all the above we have produced three highly successful issues of a spin off title, Conservatory Magazine. This quarterly magazine goes to its own dedicated circulation list, making it the first genuinely stand alone title for this fast developing market.
Jonathan Brind,
editor Glass & Glazing Products
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Following our meeting this morning, I am instructing you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from 9am-5.30pm.
However, if due to exceptional circumstances you need to work from home for the odd day or if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office, then I have no objection to this provided you inform us accordingly.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com Registered in England No 1529036
London E10 7EB.
Phone 020 8141 0711
April 13, 2007.
Dear Dennis,
Of course I am working normally, but in the more than eight years I have been with the company there has not been a single day when I have worked 9-5.30. For years when we worked at Westerham I used to arrive at eight and was usually the first person in the office. For several years I have rarely been in the office at Sevenoaks before 10 a.m. Prior to Glassex when GGP had to produce huge preview issues, I was working late nights, as well as all day Saturday and Sunday. Normal changes, but GGP is always a very demanding magazine. Since my contract says I determine when I do the work, that's the way it will always be. A contract is a contract. You know that, Dennis!
This is the wording used in my contract: "Hours Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid."
I guess my colleague Mike Pinkney has a similar contract but he attends the office considerably less frequently than I do.
Unity has twice before started disciplinary proceedings against me for not working 9-5.30. Both times the charge was dropped when I pointed out that my contract says I don't have to work 9-5.30. To make this demand a third time seems eccentric.
GGP is an astoundingly successful magazine in an incredibly competitive field. It was not like this before I became editor. Then, the magazine came out late and performed comparatively poorly commercially. EMAP sold GGP, because it was unable to make a reasonable return from it, only a short period before I took over as editor.
The magazine now commands enormous respect in the market. It comes out to schedule (or at least it is never delayed by editorial). As editor I work very closely with the advertising department to make sure we make the most of all commercial opportunities. I have an extremely good relationship with Repro. Accounts says that the information I provide (sep charges etc.) is the best of any of the b2b magazines. Circulation and reader enquiries says that I also serve them better than any of the other b2b magazines. Lisa will tell you that she has no problems with me when it comes to deadlines. GGP earns more from editorial sep charges than any of the other b2b magazines. Editorial costs are lower than even the smallest b2b monthly since I employ cost effective freelances instead of having an expensive assistant editor, yet I produce far more pages and much better pages.
It takes a huge amount of work and total commitment on my part to produce what is by all accounts the best magazine in the field. Surely you would agree?
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Brind
PS. You said you were on my side. I enclose copies of some of the disciplinary letters received over the last couple of years. It has not seemed as if you were on my side.
20th April 2007
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
I have read your response to my letter which I answer as follows:
Your normal place of work will be from our offices and not from your home. You have decided to work from home without any consultation with ourselves which would have been refused as it was last year when you wrote requesting it then.
You are not set up as a Unity office and your computers are not Unity Media property. There are Health & Safety issues to be considered as well as Insurance Liability. You are a security risk as you are not networked, no risk assessment has been undertaken and Unity Media would be in breach if something were to happen to you. The above points are not open for discussion, they are fact of Law.
As I explained in my letter, if there are circumstances which warrant you working from home due to visiting clients and so forth no-one has any objection to that otherwise you are required to work from our office
We are receiving your emails on the days you are not intending to come into the office but I must say that the message "Monday OUT' is wholly inadequate. As your employer, we are entitled to know where you are, not just what looks like an obstinate statement.
Again, you have raised the subject of Mike Pinkney but where as in your case we have no idea where you are, in Mike's case we know where he is, where he's been and where he is going. Mike enjoys a regular rapport with his Editor having discussions many times each day to update each other on advertising clients and editorial developments and Mike calls the office secretaries on a daily basis and supplies all his administration and weekly client and advertising sales reporting directly to Sandra. His job is an entirely different one to your own.
GGP is now seen as the market leading magazine due to the work of back office, as well as yourself as Editor and you mention EMAP being unable to make a reasonable return from the magazine but this was down to an exceptional lack luster circulation profile as well as a weak advertising sales team and poor editorial content.
You have been misinformed when you state, your sep charges are the best of any b2b magazines and while there are peaks and troughs across the board, Conservatory & HPM magazines often out-perform GGP.
Communications throughout your market and within your ad sales team is something which needs to be addressed. From the market point of view whilst you have many times told me you know most of the manufacturers and/or PR agents with whom you prefer to communicate through email, we are now being overtaken as a magazine by Windows Active in the editorial arena whose Editor, John Cowie, not only enjoys high profile face-2-face recognition but is also seen as'aii Ambassador for his publication. This is our market feedback Jonathan, which your ad department have to contend with.
So far as communications with the ad department are concerned, they visited a client to be told of your recent visit and to be asked what your feedback was or had you discussed it? They had no knowledge of your having visited.
We were told about your decision to work from home by an external freelancer and I repeat, you are instructed when you are not visiting clients, that your place of work is from the Unity Media offices.
Your written response also states Unity Media has twice before started disciplinary proceedings and both times the charge was dropped. You then go on to say that "to make this demand a third time seems eccentric", however I am drawing your attention to our Company Secretary's letter dated the 20th September 2006, which is a final written warning to you following your appeal meeting.
GGP is being squeezed all round commercially from low ad rates emanating from its overcrowded market and now, more than ever, we need strong pro-active teamwork which your presence will only enhance.
Yours sincerely
Dennis
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 SEJTel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
519 Lea Bridge Road, London E10 7EB
May 1, 2007.
NOT SENT Dennis is still on holiday (May 7, 2007)
I have received your letter dated April 20. I note that you have abandoned your insistence that I should work from 9-5.30 at Becket House on most days and are now talking about a normal place of work. This is very welcome. I agree that my normal place of work is Becket House as it has been ever since the company moved there. But normal doesn't mean that I have to be there from 9-5.50, five days a week. Obviously the term normal place of work must include any place that features on the business cards I give out, where I pick up my emails and get my post, where I print sep charge faxes and print A3 items and where I process and print out the Quark pages for Repro. Becket House clearly falls into this category for me and I make no proposal to change this.
My contract says I determine when I do the work. This is the wording used in my contract: "Hours Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid." This sets no minimum period I must be in the office. A contract is a contract. You know that, Dennis.
What I was requesting in July was that I work from home solely. This would have meant not going to the office at all. As I said in my letter at the time: "I would like to stop coming into the office and to work exclusively from home". When last you spoke to me about this, several weeks after I sent the letter, you told me you were still considering it. But it was useful of you to raise the issue so I could explain the difference. I am continuing to come into the office so far as I can tell almost as often as some of the other b2b editors!
You say: "There are Health & Safety issues to be considered as well as Insurance Liability. You are a security risk as you are not networked, no risk assessment has been undertaken and Unity Media would be in breach if something were to happen to you. The above points are not open for discussion, they are fact of Law."
It is also not open to discussion that I spend a lot of time working at places such as hotels, restaurants, offices, buses, trains, planes, other people's homes etc. If you plan to conduct health and safety reviews of all these places and start insuring them it is going to cost you a lot of money. I do not envy you the task. Further since as you say my computer is not networked it is difficult to see how it could be a security risk. And, of course, I have been working from home on my own computer, sending emails to the office from it, since I started working for Unity more than eight years ago. How could all these factors suddenly arise when in more than eight years there has not been a single problem? Millions of people work from home for part of their working week, Dennis. This is not a revolutionary break through.
Also in your letter of April 11, 2007, you said: "if due to exceptional circumstances you need to work from home for the odd day or if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office, then I have no objection to this provided you inform us accordingly". If the law and insurance issues make it impossible to work from home, why did you suggest it?
You say my emails are inadequate but fail to suggest how they might be inadequate. The text was suggested by Sandra and was based on an office form which many of the b2b journalists fill out. Most simply say IN or OUT. The reason for this is that we were told it was needed so that reception could tell phone callers if we were in or out. This made the wording obvious. Sandra has told me my emails seem to be working fine.
As far as Pinkers is concerned you seem to be missing the point. If Pinkers can liaise with his editor over the phone then surely I can successfully liaise with my advertising team by phone and email. I also raised the issue of the employment contract suggesting that Pinkers' contract was probably the same as mine. The health and safety issues and the legal issues you referred to are also the same.
Somebody has badly misinformed you if they have told you HPM or Conservatory Magazine get as much money from editorial seps as GGP. In 2006 GGP received £52,350 in editorial sep charge income, according to my records. Perhaps somebody is muddying the water by adding the advertising sep charges achieved by the classified sales force of HPM and Conservatory Magazine! But I have seen many of the faxes being returned for editorial sep charges in HPM and Conservatory Magazine and I know that GGP earns more. If I am wrong and either magazine gets more than £52,350 a year let me know the extra and I will seek advice from the editor of the relevant magazine about how it is being done and make sure GGP does it better.
I am pleased you raised the ossie of John Cowie and Windows Active. John Cowie tell the story about how he and his business partner were in a pub when the partner got up to buy a drink and found he had no money. So John offered to buy his half of the company for a £20 note. It was a joke but in this case there was an element of seriousness about it, I think. Perhaps you should talk to GGP's advertising sales team about rates charged by Windows Active? The current issue of Windows Active (April) is 62 pages. The April issue of GGP was 108 pages plus inserts. The editorial in the April issue of Windows Active appears to be almost entirely PR hand outs. It has only one company profile and that seems to have been based on a press release. Far from being a good ambassador for his publication so far as I am aware John Cowie mostly has a reputation for being late for press dos. People talk to me about editorial in Fenestra, the Gl@zine, Glass Age (now Glass Times) even Window Industries but they never mention Windows Active. I do not find this surprising since John Cowie has spent a lot of energy and effort setting up a company with interests in publications in addition to Windows Active and he openly (and frequently) says that what he is doing at Windows Active is vanity publishing, like the people who pay to have their own books published because no professional publisher will print them. One of the articles in Windows Active he is most pleased about was produced by his mother who has had no contact with the window industry at all, so far as I know.
GGP is not vanity publishing and I don ‘t believe you want it to be, Dennis. The big opportunity in the market right now is to take market share from Glass Times (formerly Glass Age) and the international glass and machinery companies in this field are interested in high editorial values, not vanity publishing.
John Cowie did spend a lot of time on the road seeing very small companies shortly after the luanch of Windows Active. But he doesn't appear to be doing it now. This may be because he has other things to do or may be because he found it didn't actully help very much. But supposing the thing to do was to spend all the time on the road, how would it help to require me to be in the office more often than I am now?
Of course, Unity should be very concerned about Windows Active and all the other internet based publications. I have been telling you for years that GGP needs an editorially driven web presence. Right now I'd guess Windows Active is limping along hardly making sufficient income to pay the staff, let alone justify investment or cover even medium sized company overheads. But internet based publishing will grow and if Unity fails to act GGP will be left behind. We need an editorially driven web presence.
You say: "GGP is now seen as the market leading magazine due to the work of back office, as well as yourself as Editor and you mention EMAP being unable to make a reasonable return from the magazine but this was down to an exceptional lack luster circulation profile as well as a weak advertising sales team and poor editorial content." Firstly, this is not entirely true Norman Setra who was advertising manager at GGP for the early years of the remarkable growth achieved during my editorship, had been with the magazine for many years when it was owned by EMAP and I think even before that. Secondly to say circulation had a role, and this is clearly true, does not in any way diminish my contribution. GGP has gone from being a lacklustre magazine to being leader of the pack. I have come up with important innovations such as the launch of Fensa News, which was 100% my idea. I also made the launch of Conservatory Magazine a success (though CM has paled significantly since it was taken away from me).
You say: "Your written response also states Unity Media has twice before started disciplinary proceedings and both times the charge was dropped. You then go on to say that "to make this demand a third time seems eccentric", however I am drawing your attention to our Company Secretary's letter dated the 20th September 2006, which is a final written warning to you following your appeal meeting." Again you seem to be missing the point. I have on more than one occasion told you that a harassment campaign is being waged against me. This seems obvious. However, even in the context of things being twisted to fit the harassment campaign, twice disciplinary proceedings have been started about the timekeeping issue but when I have pointed out that I do not have to work 9-5.30 from the office, these proceedings have been abandoned. At no stage have I ever been given a warning for not working 9-5.30 from the office. Yet I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the more than eight years I have been with Unity.
I believe I have a good relationship with GGP's advertising department. I keep Natalie informed about most of my movements. However, I will make a special effort to increase the information I supply advertising. So far as the alleged visit to Mumford & Wood you refer to in your letter is concerned: Jackie Biggin told the advertising department about it but it never took place. Jackie Biggin's confusion hardly has anything to do with me.
You are right that GGP is being squeezed and needs to have a strong team. Letters of the kind you have sent me are hardly good team building exercises! Nevertheless I will work as hard as I can to improve the already good relationship I have with the advertising team.
1st May 2007
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Dennis Taylor wrote to you on the 20th April 2007, giving clear instructions that your normal place of work is from our offices at Becket House, Sevenoaks and not from your home.
Since that letter was sent to you, you have not spent a full working day in the office. Your emails today, sent from your personal email account, state that you are once again working from home and this quite clearly shows that you are willfully refusing to carry out a lawful management instruction from your Chairman.
With immediate effect, I request that you attend the office on a daily basis from 9.00am - 5.30pm unless you are attending a client visit whereby notification should be given two days in advance, stating who you are visiting and where. This should be notified to Redacted.
If this procedure is not adhered to, formal disciplinary action will be taken and I should inform you that as you already have a final written warning in force on your file any further disciplinary action could lead to termination of your employment.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
May 2, 2007.
Dear Redacted,
My contract says I determine when I do the work. This is the wording used in my contract: "Hours Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid." This sets no minimum period I must be in the office and makes it clear that I decide when I work.
Yet in your letter of yesterday you say: "With immediate effect, I request that you attend the office on a daily basis from 9.00am - 5.30pm unless you are attending a client visit whereby notification should be given two days in advance, stating who you are visiting and where. This should be notified to Redacted."
I note this is a request rather than an instruction.
Twice disciplinary proceedings against me have been started about the timekeeping issue but when I have pointed out that I do not have to work 9-5.30 from the office, these proceedings have been abandoned. At no stage have I ever been given a warning for not working 9-5.30 from the office. Yet I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the more than eight years I have been with Unity. For example, in the last two years I doubt if I have been in the office more than five times before 10 a.m.
In Dennis's latest letter sent to me yesterday, he said: "As I explained in my letter, if there are circumstances which warrant you working from home due to visiting clients and so forth no-one has any objection to that otherwise you are required to work from our office."
In his letter of April 11, 2007, Dennis said: "if due to exceptional circumstances you need to work from home for the odd day or if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office, then I have no objection to this provided you inform us accordingly". This clearly amounts to recognition that I can work from home from time to time.
In your letter you hint at the possibility of disciplinary action. You say: "If this procedure is not adhered to, formal disciplinary action will be taken and I should inform you that as you already have a final written warning in force on your file any further disciplinary action could lead to termination of your employment."
In the event that any disciplinary action is taken against me, this is to make the formal request that a full time official of my union, the National Union of Journalists, be present.
But let us not get into a confrontation. There is no point. GGP. is a very successful magazine despite the fiercest possible competition. Things are going well, not badly. If for any reason you want to change my contract why don't you make a proposal and we will talk about it?
Jonathan Brind
Private and Confidential
Mr J Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to your email dated 2nd May 2007, in which you outlined the issues that were raised from my letter dated 1st May 2007, please note your contract states that your normal office hours are 9:00 -1730 Monday to Friday prevail.
This means that you have to be working at this time in the office. It states that in order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines, you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home.
You state that you have not worked these hours for several years and when mentioned this has been dropped. I can assure you that the issue was not dropped and you have been informed on several occasions what the procedures are. Over the last month your attendance has got worse and now if you do attend the office, you are only here for two or three hours and this is not acceptable.
After you had received our letter on the 1st May 2007 you ignored a management instruction to attend the office at 9am. You arrived at 10am and left at 12pm not returning for the rest of the afternoon and did not inform anybody you would not be in the office. Once again this is not acceptable and is also a Health and Safety issue.
You told another member of staff that they could change desks with you because you will now be working from home and I would like to know who agreed this with you as I have no record.
As Dennis has raised before, we are also concerned as your home computer does not have any of our systems installed and no work you are doing at home is being backed up and therefore there are risks that this may have. Also we do not have access to this work which should be available to the company.
As you have clearly ignored an instruction to come into work at 9:00am we have no option than to take disciplinary action and will be in contact in due course to arrange.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
unity
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529U36
Monday 23rd April 2007 JB - Out
Tuesday 24th April 2007 JB - In at 10.30am but did not stay all day (had left before 3pm)
Wednesday 25th April 2007 JB - Out
Thursday 26th April 2007 JB in at 11.10am - left at 2.30pm
Friday 27th April 2007 JB - Out
Monday 30th April 2007 JB - In am, NOT pm
Tuesday 1st May 2007 JB - working from home
Wednesday 2nd May 2007 JB In - (left early pm)
Thursday 3rd May 2007 JB Client Mtg - Hillaldam Coburn
Friday 4th May 2007 JB in at 10.30am - left at 11.45am
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held on Tuesday 8th May 2007 at 2.30pm in Dennis Taylor's office, Becket House.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matter of concern.
