BARNARD Castle Town Council chose not to publicly debate calls for resignations following an employment tribunal which said the sacking of a staff member was a “charade” .
The town council this month lost a lengthy legal case when a judge ruled that former deputy clerk Jane Woodward was unfairly dismissed.Judge Seamus Sweeney was highly critical of Ms Woodward’s treatment at the hands of the town council and senior councillors Sandra Moorhouse and John Blissett. The tribunal also found the council was guilty of disability discrimination.
Former town councillor Thom Robinson asked a question at last week’s full council meeting. He said: “Given the graveness of this situation and the national disrepute upon this council, would members agree with me that in failing to successfully monitor and scrutinise the process within this case, all members should now consider resignation and give the democratic process the chance to restore decency?”
Mr Robinson added he was “incredulous” that those present at the meeting, which was held via Zoom, had not already resigned.
Parish clerk Martin Clark explained to councillors that they could debate the question in open session or provide a written response. They voted to do the later. Mr Robinson then described members as “gutless cowards” .
Barnard Caste resident Tom Deacon, a former town councillor, also spoke at the meeting, asking for the financial costs so far for the unfair dismissal case. Mr Clark said the council did not yet know this as a remedy hearing, which would provide a financial settlement to Ms Woodward, was due to be held in March.
The final sum is expected to run into thousands of pounds.
The council will pay for this via its insurance and through its reserves, the meeting was told. Members of the public were not permitted to speak during the main meeting, but Mr Robinson used Zoom’s “chat” function to comment on the proceedings. He suggested the council may face an investigation under the 2010 Equalities Act over the sacking of Ms Woodward, adding that the authority would need to pay “huge” barrister fees.
The result of the tribunal was noted later on in the meeting but no further debate took place in public.
“Staffing” and “legal advice” , however, was discussed in a private session later.