Statement of grounds for commencing formal action
Failure to fulfil the terms and conditions of employment regarding your hours of work and a reasonable management instruction given to you both verbally and in writing by the Chairman and Company Secretary. Further particulars being, without authorization you have elected to work from home even though it has been a requirement and an instruction for you to report into work each day at 9am unless you are attending a client visit.
Throughout April you have been persistently late for work, details of the lateness are provided on the attached report.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
You should be aware that the requirement for you to attend this disciplinary hearing in works time, during which time you will be paid, is deemed by the company to be a perfectly reasonable management instruction in line with our contractual disciplinary procedure. Hence, if you fail to attend without notification, or fail to attend without good reason, you are warned that this will be treated as potentially gross misconduct for failure to obey a reasonable management instruction. This in itself would then be the subject of a subsequent disciplinary hearing over and above the issues set out above in this letter.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview by the company.
As you already have a Final Written Warning on your file, if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the matters outlined above, your employment may be terminated.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
May 7, 2007.
Dear Redacted it is not reasonable to send a letter to me by email at 4:12 p.m. on Friday instructing me to attend a disciplinary meeting at 2.30 p.m. on the following Tuesday. I have formally informed you that I want to have a full time official of my union, the NUJ, present at any disciplinary hearing. I did not get your letter until it was too late on Friday to contact the NUJ so that a full time official can attend. Since there is an intervening Bank Holiday this effectively gives me no more than five and a half working hours to get an NUJ official to Sevenoaks. This is not enough time.
When we spoke earlier on Friday I thought you agreed that I would be given several dates so that my union official could select one that s/he could attend. What changed?
As I have told you before I am not failing to fulfil the terms and conditions of my employment because my contract says I determine when I do the work. This is the wording used in my contract: "Hours Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid." This sets no minimum period I must be in the office.
It is obvious this means that the office routine is that reception and facilities in general are available 9-5.30 Monday to Friday. But I don't work those hours, I never have. Sometimes I work evenings, sometimes I work weekends. Editors have to work strange hours.
You say the only flexibility allowed is that: "If you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home."
Next week, for example, I'm supposed to be in Italy for three days. How would not coming to the office first be sufficient to compensate me for working perhaps 70 hours at a stretch? Are you suggesting I should not come into the office for the next week or so? If I did that how would the magazine get produced?
In your letter it says: You state that you have not worked these hours for several years and when mentioned this has been dropped. I can assure you that the issue was not dropped and you have been informed on several occasions what the procedures are. Over the last month your attendance has got worse and now if you do attend the office, you are only here for two or three hours and this is not acceptable." But what I actually said was that on two occasions disciplinary action was started on this issue but when I pointed out what my contract said, no further action was taken (I was not given a formal warning). Yet I repeat I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in all the time I have been employed. I am not saying I have not worked these hours for several years, I am saying I have never worked them.
You say it is a health and safety issue that I am not sitting in the office between 9 and 5.30. How could this suddenly have become a health and safety issue when I have never done it on a single day in the more than eight years I have worked for the company? Many of my colleagues spend almost as much time out of the office as I do, some (notably Mike Pinkney) more. How come it isn't a health and safety issue for them?
You say that I told a colleague that he could change desks with me because I would not be coming into the office. This is false and I can prove it thanks to your diary of my attendance at the office. I said no such thing. I told Richard he could have whatever desk he liked so long as I continued to have access to my computer. The office continues to be my normal place of work and I will continue to need the computer.
Finally you say you have no option but to take disciplinary action. Of course you have an option. The magazine is performing extremely well. I do my job in an exemplary fashion. All the relevant deadlines are always met. There is no crisis. However, if for any reason you need me to be in the office between 9 and 5.30 why not suggest an alteration to my contract. I would be delighted to talk to you about it.
Jonathan Brind
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
I refer to our letter of the 4th May 2007 which as you are aware, had required you to attend a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday 8th May 2007 at 2:30pm. You have since informed the Company that you wish to exercise your statutory rights to be accompanied by a trade union official
I write to confirm that I have postponed the hearing and wish to point out to you that the maximum permitted time under current legislation namely, Section 10 Of the Employment Relations Act 1999 for such a postponement is 5 working days (excluding PH and weekends) counting from the day following the date of the originally scheduled hearing.
Therefore, I will reconvene the disciplinary hearing to Monday 14th May 2007 at 2:30pm in Dennis Taylor's office.
The issues of concern are as detailed on your letter of the 4th May 2007, a copy of which is attached.
It is important that you attend this reconvened hearing but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. Furthermore, I am obliged to remind you that a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction may be deemed to be gross misconduct, the penalty for which could lead to the summary termination of your employment.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you then, please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
As you already have a current Final Written Warning on your file, if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the matters outlined above, your employment may be terminated.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter then it is important that you contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Redacted
Company Secretary
From Jonathan Brind
May 14, 2007.
I have worked for Unity for more than eight years during which time GGP has improved out of all recognition, from a lacklustre publication, drifting in its market, to what everyone accepts is the market leading publication. This has been achieved despite the most ferocious competition of any b2b market with about eight competitor national magazines, regional publications, several email based zines, web sites and company publications of various types (PDF based, printed etc.). The magazine always meets its editorial deadlines. Over the years I have had several pay increases, suggesting there has been some appreciation of my achievements. Yet so far as I know I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the more than eight years I have been employed by Unity. I have also always worked from home from time to time. What is the purpose of this disciplinary process?
Timekeeping and disciplinary hearings
The following exchange took place at the disciplinary hearing on November 11, 2005
Redacted: .".9-5.30 as do the rest of the staff in this company so..."
Jonathan Brind: "My contract says, now we are getting on to this: In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. I am not going to work at 9 o clock or 9.30 I'm going to do exactly that "In order to allow you to..."
Redacted: "Your contract says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "No it says normal office hours 9-17.30 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Very, very clear. Overtime is not paid. Very clear. I am in charge of my own timetable. I don't have to be here from 9-5.30."
Redacted "I am not a legal person but I will check that out so I'm not going to comment on it, because I absolutely don't know."
Jonathan Brind: "You mean you didn't even check my contract before..."
Redacted: "I did it said 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind. "No it does not, it says. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. and yet you sent out this letter which says: You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing number one timekeeping."
Redacted: "Absolutely."
Jonathan Brind: "You didn't even check my contract?"
Redacted: "It says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "It doesn't I have read it to you at least twice."
Redacted: "I will now check with our legal department what that means."
Jonathan Brind: "You are going to check."
The timekeeping issue was raised again at a disciplinary meeting on November 28, 2005.
I presented a paper which said the following:
General
"I love the magazine (GGP). I love what it does. I love the way it is and looks and everything else," Redacted on November 11, 2005.
Jonathan Brind: "We have intense competition, unlike RCI, which is largely a monopoly with no serious competition. We have ten other magazines yet even with that competition we meet the deadlines, we produce far more pages per person...
Redacted: "..I'm not questioning any of that."
Jonathan Brind: "and we have a very good reputation in the market."
Redacted: "I'm not questioning that."
Jonathan Brind: "and when people like Emap do surveys they find we are top. When the Epwin Group do surveys among fabricators they find we are top."
* Timekeeping (9am - 5.30pm)
My contract of employment says:
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
So I determine my own working hours and benefit from the fact that back up is available from the office 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday. It is very hard to see how any other reading of this is possible. I do not believe that in seven years working for Unity I have ever worked 9-5.30 once.
However, should I for any reason work 37.5 hours in the office and then go to any jobs which run into the evening, I would be putting the company at risk of prosecution under the European Directive on Working Hours. I work long hours not short.
It is established custom and practice that I attend the office at hours designed by me to ensure that the magazine is of the highest possible quality and produced in a way which meets its deadlines. According to Lisa GGP is exemplary in this respect. From Redacted's recent email (following) it seems GGP is certainly unusual in meeting deadlines!
From: "Redacted"
Subject: Copy Deadlines leading up to Christmas
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:24:47 +0100
Hi All
Its that time again, believe it or not, where we are leading up to Christmas and where I start getting very scared of our magazines not being on schedule and repeating the situation of a couple of years ago when December was the worst time I've had in my life.
I had a word with Ian D-J this morning and it looks as though most magazines are behind schedule - some worse than others. On top of the fact that Christmas is coming and we close down for 10 days, we have also got the situation that we are now using in-house Repro. I won't go over it all again but being late really does have a bad impact on the Repro department so could everyone please just make sure that we stay on schedule, so we can all have a nice time leading up to Christmas.
Thanks
Redacted
Unity Media Plc
And as for the quality achieved I cite no higher authority than Redacted who at a meeting with me on November 11 said: "GGP's a good mag and you do a good job about getting the magazine out." I would also point out that this year I have raised something like £55k in sep charges, considerably more than any of the other trade magazine editorial departments.
Finally, my colleague Mike Pinkney presumably has the same contract as me and goes for months without ever attending the office at any time between 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday, let alone the full day. I know he takes advantage of the fact that the office is open 9-5.30, using the facilaties available, but he clearly doesn't feel it necessary to be there all the time.
To take disciplinary action against me for poor timekeeping would in these circumstances be perverse.
******* I presume Redacted was as good as his word when he said on November 11, 2005, that he would seek legal advice about the meaning of my contract. The fact that the disciplinary hearing of November 21, 2005, resulted in no action (I was not given a warning for poor timekeeping, I have never been given a warning for poor timekeeping) very strongly suggests that if he did get legal advice it backed my interpretation of my contract, since I did not attend the office 9-5.30 on any day in the intervening period.
On the other hand it would be grossly unfair if Redacted had got legal advice that I was required to be at the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday and then failed to pass this information on to me. In the intervening 18 months I have not been in the office from 9-5.30 on any day but neither Redacted nor Dennis nor any other member of the management team has said a single word to me about this issue until Dennis sent me a letter dated April 11, 2007. .
The instruction
This is what Dennis said in the letter dated April 11, 2007. "I am instructing you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from 9am-5.30pm." Since I have never come into the office between 9 and 5.30 how could I resume it? However, let's suppose what he meant was that he wanted me to start attending the office 9-5.30, Monday to Friday. In that case the instruction is itself evidence that the company does not believe I am contractually required to work 9-5.30 Monday to Friday. If the company believed that this was what my contract said it would simply have said obey your contract. The fact that Unity felt it necessary to issue the instruction fatally undermines the company's case.
In your letter of May 3, 2007, you say: "Please note your contract states that your normal office hours are 9:00 -1730 Monday to Friday prevail. This means that you have to be working at this time in the office. It states that in order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines, you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid. This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home." It is very difficult to work out what you mean by this, since you don't appear to expalin what should happen if, as often happens I have to work excessibely long hours on a job, but let's suppose it means I have to be in the office unless I'm actually out on a job. So if the job lasts perhaps 12 hours I have to take perhaps four hours off the following day.
This week I'm supposed to be in Italy for three days, about 70 hours. If I had to work a rigid system I'd have to take about the next week or so off. This would prejudice the next issue. It could not come out on time. It makes sense for me to work in an appropriate way taking into account the needs of the magazine. This is why I was given a contract that makes it clear that meeting deadlines is more important than being in the office.
Health & Safety
I am perfectly prepared to have my home inspected and approved under the appropriate regs by a very senior health and safety professional of my choice. I will pay for the inspection.
In Dennis's letter of April 20 he said: "There are Health & Safety issues to be considered as well as Insurance Liability. You are a security risk as you are not networked, no risk assessment has been undertaken and Unity Media would be in breach if something were to happen to you. The above points are not open for discussion, they are fact of Law."
It is also not open to discussion that I spend a lot of time working at places such as hotels, restaurants, offices, buses, trains, planes, other people's homes etc. If you plan to conduct health and safety reviews of all these places and start insuring them it is going to cost you a lot of money. I do not envy you the task. Further since as you say my computer is not networked it is difficult to see how it could be a security risk. And, of course, I have been working from home on my own computer, sending emails to the office from it, since I started working for Unity more than eight years ago. How could all these factors suddenly arise when in more than eight years there has not been a single problem? Millions of people work from home for part of their working week. This is not a revolutionary break through.
Also in Dennis's letter of April 11, 2007, it said: "if due to exceptional circumstances you need to work from home for the odd day or if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office, then I have no objection to this provided you inform us accordingly". If the law and insurance issues make it impossible to work from home, why did Dennis suggest it?
My colleague Mike Pinkney manages to liaise with his editor over the phone so surely I can successfully liaise with my advertising team by phone and email. My guess is that Pinkers' contract is probably the same as mine, yet he comes to the office considerably less often than me and hardly ever at all Monday to Friday 9-5.30. The health and safety issues and the legal issues are exactly the same for him.
Pinkers is famous for doing things like sellling advertising on a mobile phone while he is fishing. A health and safety audit of the banks of fishing rivers might be useful for Mike since once when he was fishing his vehicle started to slip down the bank towards the river. Mike had to get it towed up the bank. However it is going to cost Unity millions (probably billions) to do a health and safety audit of all the rivers Pinkers fishes in.
Security of my equipment
No one in the company is better backed up than I am. On average I come into the office about three days a week. This has remained fairly constant over the eight years I have worked for Unity and is probably average for a b2b editor, such as the editors of HPM and PSLG. Every time I come into the office I bring a cd containing any work I have done outside the office, for example press releases picked up at events I attend. I copy the cd onto my office computer and I then copy those files again onto the server. I leave the cds in a pile so that even if the office system breaks down and my office computer fails to work, I still have the cds to go back to.
I understand the law is that an employer has to inform staff before monitoring emails. Unity has not advised me that it is monitoring my emails so this is not an issue at present. However, should the company decide to do this in future I am perfectly willing to use the same system as Davinia Gill, editor of Conservatory Magazine who has a Unity email address but rarely visits the office.
Normal place of work
I agree that my normal place of work is Becket House as it has been ever since the company moved there. But normal doesn't mean that I have to be there from 9-5.50, five days a week. The term normal place of work must include any place that features on the business cards I give out, where I pick up my emails and get my post, where I print sep charge faxes and print A3 items and where I process and print out the Quark pages for Repro. Becket House clearly falls into this category for me and I make no proposal to change this.What I was requesting in July was that I work from home solely. This would have meant not going to the office at all. As I said in my letter at the time: "I would like to stop coming into the office and to work exclusively from home". This arrangement would have significant advantages for me, especially since I fear considerable traffic disruption in the run up to the Olympics five years from now as a result of construction work in the area I drive through to get to work. This construction disruption will start within a matter of months.
I am now coming into the office as often as I have ever come into the office and would still like to move towards working solely from home. But this is not what I am doing now.
Ambassador
In Dennis's letter of April 20, 2007, he says: "We are now being overtaken as a magazine by Windows Active in the editorial arena whose Editor, John Cowie, not only enjoys high profile face-2-face recognition but is also seen as an Ambassador for his publication.This is our market feedback Jonathan, which your ad department have to contend with." It is hard to see how I could be an ambassador for the magazine if I was in the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday.
Why not propose a change to my contract?
Finally you say you have no option but to take disciplinary action. Of course you have an option. The magazine is performing extremely well. I do my job in an exemplary fashion. All the relevant deadlines are always met. There is no crisis. However, if for any reason you need me to be in the office between 9 and 5.30 why not suggest an alteration to my contract. I would be delighted to talk to you about it.
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathon
Further to the disciplinary hearing held on Monday 14th May 2007 I am writing to confirm my decision.
At this meeting you were offered the opportunity of having a work colleague or Union Representative present as a witness, which you accepted and chose to be accompanied by Sue Harris, National Union of Journalists.
The matters of concern to me were:-
Failure to fulfil the terms and conditions of employment regarding your hours of work and a reasonable management instruction given to you both verbally and in writing by the Chairman and Company Secretary.
Without authorization you have elected to work from home even though it has been a requirement and an instruction for you to report into work each day at 9am unless you are attending a client visit.
At the hearing the reasons you gave for your actions were^-
1. You were unable to conform to the management instruction as its wording stated that you should "resume normal working practices which means you come into the office on a daily basis from 9am-5.30pm" and as you had not previously worked 9am - 5.30pm you could not resume something that you had never done.
2. You considered Unity Media offices as your normal place of work. You attended the offices to download emails, speak to other departments then leave.
3. Your interpretation of your contract is that you are free to choose your hours of work.
4. In Dennis' letter to you it stated "if due to exceptional circumstances you need to work from home for the odd day or if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office, then I have no objection to this provided you inform us accordingly" and you have interpreted this that you are able to work from home from time to time.
Having listened to your explanations I consider them to be unsatisfactory because:-
1. The management instruction was given to you once verbally followed up in writing. After you replied to Dennis' letter he wrote to you clarifying the management instruction. You also had a further letter from me. Your continuing argument that the instruction was impossible to follow shows that you were fully aware of what the management instruction was and its intentions. This argument is based on a technical point in the wording of Dennis' first letter to you. The discussions and verbal instruction in the meeting with you and the follow up letter from Dennis and my subsequent letter left the interpretation of the instruction in no doubt but you continued to wilfully ignore this instruction.
2. You agree that Unity Media offices are your normal place of work. It has been continually explained to you that your contract of employment states that normal office hours prevail and when you are not on client visits or there are no exceptional circumstances, you should work from your desk at Unity Media offices during the hours of 9am to 5-'30pm.
3. Any variation to your hours should be due to exceptional circumstances only and so the majority of the time, you should be working at Unity Media offices during the hours of 9am to 5:30pm. We discussed at the hearing that your attendance in the three weeks from 23rd April 2007 to 11th May 2007 showed that you spent less than a third of your available time in the office and you were unable to give me a reasonable explanation as to why.
4. Unity Media plc has not agreed for you to base your work at your home address. This was communicated to you in a meeting you had with Dennis on the 19th July 2006 following your letter dated 6th July 2006 requesting you be allowed to work from home in exchange for a £2,000 reduction in your salary and forgo your company vehicle. In so doing, Dennis explained the reasons why this was not possible to you then.
To consider any employee requests to work from home there are many issues that would need to be addressed. These issues include communication, staff management, working ergonomics, health & safety issues, safeguarding company assets, intellectual property and business insurance cover. There are also the legal issues relating to the business use of private residences which can also complicate matters such as covenants on property purchases & leases and personal tax issues (capital gains tax). Your job as Editor is office based unless you are visiting clients. The agreement that we have with you is that if you are travelling to see clients and so forth and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office or if there are exceptional circumstances that you need to work from home for the odd day then there are no objections as these circumstances are incidental to the requirements of your job. Any extended or regular working practices at your home address, including setting up unauthorised systems are regarded as attempting to change your work base to home and are not acceptable.
I consider your continuing unsatisfactory conduct to be unacceptable and in view of your current final written warning this would ordinarily mean the termination of your employment. However, I have decided to be lenient on this occasion and extend to you one final opportunity to demonstrate an immediate and sustained improvement in your conduct.
With immediate effect, you are instructed to'-~
1. Attend Unity Media offices to work on a daily basis from 9am to 5.30pm. If you are travelling to see clients and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office then it is acceptable to do so. Please note that it is not acceptable to set up short meetings with clients close to your home with the intention of spending numerous days away from the office. You should manage your appointments in a manner which makes efficient use of your time and maximises your time in the office.
2. You are required to provide an email to Redacted with a copy to Sandra Baldock prior to each working day to inform them of your whereabouts. If you are attending a client visit you should state who you are visiting, the location, time and duration of the visit. If you have an exceptional circumstance which requires you to work from home, you should inform Redacted of the circumstances that require you to work from home. Your emails will be logged so that Redacted, your manager, can monitor your movements and enable us to know your whereabouts for health and safety purposes.
As there is already an active Final Written Warning on your file, you will be issued with an Extended Final Written Warning which will remain valid for a period of 12 months from the above date of issue of this letter. For the avoidance of doubt this warning will expire on 21st May 2008.
Any further misconduct or unsatisfactory performance during this period may result in your dismissal.
You have the right of appeal against my decision and should you wish to do so you should write to Dennis Taylor, Chairman within 7 days stating the full reasons as to why you believe the disciplinary action taken against you was either inappropriate or too severe.
Should you exercise your right of appeal, you are still required to follow the management instruction set out in this letter.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
London E10 7EB
May 22, 2007.
Dear Redacted,
This is my formal application to appeal to Dennis to argue my case.
I was astonished to be handed your letter dated May 17 on May 21 . Were you at the same disciplinary meeting as me?
For example I made it perfectly clear that I was not working from home full time and that when I had asked to do that last year I made it clear that it would mean not coming into the office at all. This is not what is happening now. My job has always involved working from home from time to time and indeed working from many other locations.
I thought the main point of this meeting was that you told me that the company's objective was to strengthen my contract. When I asked how you could strengthen something without changing it, you were unable to suggest a mechanism.
Of course there is no way you can strengthen something without changing it.
I have never worked 9-5.30. So far as I know the company has accepted this up to this point since I have never been disciplined for not working 9-5.30, despite numerous disciplinary hearings. I believe my contract says I don't have to work 9-5.30. I have argued this point out with Redacted and he ended up saying that he would seek legal advice. He has never come back to me, a fact that suggests to me the legal advice went along with my interpretation of the contract. If the legal advice was different to my interpretation of the contract it was very unfair of him not to come back to tell me.
As a matter of record I do not recall being given the verbal management warning you refer to, in point 1 of your list on page 2 of your letter. You have also failed to address the issue that had my contract been as you say it is, there would have been no point in issuing the management instruction. The management instruction proves you know as well as I do that I determine my own working hours, something which was not at all uncommon amongst b2b editors when my contract was agreed, though it may be less common now. Of course I understood the instruction. I just didn't think you had the right to make it without my agreeing a change in my contract, since I have never worked 9-5.30. I also disputed the company's attempt to pretend that its intent was to make me resume something I had done before when what the company is really demanding is a change in my contract.
B2b editors work strange hours. They always have done. That is the nature of the business. In view of current working time legislation it seems strange for the company to be demanding less flexibility rather than more: you now say I must spend the majority of my time in the office, an entirely new demand, yet last week I was in Italy for three days and spent a day on a visit requested by my advertising manager. How was it possible for me to spend the majority of that week in the office?
This looks like an attempt to bully me into changing my contract. Once again I would like to assure you that should you wish to change or strengthen my contract I am perfectly prepared to talk about this.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Brind
Dear Dennis,
Because of your concern about the hours I am working I have done a careful log of my hours (plus a projection for the next few days). This reveals that during the three weeks starting May 15 I have been working excessive hours by any standards mostly due to visits I have made (or will make). The visits were to Italy for Promac (a very important advertiser whom the advertising department upset and therefore needed to be cultivated), Veka (one of the main profile producers) and UAP (one of our biggest advertisers). As a result of my excessive working time over these three weeks I need to take off about nine working days. To put that into context I only have 20 working days for each issue. When shall I take this time off?
Of course my working time is wholly exceptional right now. In January and February I was working seven days a week, sometimes 12 or more hours a day. This is a slack period..
GGP is widely recognised as the best editorial product in the very highly competitive window and glass market. I also obtain more than £50k of sep charge each year (to put that into context this is about the same as HPM which serves a much bigger industry and has a circulation three times the size of GGP's). I always meet editorial deadlines.
I have not worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the eight and half years I have been with the company.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Brind
May 15-May 21
On Tuesday May 15 I went to Tring to see Vast PR, a visit requested by my advertising manager. This proved a difficult place to get to. I left at about 9 a.m. and didn't get home until after 6 p.m. (total at least nine hours)
On Wednesday May 16-Friday May 18 I worked from home from about 7 a.m. till 2 p.m. when I left to go to the airport. (total seven hours but I probably took a couple of hours off for meals, perhaps five hours). I left for Gatwick Airport at 2 pm and only got there by the skin of my teeth since there were long queues to get through security. I stayed in Italy until Friday evening, getting back home at about 9 pm (total 55 hours)
On Saturday May 19 I worked from home looking at various Google alerts and reading rival publications and updating my sep charge database. (at least three hours)
On Sunday May 20 I worked from home, usual pattern looking at Google alerts and preparing for the following week. (probably no more than two hours).
On Monday May 21 I arrived at the office at a few minutes after 8 and stayed until about 2.15. I took my half hour statutory break from 2.15-2.45 so total 6 1/2 hours. I then returned home but since the equipment at work had proved inadequate I used my own much better equipment to prepare a proof I could send to Mike Crewdson. Mike sent me an email back and I worked on the page again, returning the completed work at 21:52. Probably four hours work. Total for the day 10 hours.
Total for May 15-May 21: 84 hours
May 22-May 28
Tuesday May 22. Delayed getting into work by jam caused by crash in Blackwall tunnel. Arrived at 9 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. I intended to be there. So I worked an extra hour in the office to give me the chance to complete the pages I needed to finish. Total 6 hours. Then worked from home updating the seps database in the evening (two hours). Total for the day 8 hours.
Wednesday May 2 Working from home making up and sending pages, co-ordinating with freelances 6.45 a.m. to 11 a.m. From 11 a.m. to central London for sustainable housing conference. Return home 3.30 p.m. Total 8.45. Took some time off. Worked again from 6.30-10.30 processing and making up pages, and on my seps database. Probably now going to run a long way over permitted hours but this morning Natalie told me the advertising department would finish selling on Friday so I had to get my skates on to make sure the magazine was completed. Total for day 10.45
Thursday May 24 Received email from AFPR at 6.30 replied by 6.52, used picture she sent to prepare material. Did about half an hour's work. Travelled to office. For once relatively light traffic. Got there before 8 a.m. Worked till about 2.15 pm. Returned home urgent need to get Iain McInnes feature on Promac and For.El processed so that I could send to him for approval. Worked from about 6 pm til 10pm (4 hours). Total for day 10:45.
Friday May 25 Working in office 8a.m. to 2pm. Six hours
Monday May 28 bank holiday but Mke Crewdson emailed me emergency changes to his spread. Two hours of messing about before agreed plus Bank Holiday.
Total for May 22-May 28: 37.5 hours plus Bank Holiday
May 29-June 5
Tuesday May 29 Office 8a.m. till 2pm (total 6 hours)
Wednesday May 30 Working from home 7 a.m. to 9a.m. Preparing July sep charge fax mailing by making entries in database. Also producing June lists of sep charges for circulation and accounts. Office 10 till 4pm? Total 8 hours?
Thursday June 1 Office 6 hours? Sep charge database 2 hours? Total 8 hours
Friday June 2 Office 6 hours? Sep charge database 2 hours/ Total 8 hours.
Saturday June 3 Leave home at 10 a.m. for Network Veka agm Coventry. 4pm leave Network Veka agm for UAP event Bolton. Stay over night leaving at about 11 a.m. Sunday. Return home about 4 p.m. Total 30 hours?
Monday June 5 Office 6 hours?
Total for May 29-June 5: 60 hours
Subject: Tomorrow
Date: 31 May 2007 11:28:19 BST
To: Jonathan Brind
cc: Redacted
Jonathan
I have spoken to Dennis and he has confirmed that he is happy for you to take tomorrow off as a lieu day.
Thanks
Sandra Baldock
Executive PA
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You appealed against the decision of the disciplinary hearing held on the 14th May 2007, where the decision was taken to issue you with an Extended Final Written Warning. The decision was taken following a full and thorough hearing, held in accordance with the company's disciplinary procedure.
Your appeal hearing was held on the 30th May 2007, in the presence of Dennis Taylor, Chairman of Unity Media plc and Sandra Baldock, Executive PA, on behalf of the company and you were unaccompanied.
I am now writing to confirm the decision taken by Redacted, Company Secretary, on behalf of the company, that the decision to issue you with an Extended Final Written Warning be upheld for the following reasons:
You have not put any further evidence forward to support your appeal. Further, during your appeal meeting you stated you thought the main point of the meeting with Redacted was that you had been told the company's objective was to strengthen your contract when, in fact, what Redacted explained to you was that he was acting to enforce your contract.
You have now exercised the right of appeal, under the company's disciplinary procedure and this decision is final.
At your appeal meeting, you raised the subject of your excessive working hours, with is an entirely separate item but nevertheless one where we do not require you to work from home and further if you wish to read trade magazines or visit Google searches and other bits at home in the evenings or weekends, that is your choice and not included in your working time which is from 9am - 5.30pm at Unity's place of work unless you are attending visits, seminars, clients etc where it is more practicable for you to go directly from home, as opposed to coming into the office.
I repeat therefore, our main instruction to you, which is that you are employed by Unity Media plc to work at Unity Media offices from 9am - 5.30pm unless the above circumstances as outlined prevail.
We cannot simply continue to go round in circles with this matter Jonathan and it is therefore up to you to conform to this instruction.
If you will not, or cannot, we will have no choice but to go down the disciplinary procedure once again and there are only so many final warnings we can give.
On the subject of your working hours, it is not abnormal for a person in your role and position to work extra hours and if you so wish, you can sign a statement opting out of this directive or alternatively, the information you provide to your Publishing Director, Redacted, on your movements should include a full itinerary of your client visits and timings. We will then be in a position to monitor your- working time and if there then looks to be an issue we can address this between us but again, I reiterate your normal working time is 9am - 5.30pm at Unity Media offices save for the visits etc as outlined above.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EI Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Date: 6 June 2007 20:47:52 BDT
To: Dennis Taylor
Subject: Your letter of June 5
Thank you for your letter dated June 5.
It seems strange of you to say that there was no further evidence and then to say: "you thought the main point of the meeting with Redacted was that you had been told the company's objective was to strengthen your contract when, in fact, what Redacted explained to you was that he was acting to enforce your contract." If it was not new how can you say it did not happen?
Also are you aware that I have a recording of my meeting with Redacted?
Would you like to revise your letter?
Jonathan Brind
Date: 6 June 2007 19:48:38 BDT
To: "Redacted"
Subject: Re: Lieu Days
You seem to be having a problem with your memory. Lieu days are fairly common in b2b publishing. Would you like me to share this correspondence with everyone else in Unity to jog your memory? I'm sure that many of them would be able to help you.
Are you suggesting that Dennis suddenly agreed to a previously unheard of arrangement? The idea that b2b editors work weekends and evenings without taking off time during the week is, to say the least, fairly eccentric. Are you sure this is the case you are making?
Jonathan Brind
On 6 Jun 2007, at 16:21, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
Your text to me yesterday said it was usual practice for you to take days off in lieu. During your 8.5 years of working here at Unity Media neither myself, Redacted, Sandra Baldock or Dennis Taylor have any knowledge of you taking any lieu days off whatsoever nor is there any paperwork on file to suggest you have ever had any days off in lieu save for the one day, last Friday, 1st June, which was sanctioned by Dennis under exceptional circumstances at that time.
Once again, this is a statement straight off the top of your head and out of the blue.
Redacted
Unity Media PLC
Date: 7 June 2007 10:40:15 BDT
To: Redacted
Subject: Re: Lieu Days
If you did not get the two emails I sent you about lieu days why did you send me the following text message?
"Jonathan, as you know you are required to undertake your duties and expected to cope as timings dictate so in the normal course of your duties lieu days off do not apply"
As you say I have worked for Unity for eight years and have never had any paperwork in the past but I have taken off many lieu days (Glassex for example always starts on a Sunday so I have had a lieu day off for that nine times). You are now setting up a new system.
Jonathan Brind
On 7 Jun 2007, at 10:24, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
Any lieu days within Unity Media are discussed and authorised and the correct paperwork produced which is our standard procedure.
I do not need my memory jogging by you as I am the person who authorises these lieu days.
You have never, ever requested a lieu day to myself nor do we have any paperwork.
Enough of these semantics Jonathan.
Redacted
From: Jonathan Brind [mailto:j@brind.co.uk]
Sent: 06 June 2007 19:49
To: Redacted
Subject: Re: Lieu Days
You seem to be having a problem with your memory. Lieu days are fairly common in b2b publishing. Would you like me to share this correspondence with everyone else in Unity to jog your memory? I'm sure that many of them would be able to help you.
Are you suggesting that Dennis suddenly agreed to a previously unheard of arrangement? The idea that b2b editors work weekends and evenings without taking off time during the week is, to say the least, fairly eccentric. Are you sure this is the case you are making?
Jonathan Brind
On 6 Jun 2007, at 16:21, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
Your text to me yesterday said it was usual practice for you to take days off in lieu. During your 8.5 years of working here at Unity Media neither myself, Redacted, Sandra Baldock or Dennis Taylor have any knowledge of you taking any lieu days off whatsoever nor is there any paperwork on file to suggest you have ever had any days off in lieu save for the one day, last Friday, 1st June, which was sanctioned by Dennis under exceptional circumstances at that time.
Once again, this is a statement straight off the top of your head and out of the blue.
Redacted
Unity Media PLC
Switchboard Tel: 01732 748000
Switchboard Fax: 01732 748001
Company Registration No: 1529036
VAT No: 347-373636
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:53:37 Europe/London
To: "Redacted"
Subject: Re: IN office Tuesday 8a.m till 2pm.
I have a recording of Redacted making the remarks I referred to. I have provided a copy to Redacted. Why not listen to it instead of arguing that black is white?
Some while ago you provided me with a platform to allow me to run IBM software on my computer at work. When you switched to System X this was removed. Since then the only place I could do my work on the sep charges is at home, since I do this on an IBM computer.
Dennis has also written to me stating specifically that he gives me full permission to work from home if I have a job during the day and it is more convenient to do so.
You can include traveling to a client visit as part of working hours.
You can also include client lunches but cannot include rest breaks etc.
If you stay overnight, you are not expected to be on call throughout
the
whole of the visit. Spare time is your own to do as you wish and is
not
classed as working time and cannot be included.
This is plainly ludicrous since travelling to see a contact or witness an event can take considerably longer than the event itself. If I have to be away from home that is working time. You may be aware that I have a long record of claiming expenses for meals during trips. If these meals were not taken during working time why did the company agree to the expenses? You are plainly making new rules up as you go along in order to pursue a harassment campaign against me.
Until such time as a change to my contract is agreed I will continue to work to my existing contract and will continue to claim days off in lieu . However should the days off in lieu be a problem I am perfectly prepared to cancel all my appointments outside London and to work from the office until the excessive hours problem has been worked out. This will, of course, involve me working substantially less than 9-5.30 (otherwise I wouldn't be compensating for the excessive hours). It would also cause significant problems since I have, for example, arranged to go to see Avocet a company which has been causing Natalie anxiety. Avocet has booked a hotel room for me... Cancelling at this stage would be bad manners.
It might also present the company with a problem since it would appear that you were behaving in a perverse manner pursuing a harassment campaign against me rather than serving the interests of the magazine. It would also be plain that you were taking discriminatory action since the other b2b editors would be continuing to work normally. You may recall that not long ago Dennis expressed the desire that the editor should be an ambassador for the magazine. It is difficult to see how you could achieve this by making it impossible for me to travel.
Finally, I would like to lodge a formal Grievance about your instruction that I may not read rival magazines or look at Google at home. Please let me know how to pursue this Grievance ?
Jonathan
On 12 Jun 2007, at 12:20, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
The company does not want to strengthen your contract. Our aim is to
get you to follow it.
In his discussion with you, Redacted stated that we were re-enforcing your
contract, he did not say anything about strengthening it.
If you think you have a problem with the number of working hours, you
should start logging your time on a timesheet giving us a full
breakdown
of each working day. We will then monitor this and ensure that the
directive is not breached.
You do of course have an option to opt out of the working time
directive
if you so wish.
Your normal place of work is at Unity Media offices and as such
activities you do at home are not required by Unity Media and cannot be
included in your working hours - for example google searches and
reading
rival publications.
You can include traveling to a client visit as part of working hours.
You can also include client lunches but cannot include rest breaks etc.
If you stay overnight, you are not expected to be on call throughout
the
whole of the visit. Spare time is your own to do as you wish and is
not
classed as working time and cannot be included.
The working time directive calculates average hours over a reference
period. This is laid down as a 17 week period unless agreed otherwise.
In the meantime, you should attend the office as instructed between 9am
to 5.30pm unless you are traveling to see clients and it makes more
sense to go direct from home rather than detour to the office.
Redacted
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Brind [mailto:jbrind@unity-media.com]
Sent: 12 June 2007 09:58
To: Redacted
Subject: Re: IN office Tuesday 8a.m till 2pm.
You are aware that my contract says I determine my working times. You
should also know that Redacted has admitted that it is the company's aim
to
strengthen my contract (I have a recording of him saying it). I am
perfectly willing to talk about a strengthening or a change of contract
at any time. In the mean time I will be honouring my contract.
Jonathan
PS. I think you should know that the real problem at present is that I
am working excessive hours. It is important that this matter is
addressed realistically.
On 12 Jun 2007, at 09:49, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
As instructed in previous correspondence when you are in the office
your working hours at 9am - 5.30pm.
Redacted
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing with myself to be held on Monday 11th June 2007 at 9.30am, in Dennis Taylor's office, Becket House. The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matter ofconcern:-
Statement of Grounds for Commencing Formal Action
Breach of company rules and procedures namely, it is alleged that on Saturday 2nd June 2007 you were unfit and incapable of carrying out your duties whilst representing the company in your capacity as Editor due to the effects of intoxicants, when you attended the Universal Imports Charity Ball, at the Holiday Inn, Bolton. The company alleges that your actions, if proven represents a gross breach of trust. A photograph of you as described herein is enclosed and we are aware that several other third parties took their own photographs, threatening to publish within opposition magazines.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration. However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
As you know, you are already the subject of an Extended Final Written Warning on your file and if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation to the matters outlined above your employment, may be terminated. If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me. Yours sincerely
Redacted Company Secretary
Unity Media plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Date: 14 June 2007 14:59:42 BDT
To: Jonathan Brind
Subject: letter
You can tell them that the signed original is in the post.
John
June 15, 2007
Andy Westhead, the driving force behind the new magazine Glass Times, was annoyed with me because I had written something to promote GGP and put Glass Times into its proper (lesser) place. To get his own back he told Redacted that he intended to publish a photo of me in a drowsy state. Glass Times has a Rear Window section that carries gossipy material. None of the other magazines represented at this event (The Installer, VIP and Clearview) carries gossip of this type.
Redacted should have informed me the following day when we met in the lobby of the hotel. He did not. Since he believed that an item of this kind would have been detrimental to GGP it was important that I should know of the conversation so that I could take action.
The first I knew of it was when the notice of the disciplinary hearing arrived at my home on June 12, ten days later. If Andy Westhead had seriously intended to publish it would probably have been too late to do anything by then.
However, Andy Westhead tells me he was joking and didn't really intend to publish. More to the point he has also given a commitment to UAP that he will not publish material of this nature about this event.
Redacted clearly did not know this so this is my formal application to treat this as a matter of Grievance . Redacted should have told me
I would also point out that the description of the event in the notice of the disciplinary letter is remarkably similar to catalepsy, a condition widely believed to be stress related. You may be aware that I have long been saying that a harassment campaign is being run against me. For example, disciplinary hearings when no attempt has been made to investigate the facts by talking to me. Perhaps this has caused some stress?
Jonathan Brind
June 15, 2007
I presented my written statement but RC would not accept that without asking a series of questions.
When I said that I had presented my case in written form he said something along the lines: then you are not prepared to answer questions.
RC seemed to have a great deal of dfficulty concentrating, sometimes asking the same question twice or more and asking questions which were clearly answered in the written statement.
He said that he was still investigating the facts. I pointed out that he should have talked to me prior to issuing a notice of a disciplinary hearing since he could not know if it was sensible to start a disciplinary procedure until he had established the facts by talking to me. He said the law prevented him from acting in any other way. I pointed out that I had been working for 30 years and this was not the way things were done. Management found out the facts before embarking on disciplinary procedure. This is absolutely standard.
He asked various questions about the evening. I said that I had presented my case in my written statement.
He asked what do I think other people around the table during the dinner thought: I don't know.
He showed me the photo and asked me who the people were. I pointed out Andy Westhead and Davies the man from VIP. He ventured the opinion that several magazines would be covering my sleep.
I said I had answered this in my written response.
Did I think I had let GGP down? No, hadn't he read John Austen's letter.
Did I remember people taking photos of me (he pointed out the flash light glare in the picture). I asked if I had been asleep as he said, how could I recall this? No response.
I pointed out that the photo didn't look as if I was asleep since I was sitting bolt upright rather than leaning back. If I had been asleep my head would be slumped on the table. He said that he sometimes went to sleep sitting up on a train. I said but you would be leaning back against the chair in a relaxed posture. He made no response to this.
He pressed home the point that a documentary team had been filming the event. I pointed out that I made documentaries and knew that it was industry standard to get approval from anyone featured in a film. I said I'd send him a copy of the form if he liked. I ventured the opinion that the documentary team wouldn't dare to include me in the film without getting my approval and even if they did they wouldn't identify GGP.
He said Nat had said I told her that John was mixing my wine. I said in my conversations with Nat the impression I got from her was that I was probably the only person at the event who wasn't drunk (including Redacted).
He asked me if I had met David Jennings. I said yes at Glassex. He pointed out that he was one of GGP's major advertisers (he quoted the figure 5% of advertising) and asked didn't it occur to me that I should have spoken to David Jennings at this event? No, that would have been rude since he was otherwise engaged. I saw John Austen who was organising the event.
He asked me if I thought I had behaved in an unprofessional way. I said no, Redacted behaved in an unprofessional way by concealing his conversation with Andy Westhead.
Private and Confidential
Mr J Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
I refer to your written statement handed to me at your disciplinary meeting on the 15th June 2007 in which you outlined a Grievance that you had and wished for the matter to be addressed through the formal Grievance procedures. I note from your email, that you wish to use the modified Grievance procedure which provides for a response in writing after due consideration of the available information.
The matters of concern were;
Redacted should have informed you, the following day when you met in the lobby of the Hotel, of the threat to publish a photo of you in a drowsy state. He did not. Since he believed that an item of this kind would have been detrimental to GGP it was important that you should have known of the conversation so that you could take action.
I am now writing to inform you that I have looked into the matter. Redacted states that he saw you very briefly in the foyer of the hotel but you and he did not speak at all. He felt he did not have sufficient opportunity or privacy to discuss the matter with you then. He had planned to speak to you on the Monday at work but arrived into the offices after you had left for the day. He did speak with Andy Westhead during the Monday and got the reassurance that the photographs would not be published in his magazine.
In conclusion, I cannot find sufficient grounds to substantiate your Grievance
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Private and Confidential
Mr J Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Thank you for your email to Redacted copying me on the 20th June, I have looked into your claim on working hours in comparison to the working time directives however, I should point out some errors in your calculations viz:-
Your calculation of 55 hours for your trip to Italy is inclusive of all hours. According to the legislation, you should exclude all rest periods.
Working at weekends doing google searches and reading rival publications is not included in the working time.
Your visit to the Veka AGM plus the UAP charity ball were covered by the day off in lieu taken on Friday 1st June.
You had two days Thursday 6th June and Friday 7th June off which you requested to be taken in Lieu. This was denied but taken anyway.
Tuesday 12th June, you spent some time working on a response to your disciplinary. This should not be included and is classed as utilizing your personal time.
Comparing the outlined times you are claiming in your email dated 20th June 2007, you have claimed a total number of hours worked by you as 241.25 hours. Whereas, using the times as allocated under the Working Time Directive, the number of hours allocated as having been worked by you calculate out at 173.25 hours.
I have concluded therefore, that you are not due any lieu days for the period specified therefore your request to take June 19, July 4 and July 5 as days off in lieu is denied.
Once again we need to address your attendance in the office during working hours. You have continued to work in contravention to the management instruction that has been given to you which is:
Attend Unity Media offices to work on a daily basis from 9am to 5:30pm. If you are travelling to see clients and it makes more sense for you to go direct from your home rather than detour to the office then it is acceptable to do so. Please note that it is not acceptable to set up short meetings with clients close to your home with the intention of spending numerous days away from the office. You should manage your appointments in a manner which makes efficient use of your time and maximises your time in the office.
Indeed, the persistence in your emails informing us that you intend to work from 8am until 2pm simply inflames your situation and is clearly designed to antagonize your management, being in contradiction to their instruction.
If you continue to work to the hours you are, we will have no alternative but to take you through the disciplinary process again and as you are aware, you have an extended final warning on your file and this could lead to termination of your employment with Unity Media.
May I remind you Jonathan, you are employed by Unity Media plc and as such we expect no more of you than to work within the parameters of our Company Policy.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Private and Confidential
Mr J Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to our meeting held on Friday 15th June 2007 I am writing to underline my concerns regarding your conduct.
As you are aware the issue was your conduct at the Universal Imports Charity Ball on Saturday 2nd June 2007 where photographs were taken of you asleep at your table.
I have considered the written statement you gave to me plus the letter of representation from John Austen and on this particular occasion I have decided not to proceed with formal disciplinary action.
Unity Media does not however condone your actions in any way. There was a potential to cause great damage to the company and I feel on this occasion you were fortunate that the matter has apparently been contained. When representing Unity Media in any capacity, you are expected to be in control of your actions at all times and conduct yourself in an appropriate manner.
I accept that you had encountered a busy day attending the Veka AGM prior to the Dinner however, you should firstly ensure the appropriateness and value of each event you attend and secondly, if you start feeling tired or drowsy you should excuse yourself while you freshened up.
This letter is not intended to be a formal warning and does not form part of the Company's disciplinary procedure. It simply draws a point in time at which we have informed you that we require an immediate and sustained improvement in the areas that we have discussed and as such, takes the form of we consider to be a reasonable written management instruction not to repeat these actions in the future. Although this is not a formal warning, should there be any repeat of this conduct, or indeed any misconduct in general you may be subject to formal disciplinary action.
If you have any queries regarding the content of this letter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5E) Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unily-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathon
I am disappointed with the extreme short notice you have given me with regard your appointment with Plastmo resulting in you not being able to attend the meetings relating to your Grievance s today, especially considering that the arrangements were sent out to you on the 10th July.
From my understanding, Plastmo receive regular visits from our advertisement team and given the importance that you have emphasized on your Grievance requests, I believe that there was enough time to defer your meeting with Plastmo causing little or no inconvenience to them.
I should point out to you that in matters of Grievance , if one party fails to comply then the other is released from any further obligation however, I will give you one further chance to attend the Grievance and Grievance appeal meetings on either Thursday 19th July at 10.30am and 11.30am respectively or Friday 20th July at 10.30am and 11.30am.
Can you please confirm which date is more suitable, failure to attend this second arrangement will mean both the current Grievance and the Grievance appeal will be considered withdrawn by you.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5E; Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to your email dated 17th June 2007 in which you asked to defer your formal application of Grievance against your colleague Redacted, I am writing to confirm that I will now hear your Grievance on either Thursday 19th July 2007 or Friday 20th July 2007 at 10.30am in my office. Please confirm which of these dates is more suitable for you.
I will be accompanied by Sandra Baldock who will lake notes of the proceedings.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade union official and it is your responsibility to make these arrangements.
Please contact me if you are unable to attend or if you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EI Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
Further to your email dated 17th July 2007 in which you asked to defer the meeting appealing against the decision to reject your Grievance at the Grievance meeting on the 20th June 2007, I am now writing to confirm that I will hear your appeal on either Thursday 19th July 2007 or Friday 20th July 2007 at 11.30am in my office. Please confirm which of these dates is more suitable for you.
I will be accompanied by Sandra Baldock who will take notes of the proceedings.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade union official and it is your responsibility to make these arrangements.
Please contact me if you are unable to attend or if you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Date: 18 July 2007 13:34:42 BDT
To: "Dennis Taylor"
Subject: Re: Thanks for delay
On 18 Jul 2007, at 13:17, Dennis Taylor wrote:
Jonathan
Thank you. I note you received my letters ref your Grievance meeting on 12th July so I am intrigued as to why it took you until 0705 hrs on the morning of our scheduled 1130 hrs meeting to respond? I have Friday 20th July @ 1030 and 1130 hrs diarised. Dennis
As I said before I was waiting for Natalie to tell me if it was vital to go to Plastmo. Had she said that we could have ducked out I would have cancelled the Plastmo visit. She told me she would let me know on Monday. She did not do so because she had been told by Redacted that I would not be going to Plastmo.
From: Jonathan Brind [mailto:j@brind.co.uk]
Sent: 17 July 2007 16:10
To: Dennis Taylor
Subject: Thanks for delay
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for delaying the Grievance hearings. Friday would be best for me. However, it's a weird thing to say "I should point out to you that in matters of Grievance , if one party fails to comply then the other is released from any further obligation". My interest is the damage that could have been caused to GGP. I would have thought we would have been on the same side about that.
The way you decided to send your letters notifying me of the Grievance hearings was by post. I believe I received them on the evening of July 12. I spoke to Natalie on July 13 to ask if she was determined to go to Plastmo explaining that a hearing was scheduled for Tuesday (though I did not explain what it was about). She said she would let me know on Monday. I heard nothing from her so I went to Plastmo this morning.
As it happened she had been told by Redacted that I would not be going to Plastmo so she did not turn up, a fact I did not find out until late this morning. Not a great day for me.
I am surprised you say "Plastmo receive regular visits from our advertisement team" because Natalie told me she was being stonewalled by Robert Thiroff and was very pleased when I suggested I could get her access on favourable terms.
Is somebody playing office politics here? If so it certainly isn't me.
Jonathan Brind
17th July 2007
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathon
I am disappointed with the extreme short notice you have given me with regard your appointment with Plastmo resulting in you not being able to attend the meetings relating to your Grievance s today, especially considering that the arrangements were sent out to you on the 10th July.
From my understanding, Plastmo receive regular visits from our advertisement team and given the importance that you have emphasized on your Grievance requests, I believe that there was enough time to defer your meeting with Plastmo causing little or no inconvenience to them.
I should point out to you that in matters of Grievance , if one party fails to comply then the other is released from any further obligation however, I will give you one further chance to attend the Grievance and Grievance appeal meetings on either Thursday 19th July at 10.30am and 11.30am respectively or Friday 20th July at 10.30am and 11.30am.
Can you please confirm which date is more suitable, failure to attend this second arrangement will mean both the current Grievance and the Grievance appeal will be considered withdrawn by you.
Yours sincerely
DENNIS TAYLOR
Chairman
Unity Media PLC
Switchboard Tel: 01732 748000
Switchboard Fax: 01732 748001
Company Registration No: 1529036
VAT No: 347-373636
Registered Office: Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent. TN14 5EJ
Place of Registration: England and Wales
Date: 26 June 2007 09:28:54 BDT
To: Redacted
Cc: Redacted
Subject: Greivance
This is formal notice that I would like to pursue a Grievance via the Grievance procedure. On June 11 Redacted wrote to me about an incident that took place at the UAP dinner on June 2. The only issue raised in this letter was that several other third parties took their own photographs, threatening to publish within opposition magazines.
At the time this incident took place there were only three opposition magazines represented (Clearview had been there earlier but had left). They were VIP, Fabricator and Glass Times. VIP is a publication describing itself as lifestyle. It's method of operation is to take punters in a limo to a posh hotel, entertain them and then publish a feature about them. It was hardly likely to publish a photo of this nature. I have a very good relationship with Brian Shillibeer and he made it clear that it was never his intention to publish this in the Installer. In any case The Installer does not publish this kind of thing. The only publication that might have published was Glass Times which has a gossip column called Rear Window.
Redacted has now admitted that he knew on Monday June 4 that Glass Times had no intention of publishing. As a consequence Redacted knew perfectly well seven days before Redacted wrote his letter that there was no substance to this charge.
This is a very serious matter since if it had resulted in my dismissal and subsequently come to light it could have resulted in massive loss to the company (since any industrial tribunal would, of course, consider the facts). UAP, one of GGP's biggest advertisers, also threatened to cancel its advertising, though I asked the company not to, if the Unity went ahead with the disciplinary procedure.
Unity Media PLC Switchboard Tel: 01732 748000 Switchboard Fax: 01732 748001 Company Registration No: 1529036 VAT No: 347-373636 Registered Office: Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent. TN14 5EJ Place of Registration: England and Wales
Date: 26 June 2007 09:25:21 BDT
To: Redacted
Cc: Redacted
Subject: Appeal
According to the Grievance procedure I have five working days in which to lodge an appeal against the rejection of my Grievance about Redacted failing to inform me about the threat to publish a photo in Glass Times which might damage GGP. This is my formal application to appeal.
Redacted appears to accept the thrust of the argument, he should have informed me, but claims rather strangely that he had no opportunity. I would certainly have made time on Sunday morning if he had raised the subject. He didn't appear to need to rush off and I can't imagine what could have been more important than a potential article damaging GGP.
Redacted also had all the rest of Sunday and most of Monday to phone me or email me. He is well aware of my mobile phone number and knows both my home and work email addresses.
In the Grievance (NOTE: should say disciplinary) procedure initiated by Redacted on June 11 it says that "that several other third parties took their own photographs, threatening to publish within opposition magazines". Evidently this was not true since if more than one magazine was threatening to publish the issue would still have been live after Redacted learnt that Glass Times was not going to publish and he should still have informed me, unless he was aware that those threats were just jokes in which case he should have made Redacted aware that the disciplinary was on erroneous grounds.
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You appealed against the decision of your grievance against Redacted as communicated in the letter by Redacted to you dated 22nd June 2007. That decision was taken following a full and thorough investigation, held in accordance with the company's grievance procedure.
Your appeal hearing was held on Friday 20th July 2007 at 1030 hrs in the presence of Dennis Taylor, Chairman and Sandra Baldock, Minute Taker, on behalf of Unity Media Plc, with yourself, unaccompanied.
I am now writing to confirm the decision taken by Redacted, Company Secretary, on behalf of the company, that his decision, which concluded he could not find sufficient grounds to substantiate your grievance, is upheld for the following reasons;
The matters of concern were:-
That you did not have a grievance against Redacted personally, who you stated was not a professional judge, but that your first grievance was appealing against Redacted's decision which was that he found insufficient grounds to substantiate your claim against Redacted.
I am now writing to confirm your grievance which was that you believe Redacted should have informed you, the following day when you met in the hotel lobby, of the threat to publish a photograph of you in your compromised state, within rival magazines, which Redacted did not do. Therefore, you state, since Redacted believed that an item of this kind would have been detrimental to your publication if it had appeared in rival magazines, you thought it important enough that you should have been made aware of any such conversation so you could take action.
In response, the immediate threat of such a picture appearing had been averted due to Redacted's efforts in his direct communication with Andy Westhead of Glass Times magazine during late afternoon of Sunday 3rd June which was confirmed to Redacted during Monday. As such, any immediate threat had been eliminated from this quarter and Redacted assessed that as the urgent nature had been removed from the situation caused by your conduct, he resolved he would explain this to you face to face later during Monday 4th June in our offices.
However, your hours of work on that day were 0800 hrs until 1400 hrs as emailed by you into the offices. Redacted was not a recipient of your e-message thus, when he had the time to devote to you about this matter and came to see you, you had gone home.
You have now exercised your right of appeal under the company's grievance procedure and this decision is final. Yours sincerely
Dennis Taylor
Chairman
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EI Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
I refer to the grievance meeting which was held on Friday 26th July at 1130 hrs in the presence of Dennis Taylor, Chairman and Sandra Baldock, Minute Taker, on behalf of Unity Media Plc, with yourself, unaccompanied.
The matters of concern were:
That Redacted should have informed Redacted that he knew no compromising article was going to be published within rival magazines on the Monday, so Redacted did not then need to write the second paragraph under 'Statement of Grounds for Commencing Formal Action' in his 11th June 2006 notification letter.
I am now writing to confirm your grievance which you claim was, ".... as Redacted knew by Monday afternoon that rival titles were not going to use the compromising picture taken of you during the dinner event, you believe Redacted should have spoken to you about it during Monday".
In response, Redacted replied he had determined to speak with you face to face in our offices about this matter during Monday after he had attended to other duties and once he had received our assurance by Andy Westhead, during the Monday, that his rival title Glass Times would not publish the offending photograph of you but, by the time he came to your desk to discuss this you had already gone home at 1400 hrs.
Therefore, Redacted followed company procedure and reported the matter of your conduct to his immediate Line Manager, also your superior, our Publisher.
My response to your grievance over Redacted is that as Redacted followed company procedure in this matter I conclude I cannot find sufficient ground to substantiate your grievance Jonathan.
You have the right of appeal against my decision and should you wish to do so, you should write to Redacted, Company Secretary, within 7 days giving full reasons as to why you are dissatisfied with my decision.
Yours sincerely
S Baldock
pp Dennis Taylor
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EI Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing with myself to be held on Tuesday 21st August 2007 at 10.30am, in Dennis Taylor's office, Becket House.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide an explanation for the following matter ofconcern:-
Statement of Grounds for Commencing Formal Action
Disobeying instructions given to you by Dennis Taylor, Chairman, in written communication dated 11th April 2007 whereby Dennis instructed you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from Sam - 5.30pm and only due to exceptional circumstances you may work from homo. Since this letter you have not adhered to Dennis' instruction.
You have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee of your choice or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
It is important that you attend this meeting but if you do not do so without good reason, I have to inform you that a failure to attend will be treated as a breach of a reasonable management instruction and that this failure itself may be added to the matters of concern already under consideration.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for t he allegations made against you, then please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview.
As you know, you are already the subject of an Extended Final Written Warning on your file and if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation to the matters outlined above your employment may be terminated.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter please contact me.
Yours sincerely
S Baldock
pp Redacted
Company Secretary
Unity Media Plc
Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
From Jonathan Brind
August 21, 2007.
I have worked for Unity for about nine years during which time GGP has improved out of all recognition, from a lacklustre publication, drifting in its market, to what everyone accepts is the market leading publication. This has been achieved despite the most ferocious competition of any b2b market: about eight competitor national magazines, regional b2b publications, several email based zines, web sites and company publications of various types (PDF based, printed etc.).
GGP always meets its editorial deadlines. Over the years I have had several pay increases, suggesting there has been some appreciation of my achievements. Yet so far as I know I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the nine years I have been employed by Unity. I have also always worked from home from time to time. No one from the management has ever challenged any of the above, though I have made the same points time after time. What is the purpose of this disciplinary process?
Because of the management's concern about the hours I am working I have done a careful log of my hours for over three months. This reveals that I have been working excessive hours well beyond the 37 1/2 hours a 9-5.30, Monday to Friday working week would imply. On a number of occasions I have taken lieu days off in order to reduce the excessive hours I am working. On the last several occasions this has been greeted by hositility by Redacted. Yet when I have asked him when I should take the time off, he doesn't reply.
Of course my working time is wholly exceptional right now. In January and February I was working seven days a week, sometimes 12 or more hours a day. This is a relatively slack period..
GGP is widely recognised as the best editorial product in the very highly competitive window and glass market. I also obtain more than £50k of sep charge each year (to put that into context this is about the same as HPM which serves a much bigger industry and has a circulation three times the size of GGP's).
The colour sep charge system works so well for GGP because I have been using a software package I personally developed before I came to work for Unity. For a while Redacted arranged for me to have an IBM emulator on my computer at work so that I could do this in the office. When the computers were upgraded to System X this emulator was removed so that the only place I can now do this work is at home. This takes many hours a week, ten or more. In the past Dennis has suggested to me that the main role of the assistant editors on the b2b magazines was to process the sep charges, so ten hours a week is a wholely reasonable time to spend doing this job.Were I to spend 37 1/2 hours in the office, ten hours working at home and further unknown number of hours going to various events (for example at night time), this would be an intolerable burden.
Timekeeping and disciplinary hearings
The following exchange took place at the disciplinary hearing on November 11, 2005
Redacted: .".9-5.30 as do the rest of the staff in this company so..."
Jonathan Brind: "My contract says, now we are getting on to this: In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. I am not going to work at 9 o clock or 9.30 I'm going to do exactly that "In order to allow you to..."
Redacted: "Your contract says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "No it says normal office hours 9-17.30 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Very, very clear. Overtime is not paid. Very clear. I am in charge of my own timetable. I don't have to be here from 9-5.30."
Redacted "I am not a legal person but I will check that out so I'm not going to comment on it, because I absolutely don't know."
Jonathan Brind: "You mean you didn't even check my contract before..."
Redacted: "I did it said 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind. "No it does not, it says. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. and yet you sent out this letter which says: You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing number one timekeeping."
Redacted: "Absolutely."
Jonathan Brind: "You didn't even check my contract?"
Redacted: "It says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "It doesn't I have read it to you at least twice."
Redacted: "I will now check with our legal department what that means."
Jonathan Brind: "You are going to check."
The timekeeping issue was raised again at a disciplinary meeting on November 28, 2005.
I presented a paper which said the following:
General
"I love the magazine (GGP). I love what it does. I love the way it is and looks and everything else," Redacted on November 11, 2005.
Jonathan Brind: "We have intense competition, unlike RCI, which is largely a monopoly with no serious competition. We have ten other magazines yet even with that competition we meet the deadlines, we produce far more pages per person...
Redacted: "..I'm not questioning any of that."
Jonathan Brind: "and we have a very good reputation in the market."
Redacted: "I'm not questioning that."
Jonathan Brind: "and when people like Emap do surveys they find we are top. When the Epwin Group do surveys among fabricators they find we are top."
* Timekeeping (9am - 5.30pm) '
My contract of employment says:
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
So I determine my own working hours and benefit from the fact that back up is available from the office 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday. It is very hard to see how any other reading of this is possible. I do not believe that in nine years working for Unity I have ever worked 9-5.30 once. If you think it simply means I have to work 9-5.30 what do you think "you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings (presumably deadlines) dictate" means? How could overtime not be paid and there be no mechanism for me taking compensatory time off during the normal working week? Surely there has to be some give and take?
You didn't make a very convincing attempt to explain what this meant in your letter of May 3, 2007. You said: "Please note your contract states that your normal office hours are 9:00 -1730 Monday to Friday prevail. This means that you have to be working at this time in the office. It states that in order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines, you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid. This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home."
It is very difficult to work out what you mean by this, since you don't appear to explain what should happen if, as often happens I have to work excessively long hours on a job. Am I supposed to be prepared to work any number of hours, 24 perhaps, and then come into the office simply to sit at my desk? That would hardly be applying my hours to cope as timings dictate.
It is established custom and practice that I attend the office at hours designed by me to ensure that the magazine is of the highest possible quality and produced in a way which meets its deadlines. According to Lisa GGP is exemplary in this respect. From one of Redacted's emails (following) it seems GGP is certainly unusual in meeting deadlines!
From: "Redacted"
Subject: Copy Deadlines leading up to Christmas
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:24:47 +0100
Hi All
Its that time again, believe it or not, where we are leading up to Christmas and where I start getting very scared of our magazines not being on schedule and repeating the situation of a couple of years ago when December was the worst time I've had in my life.
I had a word with Ian D-J this morning and it looks as though most magazines are behind schedule - some worse than others. On top of the fact that Christmas is coming and we close down for 10 days, we have also got the situation that we are now using in-house Repro. I won't go over it all again but being late really does have a bad impact on the Repro department so could everyone please just make sure that we stay on schedule, so we can all have a nice time leading up to Christmas.
Thanks
Redacted
Unity Media Plc
And as for the quality achieved I cite no higher authority than Redacted who at a meeting with me on November 11 said: "GGP's a good mag and you do a good job about getting the magazine out."
My colleague Mike Pinkney presumably has the same contract as me and goes for months without ever attending the office at any time between 0900 to 1730 Monday-Friday, let alone the full day. I know he takes advantage of the fact that the office is open 9-5.30, using the facilaties available, but he clearly doesn't feel it necessary to be there all the time.
To take disciplinary action against me for poor timekeeping would in these circumstances be perverse.
I presume Redacted was as good as his word when he said on November 11, 2005, that he would seek legal advice about the meaning of my contract. The fact that the disciplinary hearing of November 21, 2005, resulted in no action (I was not given a warning for poor timekeeping) very strongly suggests that if he did get legal advice it backed my interpretation of my contract, since I have not attended the office 9-5.30 on any day since November 21, 2005.
On the other hand it would be grossly unfair if Redacted had got legal advice that I was required to be at the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday and then failed to pass this information on to me. .
The instruction
This is what Dennis said in the letter dated April 11, 2007. "I am instructing you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from 9am-5.30pm." Since I have never come into the office between 9 and 5.30 how could I resume it? However, let's suppose what he meant was that he wanted me to start attending the office 9-5.30, Monday to Friday. In that case the instruction is itself evidence that the company does not believe I am contractually required to work 9-5.30 Monday to Friday. The fact that Unity felt it necessary to issue the instruction fatally undermines the company's case.
It makes sense for me to work in an appropriate way taking into account the needs of the magazine. This is why I was given a contract that makes it clear that meeting deadlines is more important than being in the office.
Ambassador
In Dennis's letter of April 20, 2007, he says: "We are now being overtaken as a magazine by Windows Active in the editorial arena whose Editor, John Cowie, not only enjoys high profile face-2-face recognition but is also seen as an Ambassador for his publication.This is our market feedback Jonathan, which your ad department have to contend with." It is hard to see how I could be an ambassador for the magazine if I was in the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday.
Why not propose a change to my contract?
Of course this disciplinary action is completely unnecesary. The magazine is performing extremely well. I do my job in an exemplary fashion. All the relevant deadlines are always met. There is no crisis. However, if for any reason you need me to be in the office between 9 and 5.30 why not suggest an alteration to my contract. I would be delighted to talk to you about it.
At the disciplinary meeting on May 14 you told me that the company's objective was to strengthen my contract. When I asked how you could strengthen something without changing it, you were unable to suggest a mechanism. Of course there is no way you can strengthen something without changing it.
Since you have already acknowledged that what the company is seeking to do is change my contract it would be completely perverse for you to continue with this disciplinary procedure.
Jonathan Brind
Private and Confidential
Jonathan Brind
519 Lea Bridge Road
London
E10 7EB
Dear Jonathan
I refer to the disciplinary hearing held on 21st August 2007. At this meeting, in addition to the stated matter of concern, we went on to discuss issues which were not part of the original matters of concern. Having considered the situation we now wish to express our formal concern over these issues and discuss them with you more fully in a formal disciplinary meeting.
To this end, the disciplinary hearing will be reconvened and held on Thursday 3Qth August 2007 at 9.30am in Dennis Taylor's Office, Becket House.
The original matter of concern being:
Disobeying instructions given to you by Dennis Taylor, Chairman, in written communication dated llth April 2007 whereby Dennis instructed you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from 9am - 5.30pm and only due to exceptional circumstances you may work from home. Since this letter you have not adhered to Dennis' instruction.
The further matter of concern we wish to discuss is^
That you took unauthorised lieu days on the 7 June 2007, 8 June 2007, 29 June 2007, 4 July 2007, 5 July 2007, 16 July 2007, despite the company's refusal to authorise these days off.
I would remind you that you have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade union official, and should you wish to exercise this right then, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements.
You should be aware that the requirement for you to attend this disciplinary hearing in works time, during which time you will be paid, is deemed by the company to be a perfectly reasonable management instruction in line with our contractual disciplinary procedure. Hence, if you fail to attend without notification, or fail to attend without good reason, you are warned (forewarned) that this will be treated as an act of misconduct for failure to obey a reasonable management instruction. This in itself would then be the subject of a subsequent disciplinary hearing for misconduct over and above the issues set out above in this letter.
However, should you wish to contact any employee who you feel could assist you in preparing an explanation for the allegations made against you then, please contact me in order that arrangements can be made for them to be available for interview by the Company.
As you already have a current Extended Final Written Warning on your file, if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the matters outlined above, your employment may be terminated.
If you have any queries regarding the contents of this letter then it is important that you contact me.
Yours sincerely
Redacted
Company Secretary
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, KentTN14 5EI Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com
Registered in England No 1529036
From Jonathan Brind
August 30, 2007.
Private & confidential
In your letter of August 23 you say that we went on to discuss issues in addition to the stated matter at the disciplinary hearing on August 21. The further matter of concern, you say, was the alleged unauthorised lieu days. I would point out that since this is a reconvened disciplinary hearing I was not notified that this matter was going to be raised prior to the disciplinary hearing starting making it inadmissible. Also far from this being an additional matter of concern it was the first issue you raised on August 21.
This is the 13th disciplinary hearing (including three appeals and two reconvened hearings) I have attended since November 11, 2005, when this harassment campaign against me began. Each meeting has taken me many hours to prepare for and has also taken a toll on my physical and mental well being.
My job is extremely demanding and from January to March each year I tend to work 12 hour days and to work seven days a week. During the last 15 weeks, a relatively quiet period, I have been logging my hours. This has revealed I have worked at least an excess of 50 hours over and above the 562 and a half hours a Monday to Friday, 9-5.30, working week would imply over those 15 weeks.
My working log does not take into account many of the hours that I do in fact work because in addition to the disciplinary hearings, the company has come up with a bewildering number of instructions (I can not read Google alerts sent to me at home, I can not work after 5.30 at home, I should spend about 50% of my hours in the office, I can not read rival publications except in the office, etc. etc.).
All of this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In other words torture. I was given a final written warning in September 2006 and an extended final written warning in May 2007. Yet despite all these warnings the issue of timekeeping has never changed. The first item on the top of the agenda for the first disciplinary on November 11, 2005, was timekeeping. Since then I have continued to work the flexible hours agreed when I joined the company. I have been working to my contract. If management genuinely believed it had a case then I would have been dismissed long ago. After all I have been on a final written warning for a year. The extended final warning I am currently under is so rare that I can only find one reference to the phrase in Google (see attached).
So far as I am aware I am the only person in the company providing extensive details of my appointments and working hours. Some while back many members of staff were filling out forms and putting them on the walls but this practice seems to have petered out. I am probably the only Unity employee who continues to do it rigorously.
Even my colleagues who work almost exclusively from home (Mike Pinkney & Davinia Gill) have not been given the same bewildering farrago of instructions.
Yet nine years ago when I joined Unity Dennis made it clear that he expected me to produce a good product and meet deadlines and he was not concerned about whether I happened to be in the office or not. Mike Pinkney has told me that he was given the same understanding. Nine years ago many b2b editors worked under similar arrangements. It was industry standard.
I have produced a good product and met deadlines, and the company never disputes this, despite 13 disciplinary hearings and much correspondence. I am honouring my side of the contract.
Days off in lieu
At the disciplinary hearing on May 14, 2007, you said that if there was a problem with my hours (i.e. I was working too many hours) I should be "stating the problem and having agreed times" (presumably taking time off or working reduced hours). On a number of occasions I emailed my line manager Redacted suggesting when it would be convenient for me to have days off in lieu. At first he demurred but when I pointed out that it would be a lot less convenient for me to take the time off closer to deadline he did not reply.
On 7 Jun 2007, at 10:24, Redacted wrote:
Jonathan
Any lieu days within Unity Media are discussed and authorised and the correct paperwork produced which is our standard procedure.
I do not need my memory jogging by you as I am the person who authorises these lieu days.
You have never, ever requested a lieu day to myself nor do we have any paperwork. Enough of these semantics Jonathan. Redacted
Despite my asking Redacted on several occasions if he would address the issue of my working excessive hours (June 12, 2007 & June 12, 2007 emails, for example) at no time has he come up with a remedy. Under those circumstances it is difficult to see on what grounds the company could object to my continuing to take off lieu days on the same basis that I have for the last nine years.
Dennis certainly accepts that there are circumstances in which I might take lieu days:
GGP always meets its editorial deadlines. Over the years I have had several pay increases, suggesting there has been some appreciation of my achievements. Yet so far as I know I have never worked 9-5.30 on one single day in the nine years I have been employed by Unity. I have also always worked from home from time to time. No one from the management has ever challenged any of the above, though I have made the same points time after time. What is the purpose of this disciplinary process?
Because of the management's concern about the hours I am working I have done a careful log of my hours for over three months. This reveals that I have been working excessive hours well beyond the 37 1/2 hours a 9-5.30, Monday to Friday working week would imply. On a number of occasions I have taken lieu days off in order to reduce the excessive hours I am working. On the last several occasions this has been greeted by hostility by Redacted. Yet when I have asked him when I should take the time off, he doesn't reply.
Of course my working time is wholly exceptional right now. In January and February I was working seven days a week, sometimes 12 or more hours a day. This is a relatively slack period..
I obtain more than £50k of sep charge each year (to put that into context this is about the same as HPM which serves a much bigger industry and has a circulation three times the size of GGP).
The colour sep charge system works so well for GGP because I have been using a software package I personally developed before I came to work for Unity. For a while Redacted arranged for me to have an IBM emulator on my computer at work so that I could do this in the office. When the computers were upgraded to System X some years ago this emulator was removed so that the only place I can now do this work is at home. This takes many hours a week, ten or more. In the past Dennis has suggested to me that the main role of the assistant editors on the b2b magazines was to process the sep charges, so ten hours a week is a wholly reasonable time to spend doing this job.Were I to spend 37 1/2 hours in the office, ten hours working at home and further unknown number of hours going to various events (for example at night time), this would be an intolerable burden and it is certainly not the contractual obligation I undertook nine years ago.
Timekeeping and disciplinary hearings
The following exchange took place at the disciplinary hearing on November 11, 2005
Redacted: .".9-5.30 as do the rest of the staff in this company so..."
Jonathan Brind: "My contract says, now we are getting on to this: In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. I am not going to work at 9 o clock or 9.30 I'm going to do exactly that "In order to allow you to..."
Redacted: "Your contract says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "No it says normal office hours 9-17.30 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Very, very clear. Overtime is not paid. Very clear. I am in charge of my own timetable. I don't have to be here from 9-5.30."
Redacted: "I am not a legal person but I will check that out so I'm not going to comment on it, because I absolutely don't know."
Jonathan Brind: "You mean you didn't even check my contract before..."
Redacted: "I did it said 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "No it does not, it says. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. and yet you sent out this letter which says: You are required to attend a disciplinary hearing number one timekeeping."
Redacted: "Absolutely."
Jonathan Brind: "You didn't even check my contract?"
Redacted: "It says 9-5.30."
Jonathan Brind: "It doesn't I have read it to you at least twice."
Redacted: "I will now check with our legal department what that means."
Jonathan Brind: "You are going to check."
Date: 14 October 2005 13:03:41 BDT
To: "Ariane Blok"
Cc: "Jonathan Brind"
Hi
There have been a number of occasions where you have been going out to Sainsburys to get your lunch before 1pm - for example today when I was leaving the office at 11.40am you were just coming back with a Sainsburys bag in your hand. I just wanted to remind you that everybody takes their lunch break between 1pm - 2pm, if you could please stick to these timings in the future.
Thanks
Redacted
My contract of employment says:
Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid.
You didn't make a very convincing attempt to explain what this meant in your letter of May 3, 2007. You said: "Please note your contract states that your normal office hours are 9:00 -1730 Monday to Friday prevail. This means that you have to be working at this time in the office. It states that in order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines, you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid. This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home."
It is very difficult to work out what you mean by this, since you don't appear to explain what should happen if, as often happens I have to work excessively long hours on a job. Am I supposed to work any number of hours, 24 perhaps, and then come into the office simply to sit at my desk? That would hardly be applying my hours to cope as timings dictate. Also contrary to your assertion my contract does not mention going straight to appointments.
It is established custom and practice that I attend the office at hours designed by me to ensure that the magazine is of the highest possible quality and produced in a way which meets its deadlines. According to Lisa GGP is exemplary in this respect. From one of Redacted's emails (following) it seems GGP is certainly unusual in meeting deadlines!
Subject: Copy Deadlines leading up to Christmas
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:24:47 +0100
Hi All
Its that time again, believe it or not, where we are leading up to Christmas and where I start getting very scared of our magazines not being on schedule and repeating the situation of a couple of years ago when December was the worst time I've had in my life.
I had a word with Ian D-J this morning and it looks as though most magazines are behind schedule - some worse than others. On top of the fact that Christmas is coming and we close down for 10 days, we have also got the situation that we are now using in-house Repro. I won't go over it all again but being late really does have a bad impact on the Repro department so could everyone please just make sure that we stay on schedule, so we can all have a nice time leading up to Christmas.
Thanks
Redacted
Unity Media Plc
I presume Redacted was as good as his word when he said on November 11, 2005, that he would seek legal advice about the meaning of my contract. The fact that the disciplinary hearing of November 21, 2005, resulted in no action (I was not given a warning for poor timekeeping) very strongly suggests that if he did get legal advice it backed my interpretation of my contract, since I did not attend the office 9-5.30 on any day in the intervening period.
On the other hand it would be grossly unfair if Redacted had got legal advice that I was required to be at the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday and then failed to pass this information on to me.
The instruction
This is what Dennis said in the letter dated April 11, 2007. "I am instructing you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis from 9am-5.30pm." Since I have never come into the office between 9 and 5.30 how could I resume it? However, let's suppose what he meant was that he wanted me to start attending the office 9-5.30, Monday to Friday. In that case the instruction is itself evidence that the company does not believe I am contractually required to work 9-5.30 Monday to Friday. The fact that Unity felt it necessary to issue the instruction fatally undermines the company's case.
It makes sense for me to work in an appropriate way taking into account the needs of the magazine. This is why I was given a contract that makes it clear that meeting deadlines is more important than being in the office.
If this is all office politics rather than a genuine attempt to force a wayward employee into line, what could possibly be the motivation? About two years ago I believe the advertising director started to work on the ambition of becoming publisher of the b2b magazines.
I believe he saw me as an impediment to getting this job and that he has pursued a ruthless campaign against me for two years. The latest issue of Fensa News appears to confirm my suspicion since Redacted has been replaced as publisher by my colleague Redacted.
I think the motivation is that GGP remains an editorially driven product unlike at least one magazine in the field whose editor has frequently said that what he is doing is vanity publishing, in other words simply sucking up to the advertisers.
Put crudely the motivation behind this harassment campaign is to wrest editorial control from the editorial department and give it to the advertising director.
He wants a younger, more compliant editor who will smile sweetly at the advertisers and print the press releases.
GGP is now a very commercially savvy publication. But I believe that everyone in the industry who knows the publication will say that it has editorial integrity.
Ambassador
In Dennis's letter of April 20, 2007, he says: "We are now being overtaken as a magazine by Windows Active in the editorial arena whose Editor, John Cowie, not only enjoys high profile face-2-face recognition but is also seen as an Ambassador for his publication.This is our market feedback Jonathan, which your ad department have to contend with." It is hard to see how I could be an ambassador for the magazine if I was in the office 9-5.30 Monday to Friday.
Why not propose a change to my contract?
Of course this disciplinary action is completely unnecessary. The magazine is performing extremely well. I do my job in an exemplary fashion. All the relevant deadlines are always met. There is no crisis. However, if for any reason you need me to be in the office between 9 and 5.30 why not suggest an alteration to my contract. I would be delighted to talk to you about it.
Daily Hazard, n74 p1, May 2002
In what lawyers are saying is a landmark case, Connex South Eastern were ordered by Croydon Employment Tribunal to pay £55,000 damages to Laurie Holden, an ASLEF safety representative. The Tribunal found that Connex was more interested in their public image and cost saving than the safety of the public and its workers.
Laurie, a train driver with over 20 years experience and a safety rep for seven years, resigned after he was bullied out of his job for raising concerns about rail and worker safety. The Chair of the Tribunal said: "Such conduct was found by the Tribunal to have constituted a sustained campaign against Mr Holden." Laurie's health has suffered under the stress of his working environment and subsequently the Tribunal.
Laurie's main concern was the relationship between reduced driver training, long hours culture and the increase in Signals Passed at Danger (SPADs). New driver training had been slashed from a minimum of 390 to 225 hours. He had reports of drivers falling asleep at the wheel on the busiest rail network in Europe and of them working 11 hour shifts without adequate rest breaks. He questioned the superficial and secretive investigations into SPADs and argued the link between fatigue and SPADs was being covered up by the company both internally and externally.
In addition he dealt with mundane, although no less important, safety rep issues such as unsafe walkways, unsuitable seating, smoking policy. And his duties covered potentially disastrous issues including concerns for a potential roof collapse in the Sevenoaks Tunnel. Eventually after Laurie's warnings were ignored by Connex, this happened: a train was severely damaged and major repairs needed to the tunnel.
Paying lip service
Connex continually refused to recognise, or paid lip-service, to Laurie's rights as a safety representative under law. He continually requested a copy of Connex's risk assessment on the changes to driver shift patterns before they were introduced in 1997. Risk assessments are required under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and safety reps should be consulted in good time before changes are made. This is a requirement of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 which also give safety representatives the right to have copies of relevant documents.
Connex withheld the risk assessment for years, only disclosing it shortly before the Tribunal hearing in November 2001.
Laurie surveyed his members about their safety concerns and published the results along with his evidence about the rise in SPADs. He gave copies of the report to Connex as well as giving them to his members and the railway safety inspectorate.
Connex management were unhappy with this and threatened disciplinary action.
The Tribunal heard that these safety concerns were ignored by Connex who did nothing to investigate them. A disciplinary hearing was ruled a kangaroo court with no proper investigations or findings and was designed to shut Laurie up. Connex SE misused their Managing For Attendance (sickness) Procedures in that Mr Holden was kept on an extended Final Warning. Connex gave Mr Holden disciplinary charges for minor incidents which reached the 'ridiculous' stage of having 6 to 7 final warnings outstanding against him. The company put pressure on Mr Holden to leave and their conduct was such that Mr Holden was entitled to treat his contract of employment as fundamentally broken.
The damning summing up of Laurie's barrister says it all: 'It is submitted that this case involves victimisation on a scandalous level forcing resignation of an extremely long- serving employee who held the best interests of railway users at his heart. Ultimately, it was his dedication and commitment to railway safety that brought about the victimisation.' The award to Laurie included £18,000 for aggravated damages and injury to feelings. Laurie's solicitor, Paul Maynard, said this was the first time this had ever been given in an unfair dismissal case. The claims against Connex were made under the whistleblower legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1999 as well as the Employment Rights Act 1996. Connex are reported to have indicated they will not appeal against the ruling.
Laurie says: "I hope this will act as a warning to all those companies that ignore basic health and safety principles. Even if you are not interested your staff and customers your shareholders may start asking awkward questions."
DTI guidance on disciplinary procedure says: "You must prepare a statement setting out what the employee has done...You do not have to put all the details of the employee's conduct in the written statement. But if you don't, the details must be explained to him or her before the hearing, so there is time for him or her to consider a response. The law does not allow you only to present this information at the hearing."
| Hours logged | Disputed hours | ||
| Tuesday May 15 |
I went to Tring to see Vast PR, a visit requested by my advertising manager. This proved a difficult place to get to. I left at about 9 a.m. and didn't get home until after 6 p.m. (total at least nine hours) | 9 | 0 |
| Wednesday May 16-Friday May 17 | I worked from home from about 7 a.m. till 2 p.m. when I left to go to the airport. (total seven hours but I probably took a couple of hours off for meals, perhaps five hours). I left for Gatwick Airpor t at 2 pm and only got there by the skin of my teeth since there were long queues to get through security. I stayed in Italy until Friday evening, getting back home at about 9 pm (total 55 hours)). Two shor t sleep break (total 14 hours). | 55 | 14 |
| Monday May 21 |
I arrived at the office at a few minutes after 8 and stayed until about 2.15. I took my half hour statutory break from 2.15-2.45 so total 6 1/2 hours. I then re- turned home but since the equipment at work had proved inadequate I used my own much better equip- ment to prepare a proof I could send to Mike Crewdson. Mike sent me an email back and I worked on the page again, returning the completed work at 21:52. Probably four hours work. Total for the day 10 hours. | 10 | 0 |
| Weekly total May 15-May 21 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 22.5 |
74 | 14 | |
| Tuesday May 22 |
Delayed getting into work by jam caused by crash in Blackwall tunnel. Arrived at 9 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. I in- tended to be there. So I worked an extra hour in the of- fice to give me the chance to finish the pages I needed to finish. Total 6 hours. Then worked from home updat- ing the seps database in the evening (two hours). Total for the day 8 hours. | 8 | 0 |
| Wednesday May 23 |
Working from home making up and sending pages, co- ordinating with freelances 6.45 a.m. to 11 a.m. From 11 a.m. to central London for sustainable housing confer- ence. Return home 3.30 p.m. Total 8.45. Took some time off. Worked again from 6.30-10.30 processing and mak- ing up pages, and on my seps database. Probably now going to run a long way over permitted hours but this morning Natalie told me the advertising department would finish selling on Friday so I had to get my skates on to make sure the magazine was completed. Total for day 10.45 | 10.45 | 0 |
| Thursday May 24 |
Received email from AFPR at 6.30 replied by 6.52, used picture she sent to prepare material. Did about half an hour's work. Travelled to office. For once relatively light traffic. Got there before 8 a.m. Worked till about 2.15 pm. Returned home urgent need to get Iain McInnes feature on Promac and For.El processed so that I could send to him for approval. Worked from about 6 pm till 10pm (4 hours). Total for day 10:45. | 10.45 | 0 |
| Friday May 25 |
Working in office 8a.m. to 2pm. Six hours | 6 | 0 |
| Monday May 28 |
bank holiday (7.5 hours). Plus Monday Mike Crewdson emailed emergency changes to his spread. Two hours of messing about before agreed. (9 hours 30 mins) | 9.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total May 22-May 28 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 9.30 |
47 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-May 28 Hours worked in excess of 75 hour fortnight, at least 32 |
121 | 14 | |
| Tuesday May 29 |
Office 8a.m. till 2pm (total 6 hours) | 6 | 0 |
| Wednesday May 30 |
Home 7 a.m. to 9a.m. Preparing July sep charge fax mailing by making entries in database. Also producing June lists of sep charges for circulation and accounts. Office 10.15 till 4pm. (Total 7.45 hours) | 7.45 | 0 |
| Thursday May 31 |
In office 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (6 hours). Working on sep charge database at home 6p.m. till 8p.m. (2 hours) (Total 8 hours) | 8 | 0 |
| Friday June 1 |
Day off in lieu because of excessive hours worked | 0 | 0 |
| Sat June 2 Sun June 3 |
Leave home at 10 a.m. for Network Veka agm Coventry. 4pm leave Network Veka agm for UAP event Bolton. Stay over night leaving at about 11 a.m. Sunday. Return home 4 p.m. (Total 30 hours). Sleeping time 9 hours. | 30 | 9 |
| Monday June 4 |
In office 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (6 hours). Working on sep charge database at home 6p.m. till 8p.m. (2 hours) (Total 8 hours) | 8 | 0 |
| Weekly total May 29-June 4 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 20 hours 15 minutes |
59.45 | 9 | |
| Running total May 15-June 4 Hours worked in excess of 112.5 hour three week, at least 45 hours 15 minutes | 180.45 | 23 | |
| Tuesday June 5 |
Office 8a.m. to 2pm (6 hours). Working on sep charge database and replying to text message from Redacted at home 4pm to 6pm. (2 hours) Total 8 hours). | 8 | 0 |
| Wednesday June 6 |
Working from home 8 a.m. till 11 a.m. ( 3 hours). See WHS central London 11a.m. till 4pm. (5 hours). Working from home 4pm till 8pm (4 hours). Total 12 hours). | 12 | 0 |
| Thursday June 7 Friday June 8 |
Days off in lieu of working excessive hours. | 0 | 0 |
| Monday June 11 |
Office 8 till 2. Working on sep charges 8pm till 10 pm. (Total 8 hours). | 8 | 0 |
| Weekly total June 5-June 11 Hours worked compared to 37.5 hour week, 9 hours 30 minutes less |
28 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-June 11 Hours worked in excess of 150 hour four week, at least 35 hours 45 minutes | 208.45 | 23 | |
| Tuesday June 12 |
Office 8.15 till 2.15 (6 hours). Working on response to disciplinary hearing notice 3 pm till 6 pm (total 9 hours). | 9 | 3 |
| Wednesday June 13 |
Office 8 till 2 (6 hours). | 6 | 0 |
| Thursday June 14 |
Working at home producing pages. 8a.m. to 9.30. To Pilks even central London 9.30 to 2.30pm. Continue working on pages 4pm till 10pm (total 11 hours). | 11 | 0 |
| Friday June 15 |
In office 8 till 2 (six hours). | 6 | 0 |
| Monday June 18 |
In office 8.10 a.m. till 2.10 p.m. (6 hours). Working from home on sep charge database 5pm till 8 pm (3 hours). Total 9 hours. | 9 | 0 |
| Weekly total June 11-June 18 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 30 minutes |
41 | 3 | |
| Running total May 15-June 18 Hours worked in excess of 187 hours 30 minute for five weeks, at least 36 hours 15 minutes | 249.45 | 26 | |
| Tuesday June 19 |
In office 8.30 till 2.30pm, held up by traffic. Total 6 hours. | 6 | 0 |
| Wednesday June 20 |
In office 8.15 till 2.15, held up by traffic. Total 6 hours. | 6 | 0 |
| Thursday June 21 |
In office 9.15 till 2.15 (spent two hours in traffic). Total 5 hours. | 5 | 0 |
| Friday June 22-Saturday June 23 | To Avocet 8 a.m. till 4 pm Saturday (total 32 hours). Disputed rest time, seven hours spent sleeping at hotel. | 32 | 7 |
| Monday June 25 |
Working at home 9 a.m. till 11. To GGF 11-2.30 working from home till 9 pm. (total 12 hours). | 12 | 0 |
| Weekly total June 19-June 25 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 16 hours 30 minutes |
61 | 7 | |
| Running total May 15-June 25 Hours worked in excess of 225 hours for six weeks, at least 52 hours 45 minutes | 310.45 | 33 | |
| Tuesday June 26 |
Working at office 8.30 till 12.15. Then to Ultraframe, see Mark Hanson until midnight. | 15.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday June 27 |
Reading agenda and papers then driving to Ultraframe, see Rebecca Mayhew at 9a.m. then attend Ultraframe Fabricators Day. Return London 9.30 pm. | 14.30 | 0 |
| Thursday June 28 |
Working at home 7 a.m. till 10.30. To Glass façade until 3pm. Working from home till 9.30 pm. (total 14 hours 30 minutes.). | 14.30 | 0 |
| Friday June 29 |
Day off in lieu of excessive hours worked. | 0 | 0 |
| Monday July 2 |
Working at office 8.30 a.m. till 1.15pm. (total 4 hours). Working on sep charges 2.30-4.30. Then travel to Hammersmith see Norman Setra, Advantage till 9pm (6 1/2 hours). | 10.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total June 26-July 2 Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hour week, at least 17 hours 30 minutes |
55 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-July 2 Hours worked in excess of 262 hours 30 minutes for seven weeks, at least 70.15 hours | 365.45 | 33 | |
| Tuesday July 3 |
Working at office 9 a.m. till 3pm. (total 6 hours). Working on sep charges 4-6 (total 8 hours). | 8 | 0 |
| Wednesday July 4 |
Day off in lieu of working excessive hours. | 0 | 0 |
| Thursday July 5 |
Day off in lieu of working excessive hours. | 0 | 0 |
| Friday July 6 |
In office 8.30 till 12.45. Then drive to Alumet, Southam, Warwickshire, for event. Return London 8pm. Total 11.30. | 11.30 | 0 |
| Monday July 9 |
Working from home 8 a.m. till 9 a.m. Then drive to Watford for Pilks event. Return home 6 p.m. Upload images and recordings till about 7.30. Total 11.30. | 11.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 3-July 9 Hours worked in excess of 31 hours. 6.5 hours less than 37.5 hour week. |
31 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-July 9 Hours worked in excess of 300 hours for eight weeks, at least 63.45 hours. | 396.45 | 33 | |
| Tuesday July 10 |
Leave for SWA event central London at 7a.m. Return from SWA getting home at noon. Work from home till 5 Total 10 hours. | 10 | 0 |
| Wednesday July 11 |
Work from home from 9 till 10.45. Then travel to Eastbourne to see Martin James. Return 6pm. Total 9 hours. | 9 | 0 |
| Thursday July 12 |
Leave for Edgetech launch Coventry at 9, returning home at 6pm. Total 9 hours. | 9 | 0 |
| Friday July 13 |
Working in office 8.45 till 1.15. | 4.30 | 0 |
| Monday July 16 |
Day off in lieu of working excessive hours. | 0 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 10-July 16 Worked 32 hours 30 mins. 5 hours less than 37.5 hour week. |
32.30 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-July 16 Hours worked in excess of 337 hours 30 mins for nine weeks, at least 58 hours 45 mins. | 429.15 | 33 | |
| Tuesday July 17 |
To Plastmo 8 a.m. till 3.30 p.m. Working from home 3.30 till 5.30. Total 9 hours 30 mins. | 9.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday July 18 |
Working from home 9 till 2. Then travel to Glassex event central London. Then PIGS. Return home 9pm. Total 12 hours. | 12 | 0 |
| Thursday July 19 |
In office 8.45 till 1. Total 4 hours 15 minutes. | 4.15 | 0 |
| Friday July 20 |
In office 8.45 till 1. Total 4 hours 15 minutes. | 4.15 | 0 |
| Monday July 23 |
In office 8.45 till 2. Total 5 hours 15 minutes. | 5.15 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 17-July 23 Worked 35 hours 15 mins. 2 hours 15 minutes less than 37.5 hour week. |
35.15 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-July 23 Hours worked in excess of 375 hours for ten weeks, at least 56 hours 30 mins. | 464.30 | 33 | |
| Tuesday July 24 |
Working from home 8 a.m. till 2.30. Then to hospital for appointment.Total 6 hours 30 minutes. | 6.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday July 25 |
In office 8 till 1. Working from home on sep charges 3-5.30. Total 7 hours 30 minutes. | 7.30 | 0 |
| Thursday July 26 |
In office 10 till 1. Total 3 hours. | 3 | 0 |
| Friday July 27 |
Leave to see John Austen 8 a.m. Stay till 1ish. In office 2 till 3. Total 7 hours. | 7 | 0 |
| Monday July 30 |
In office 8.30 till 1. Working from home on sep charges 3-5.30. Total 7 hours. | 7 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 24-July 30 Worked 31 hours. 6 hours 30 minutes less than 37.5 hour week. |
31 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-July 30 Hours worked in excess of 412 hours 30 minutes for eleven weeks, at least 50 hours. | 495.30 | 33 | |
| Tuesday July 31 |
In office 8.30 till 1.30. Working from home on sep charges 2.30-5.30. Total 8 hours. | 8 | 0 |
| Wednesday August 1 |
In office 8.30 till 2. Working from home on sep charges 3-5.30. Total 8 hours. | 8 | 0 |
| Thursday August 2 |
In office 9 till 2. Working from home on sep charges 4-5.30. Total 7.30 hours. | 7.30 | 0 |
| Friday August 3 |
In office 8.30 till 1. Working from home 2-5.30. Total 8 hours. | 8 | 0 |
| Monday August 6 |
Holiday | 7.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 31-August 6 Worked 38 hours. 30 minutes more than 37.5 hour week. |
38 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-August 6 Hours worked in excess of 450 hours for twelve weeks, at least 50 hours 30 mins. | 533.30 | 33 | |
| Tuesday August 7 |
Holiday | 7.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday August 8 |
Holiday | 7.30 | 0 |
| Thursday August 9 |
Holiday | 7.30 | 0 |
| Friday August 10 |
Holiday | 7.30 | 0 |
| Monday August 13 |
In office 8-2. Working from home 3-5.30. | 8.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total July 31-August 13 Worked 38 hours 30 mins. 1 hour more han 37.5 hour week. |
38.30 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-August 13 Hours worked in excess of 487.5 hours for thirteen weeks, at least 51 hours 30 mins. | 572 | 33 | |
| Tuesday August 14 |
In office 8.15 till 12.15. Working from home 1.15-5.30. Total 8:15. | 8.15 | 0 |
| Wednesday August 15 |
In office 8-12. Working from home 1-5.30. Total 8.30. | 8.30 | 0 |
| Thursday August 16 |
Working from home 9-9.30. Attend Swish event 9.30 till 2.30. Working from home 2.30 till 5.30. Total 8.30. | 8.30 | 0 |
| Friday August 17 |
In office 9.30-2. Working from home 3.30-5.30. Total 6 hours 30 minutes. | 6.30 | 0 |
| Monday August 20 |
In office 9-1. Working from home 3-5.30. Total 6 hours 30 minutes. | 6.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total August 14-20 Worked 38 hours 30 mins. 45 minutes more han 37.5 hour week. |
38.15 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-August 20 Hours worked in excess of 525 hours for fourteen weeks, at least 52 hours 15 mins. | 610.15 | 33 | |
| Tuesday August 21 |
In office 7.45 till 12. See Frances Ross, central London. Return home 4.45pm. Working from home 4.45 till 5.30. Total 9 hours 30 minutes. | 9.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday August 22 |
In office 8.15 till 12.15. Working from home 2.15 till 5.30. Total 7 hours 15 minutes. | 7.15 | 0 |
| Thursday August 23 |
In office 8 till 12.15. Total 4 hours 15 minutes. Working from home 3-5.30. | 6.45 | 0 |
| Friday August 24 |
In office 10.45 till 3. Total 4 hours 15 minutes. | 4.15 | 0 |
| Monday August 27 |
Bank holiday. | 7.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total August 21-27 Worked 35 hours 30 mins. Two hours less than 37.5 hour week. |
35.30 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-August 27. Hours worked in excess of 562 hours 30 minutes for fifteen weeks, at least 50 hours 15 mins. | 645.45 | 33 | |
| Tuesday August 28 |
Compassionate leave. Day off to attend my brother's funeral. | 7.30 | 0 |
| Wednesday August 29 |
In office 8 a.m. till noon. Working from home 3-5.30. Total 6 hours 30 minutes. | 6.30 | 0 |
| Thursday August 30 |
In office 8.30 a.m. till 1pm. Working from home 3-5.30. Total 7 hours. | 7 | 0 |
| Monday September 3 |
Working from home 9a.m. till 1.30pm. Travelling to Waterloo for Brussels trains. Check into hotel at 7pm (8pm Brussels time). Total 10 hours | 10 | 0 |
| Weekly total August 28-Sept 3 Worked 40 hours 30 mins. Three hours more than 37.5 hour week. |
40.30 | 0 | |
| Running total May 15-Sept 3 Hours worked in excess of 600 hours for sixteen weeks, at least 53 hours 15 mins | 686.15 | 33 | |
| Tuesday September 4 |
9 a.m (8 a.m. Brussels time). Prepare for Glaverbel conference. Attend conference 10-2. Return to London 2-7pm | 10 | 0 |
| Wednesday September 5 |
In office 8 a.m. till 2.30. Working from home 4.30 till 5.30. Total 7 hours 30minutes. | 7.30 | 0 |
| Thursday September 6 |
Working from home 9-9.45. Dentists 10-11.45. Working from home 11.45-5.30. Total 6 hours 30 minutes. | 6.30 | 0 |
| Friday September 7 |
In office 8 a.m. till 9.30am. Total 1 hour 30 minutes. | 1.30 | 0 |
| Weekly total Sept 4-Sept 7 Worked ?? hours ?? mins. ?? hours less/more than 37.5 hour week. |
25.30 | ||
| unity
7th September 2007 Private and Confidential Mr J Brind 519 Lea Bridge Road London E10 7EB Dear Jonathon Further to the disciplinary hearings held on 21st and 30th August 2007 I am writing to inform you of my decision. At these meetings you were offered the opportunity of having a work colleague / Trade Union Official present as a witness, which you declined. The matters of concern to me were: 1. Disobeying instructions given to you by Dennis Taylor, chairman, in written communication dated 11th April 2007 whereby Dennis instructed you to resume normal working practices which means you come into the office on a daily basis from 9am - 5.30p.m. and only due to exceptional circumstances you may work from home. Since this letter you have not adhered to Dennis' instruction. 2. That you took un-authorised lieu days on the 7 June 2007, 8 June 2007, 29 June 2007, 4 July 2007, 5 July 2007, 16 July 2007 despite the company s refusal to authorise these days off. At both the hearing and the reconvened hearing you gave me both written and oral statements outlining the reasons for your behaviour which were^ 1. Your contract says you can determine your working hours. 2. You believe that if Unity Media felt it had a case over your working hours you would have been dismissed long ago. 3. You do not have to apply for time off in lieu. 4. You replied to the notes denying the lieu days and assumed that you were granted the time off. 5. You claim to have worked excessive hours to warrant the time off. Having considered your oral and written explanations, I have considered them to be unsatisfactory because 1. The argument about your contract terms was discussed in a previous disciplinary meeting held on 14th May 2007. The decision ruled that "Any variation to your hours should be due to exceptional circumstances only and so the majority of the time, you should be working at Unity Media offices during the hours of 9am to 5.30p.m.". You appealed the decision of the disciplinary meeting but the appeal was turned down. This process was held in accordance with Unity Media's disciplinary process. 2. Unity Media is a caring and fair-minded organisation. The Decision of the hearing held on the 14th May 2007 was that you should be disciplined. You already had a final written warning active on your file and this would have ordinarily meant that the next stage would be to terminate you employment. It was decided that you should be given the opportunity to work in accordance with the instruction given to you and therefore you were given an extended written warning instead. 3. All staff are required to obtain authorisation for time taken off. There are no exceptions. 4. Unity Media did not agree that you were due lieu days and your requests were expressly refused in writing. Your further communication regarding your hours did not include any further requests to take lieu days and therefore the days taken were unauthorised and you should have attended the office as instructed. 5. Unity Media does not agree that you have been working significantly excessive hours and your hours were challenged by Dennis Taylor in his letter to you dated 26th June 2007. The fact that you do not agree with this view does not warrant you taking unauthorised time off. In your written statement you raised some further points which were not directly in defence to the matters of concern 1. You state that the matter of the lieu days is not admissible as it was not raised prior to the disciplinary hearing on 21st August. The issue of lieu days was discussed in the meeting because I had compiled a time line which I used at the start of the hearing on 21st August. The purpose of the timeline was to demonstrate that you had not followed the instruction given to you by Dennis Taylor. The time line began with the communication made to you by Dennis on the 11th April, went through the disciplinary process taken by Unity Media and also included lieu days taken off without authorisation. On review of the notes and submissions after the meeting had closed it was then apparent that the issue of lieu days was a separate matter of concern to the Company and the hearing was reconvened to give you the opportunity to properly prepare a response to that matter of concern. You were given seven days notice of the reconvened hearing. 2. You suggested that you are the only person in the company who provides extensive details of appointments. This is not the case. The Executive PA obtains all staff movements and keeps an extensive log in her diary. 3. You mention work colleagues who work almost exclusively from home. One of those mentioned is a freelance editor who does not work exclusively for Unity Media and the other is a field salesman. Both of these examples have completely different circumstances to you and cannot be used for comparison. As a consequence therefore, and in view of the fact that you are already on an Extended Final Written Warning issued to you on 17th May 2007 regarding your conduct, I have decided that your employment should be terminated with immediate effect. You will be paid 8 weeks pay in lieu of notice representing one weeks pay for each complete year service plus any annual leave to which you are entitled. Your P45 and monies due will be forwarded to you. You are entitled to continue to use your company car for the 8 week period but should arrange a suitable time to return it to Unity Media on or before Friday 2nd November 2007. The Car should be clean and in good state of repair and condition. I do have on record the scratch on the door you reported in your email of 13th May 2007 with enclosed picture. You should return to me today the company satellite navigation system and your keys to Unity Media offices. You should also send me all Unity Media intellectual property you hold at home to include all Emails with clients from your home email addresses, copies of all the data relating to your colour seps database plus any hard copies or documents you have at home. You should then ensure that all data relating to Unity Media is permanently deleted from your systems at home. You have the right of appeal against my decision and should you wish to do so you should write to Dennis Taylor, Chairman within 7 days giving the full reasons as to why you believe the disciplinary action taken against you is too severe or inappropriate. Yours sincerely Redacted Company Secretary
Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001Web: www.unity-media.com |
|||
| 519 Lea Bridge Road,
London E10 7EB September 17,2007 Introduction Despite the fact that GGP is producing twice as many editorial pages as RCI (which has a staff of two) I have restrained freelance spending to the minimum. I have done this even though I have been bringing out the magazine on my own. | |||
| October 2000-September 2001 | £11,564 | ||
| October 2003-September 2004 | £11,867 | ||
| October 2003-September 2005 | £12,336 | ||
| October 2003-September 2006 | £13,932 | ||
| October 2003-September 2007 | £14,930 | ||
| At the same time colour sep income has been maintained at a level of about £50k a year, probably more than any of the other Unity b2b titles. After obtaining your agreement I increased the price of colour seps in September and the response I got from the market was very positive, so there was every prospect that income would increase significantly over the next 12 months.
This month Andy Westhead admitted to Natalie Luck (GGP's advertising manager) that GGP was the number one in the market. Andy Westhead was formerly the advertising manager of Glass Age, the only magazine that claimed to be better read and more successful than GGP. GGP is meeting its targets. The last morning I was in the office (Friday September 7, 2007) there was a revised flat plan on my desk because the magazine had over sold and needed to go up a section. The big issue: Timekeeping This is what my contract says: Hours Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail. In order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid. It seems clear that the meaning of the world prevail is that 9-5.30 is the office routine. It is when the switchboard is staffed, the accounts, circulation and repro departments are working and the ancillary workers like the warehouse manager can be expected to be available. But in 1998 when I was first employed there was no idea at all that this would apply to me. The idea was that I had to work whatever hours were required to produce the magazine. Dennis Taylor, the chairman, was very proud of the fact that you could drop into the office at almost any time and find somewhere there. We had keys precisely because we were expected to let ourselves in and out when we worked funny hours. The phrase to apply your hours to cope means to me that I was expected to work the hours needed to meet the deadlines, not to decorate the office by sitting there 9-5.30. The words as timings dictate means both deadlines and working hours. The idea being that you have to put in more working hours if it is necessary to meet the deadlines. I accepted this (and the fact that no overtime payments were available) on the basis that I controlled my own working hours and could take time off when the workload was relatively small. So, you will see that the lieu days the company said I should not have taken off, were all scheduled at the beginning of the working month. I have also taken to having my holidays at the beginning of the working month to ensure that I have the best chance of meeting deadlines (at the end of the month). GGP is exemplary in meeting its deadlines. The company in the disciplinary hearings has usually relied on the Normal office hours 0900 - 1730 Monday to Friday prevail and ignored the rest of the paragraph. In his letter of 3rd May 2007, Redacted took a go at interpreting the second and third sentences in a way that supported disciplinary action against me. He said: “This means that you have to be working at this time in the office. It states that in order to allow you to undertake those duties you identify as necessary for detail and deadlines, you will be expected to apply your hours to cope as timings dictate in your position of responsibility. Overtime is not paid. "This means that if you have appointments which would not warrant you coming into the office first, then you can go straight to your appointments from home." But my contract doesn't mention me coming into the office, and of course I spend a lot of time, quite often four or five days (for example when I attend the Glassex exhibition which lasts four days), without ever going near the office. This is standard for b2b publishing. Clearly Redacted is just inventing a meaning without any reference to the actual words used. Of late Redacted has been saying the issue has been resolved by the disciplinary process. But I have never worked Monday to Friday 9-5.30, so you might as well say it has been resolved by my continuing to work flexible hours. For years Unity Media regarded flexible working hours as perfectly acceptable. My pay has increased quite substantially since I was first employed. I had pay rises in March 1999, November 2000, April 2002, October 2003 and August 2005 only a short while prior to the harassment campaign starting. Unity is not the kind of company that gives pay rises to workers who are out of favour. So this proves that for years flexible working hours was regarded by Unity as perfectly acceptable and in line with my contract, since I did not work 9-5.30 Monday to Friday at any point during those years. Age discrimination The person who has been given my old job, Redacted (former editor of RCI), is a generation younger than me; close in age to the ambitious advertising director who has been named so often in the various disciplinary documents issued by Unity to me over the last two years. I am convinced that part of the reason the middle management decided to get rid of me is the fact that I am 54 years old. Flawed procedure I do not believe I have ever been given a fair chance in any of the disciplinary hearings because the people who have organised them have portrayed themselves as investigating prosecutors. Redacted, for example, has often said things like we have got enough to proceed with a written warning, rather than portraying himself in a more neutral role. Failure to deal with the issues The points Unity has never attempted to reply to (1) at the disciplinary hearing on November 11, 2005, Redacted said he would submit a copy of my contract to the company's legal advisors to get an interpretation. Although on a number of occasions I have said that it would be grossly unfair if this information had been obtained and the company failed to pass it on to me, the company has said nothing about this issue. If the interpretation backed 9-5.30 Monday to Friday working practices, why didn't the company pass this information on too me? (2) the fact that the company decided to issue a management instruction that I should resume working 9-5.30 (after twice embarking on discipline over the 9-5.30 issue), proves the company, knew it could not rely on my contract. This strongly suggests that my interpretation of the contract is correct. Although I have been making this point since May 22, 2007, the company has never attempted to answer it. (3) my working log was challenged and a number of fresh instructions issued. I took account of these instructions and sent in a new working log several times. The company has studiously ignored this new working log. The company says I am not entitled to lieu days because it challenged the original log but will not even consider the revised log drawn up to take into account the company's concerns. It was the company who first said I should bring to its attention excessive hours worked by me. When I have done this the company fails to address the issue. (4) Although I have quoted examples of co-workers who rarely if ever go to the office (a b2b editor who works part time and a b2b advertising manager) the company says that their circumstances are different. Yet the company will not explain how their circumstances could be different. The company said the reason it wanted to minimise my working from home was health and safety legislation. However, it is obvious that health and safety legislation applies to my colleagues, even if they have different contracts. (5) Even if I am wrong about my contract after nine years in post I believe I am entitled to say that it is custom and practice that I work flexible hours. The company has never addressed this issue. (6) The company is well aware that I have always taken lieu days off after Glassex and I have attended nine Glassex exhibitions since I have worked for Unity. All members of GGP staff have always taken lieu days after Glassex. The company prefers to ignore this. Until the company invented the need for paperwork, no paperwork existed. Excessive punishment Timekeeping was top of the list of issues raised when I was instructed to attend disciplinary hearings on November 11, 2005, and November 28, 2005. Considering the magazine has been produced in a timely fashion in the close to two years since, it is excessive to dismiss me for poor timekeeping, especially when at the two above described meetings no action was taken at all on the timekeeping issue. |
|||
| Transcript of meeting in Dennis Taylor's office at Unity Media on Monday September 17, 2007.
Dennis Taylor: Jonathan would you like some water before we start? Jonathan Brind: I'd love some water, Dennis, thank you. Jonathan Brind: You required that back. Handing over a sat nav system. Dennis Taylor: All right thanks. Jonathan Brind: I've erm... All the stuff I have for GGP is on my... You required me to return all the stuff on the computer. All the stuff is on my computer here. But I've made a cd with a copy of it all and the freelance database and separation charge database but I meant to bring it this morning but I haven't brought it. But what I will do is when I go back this afternoon I'll put it in the post. Dennis Taylor: Okeydoke Jonathan Brind: Also give you my expenses for August and September. Dennis Taylor: Right. Jonathan this meeting has been called by you. It's your appeal. Jonathan Brind: What I want to do is to present this paper to you. Dennis Taylor: Do you have a represent... You have got every right to have a representative. Jonathan Brind: Thank you Dennis, no I don't need a representative. Dennis Taylor: Right you are. So here is me Jonathan Brind: Ehum Dennis Taylor: Sandra to take notes. And you in your role as appellant. Jonathan Brind: Thank you Dennis Taylor: You are here Jonathan as an appeal against the company's decision to terminate your employment. Jonathan Brind: Yes indeed Dennis Taylor: Despite instructions given to you today, which is in your letter. Not today. Despite instructions given to you by me in writing on the 11th of April... Jonathan Brind: This is covered in my written statement. Dennis Taylor: It is. Jonathan Brind: Yes. Dennis Taylor: So long as you are aware of that. And for taking unauthorised lieu days. Jonathan Brind: Yes this is covered in my written statement, Dennis. Dennis Taylor: So you're presenting your case in writing. Jonathan Brind: In writing yes. Just in writing. Dennis Taylor: Is there anything you'd like to discuss? Or do you want me to just read this? Jonathan Brind: If you want to read it, please do so. But I'm quite happy with my written statement. Dennis Taylor: Of course, I'll read it you've given it to me. Jonathan Brind: Thank you. Dennis Taylor: I'll read it. So does this written document form the basis for your appeal? Jonathan Brind: Yes it does. Dennis Taylor: Then I'll read it now. Jonathan Brind: Thank you. Dennis Taylor: Has anybody ever mentioned your age to you? Jonathan Brind: No. But I have been treated conspicuously less well than some of the younger editors. (DT didn't ask how. He probably knew thatRedacted had been given the new computer with the dvd drive and Melody had been told she could take two months off, whereas I'd been denied a lengthy break even as a once in ten years sabbatical.) Dennis Taylor: There are other people who work here of a similar age to you. Jonathan Brind: There are yes. Dennis Taylor: Are you saying you feel you are treated differently to them? Jonathan Brind: I'm saying that I... Well that's not the issue. I would not like to go into individual cases Dennis Taylor: I don't want to either Jonathan Brind: I think some of those cases. Dennis Taylor: You have made a statement here Jonathan Brind: I think some of those cases are actually quite interesting and suppor tive of my case. Dennis Taylor: But you don't want to discuss them? Jonathan Brind: I don't want to discuss them at this stage, no. I completely rely on my own case. Dennis Taylor: So from what you have written you are claiming that the punishment meted out was excessive? Jonathan Brind: I'm claiming that there were two disciplinary hearings at which this issue was considered almost two years ago and the result of both those disciplinary hearings was that no action was taken. In view of that it seems excessive at this stage two years down the line to dismiss me. Dennis Taylor: Well, let's say the conclusion, the punishment, the conclusion was that you would be discharged. This document is your appeal, concluding in excessive punishment. You think that what we have meted out has been excessive. Jonathan Brind: Yes that's not the conclusion. That's one of three elements. The first element was the new evidence. The second element was the element of the process being flawed and the third element was the element of the punishment being excessive. Dennis Taylor: The procedures we follow, Jonathan, are procedures as laid down in law. You may not think we have followed them correctly. I can assure you that so far as you're concerned we have. Jonathan Brind: Well the document argues contrary to what you are saying. Dennis Taylor: Which document is that? Jonathan Brind: The document that I have produced. Dennis Taylor: The document that you have produced to us? Jonathan Brind: Yes indeed. Dennis Taylor: OK. I'm simply responding to you on this. To say that so far as we are aware we have done everything by the book. Jonathan Brind: Yes that's fair Dennis. I'm sure that you would say that. But what you have to do is you have to take into account the points, the actual points that I have made in that document. Dennis Taylor: Which I'm doing and I'm trying to say that if this is your appeal, your appeal must obviously have a conclusion. That is no matter, not withstanding what's in this. When you actually distill this lozens(?) of loose appeal into drops of conclusion it is that you believe that we have meted out excessive punishment? Jonathan Brind: That's one of three elements. It's not the conclusion. There are three elements to that document all of them are of exactly the same weight, or different weights actually... Dennis Taylor: One is that you think that we were flawed in what you have said here... Jonathan Brind: The new evidence. The fact that the procedure was flawed and the fact that the punishment was excessive. Any one of those should be sufficient to make you think that the erm, that this was.. | |||
Dennis Taylor: What was the new evidence? Jonathan Brind: Well, for example, the fact that Redacted has been appointed who is a generation younger than me. Dennis Taylor: This is in here where you think that you've age discrimination? Jonathan Brind: Yes, I've actually mentioned it before, to be honest. But I have now fleshed it out by saying that Redacted has been promoted Dennis Taylor: But you didn't want to discuss that. I asked you if we should discuss that. Jonathan Brind: No I didn't want to discuss the cases of other individuals. Redacted is not in his 50s. I didn't want to discuss the case of Pinkers, Jenny and Richard who are all of the same sort of age as me because I thought that would be invidious. Dennis Taylor: Fair enough I accept that. You are quite right. But nevertheless I have to ask it because they are of the same age as you. Jonathan Brind: Indeed they are. No doubt about that. | |||
|
Dennis Taylor: Alright, Jonathan, well as you know I can't make a decision today because that's..
Jonathan Brind: Well you could Dennis if you really wanted to but I can perfectly understand why you don't want to. Dennis Taylor: Well I've read this. I need to put it down and read it again. Jonathan Brind: Thank you. Dennis Taylor: As you know that's the only way to digest. Jonathan Brind: Absolutely. Dennis Taylor: OK, well if there's anything else you want to add or introduce or discuss please do it? Jonathan Brind: Not at this stage Dennis but thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. Dennis Taylor: It seems you have come an awful long way to hand me a document. Jonathan Brind: Well I would have sent it by post but you invited me to the meeting so I thought it was polite to attend. To be honest I'm not well so I would have preferred not to have come myself. Thank you very much indeed. Dennis Taylor: All right Jonathan. And you'll let me have that other Jonathan Brind: Yes I'll send the cd in the post today. Dennis Taylor: Right you are. Jonathan Brind: Thank you. |
|||
| unity
21st September 2007
Dear Jonathan You appealed against the decision of the disciplinary hearing held on Friday 7th September 2007, where the decision was taken to dismiss you. The decision was taken following a full and thorough hearing, held in accordance with the company's disciplinary procedure. Your appeal hearing was held on Monday 17th September 2007, in the presence of Dennis Taylor, Chairman on behalf of the company and you did not wish to be accompanied by a representative or employee. I am now writing to confirm the decision taken by Redacted, Company Secretary, on behalf of the company, that the decision to dismiss you be upheld for the following reasons: Introduction In your written document you handed to me, which you said was your written statement for our meeting, the detail contained in your Introduction is not relevant. The Big Issued Timekeeping Timekeeping is one which has previously been addressed in a disciplinary meeting with you which was held on the 14th May 2007. The decision therein was that "any variation to your hours should be due to exceptional circumstances only and so the majority of your time, you should be working at Unity Media offices during the hours of Sam - 5.30pm". You appealed the decision of your disciplinary meeting but your appeal was turned down and this process was held in accordance with Unity Media's disciplinary process. This follows a written communications from me to you dated 11th April 2007, instructing you to resume normal working practices which means you come in to the office on a daily basis as outlined above and only due to exceptional circumstances may you work from home, as such you have disobeyed instructions. Age Discrimination During your appeal meeting with me, you admitted that this subject had never been raised before and also there were other employees at Unity Media of a similar age to yourself. When pressed to discuss what you meant, you declined by answering you did not wish to discuss the matter generally. However, you did refer to Redacted who you state had been given your old job, being a generation younger than you and about the same age as "the ambitious advertising director". You write you are "convinced that part of the reason our middle management decided to get rid of you is the fact you are 54 years old". There is no evidence to support your conviction. Unity Media Plc does not operate an age discrimination policy. Flawed Procedure Throughout the disciplinary hearings and appeal meetings with you, Unity Media have acted towards you correctly following the company's disciplinary procedures at all times. Failure to deal with the issues 1/2 I refer to my letter dated 11th April 2007 in my capacity as an Officer of the company. 3 This item was taken into consideration in a response to you from Redacted in his letter dated 7th September 2007 wherein Unity Media did not agree that you were due lieu days and that these were refused in writing nor did Unity Media agree you had been working significantly excessive hours which were challenged in a letter from myself to you dated 26th June 2007. Further, the fact that you disagree with my view does not warrant you taking unauthorised time off. 4 Your quoted examples of co-workers who rarely attend our offices which have been answered to you many times in comparison to your own position. The B2B editor who works part-time is not an employee of Unity Media but a Freelance independent and is responsible for their own health and safety and working practices and the B2B advertising manager holds a position as field sales. Neither of these appointments relate to yourself or your working practice. You stated as "obvious" that health and safety regulations apply to your colleagues even if they have different contracts. One of the two is independent of Unity Media and the other enjoys the use of a mobile phone and company car with a view to his day to day appointments in the field and regular contact with his Editor and our administration departments and does not use or access a company computer. 5/6 These have already been addressed as above under point 3. Yes, I am well aware you have attended Glassex exhibitions but your attendance is nothing more than would be expected in your capacity. All other Editors attend exhibitions similarly and where you refer to paperwork, even your own colleagues have always completed the necessary documentation for any time off, whether holiday, sickness or days in lieu. Excessive Punishment You consider it excessive to have been dismissed for poor timekeeping, however you were given an instruction which you have disobeyed daily. Having reviewed all previous correspondence and minutes of your meetings, I am satisfied all procedures have been followed correctly and that, at your appeal meeting, you introduced no new evidence to support any alternative decision. You have now exercised your right of appeal, under the company's disciplinary procedure and this decision is final. Please note, we have not yet received the disk as promised at your meeting on the 17th September 2007 and I would appreciate it if you could send this to us by return. Yours sincerely Dennis Taylor
unity Unity Media Plc Becket House, Vestry Road/ Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5EJ Tel: 01732 748000 Fax: 01732 748001 Web: www.unity-media.com Registered in England No 1529036 |
|||