Camden New Journal - by RICHARD OSLEY Published: 27 September 2007
Camden’s Finance Director Mike O’Donnell (left) and Mike Cooke, Director of Organisational Development, leaving the tribunal
‘I gave my career to Camden... This did not need to happen’
Tribunal hears claims that ‘dramatic’ drive to cut costs at Town Hall lead to unfair dismissal
A FINANCE chief made redundant in the council’s dramatic cost-cutting drive has told a tribunal that he was the victim of an attempt to remove an “old guard” of long-serving staff.
Joe Laidler, 59, is claiming unfair dismissal after his job was deleted in last year’s wholesale restructure at the Town Hall, despite giving 31 years service for Camden.
He told a tribunal hearing at Victory House in Holborn on Tuesday: “To me, the restructure was a sham. I gave my career to Camden. This did not need to happen.”
Mr Laidler was one of several long-serving staff – including former chief lawyer Alison Lowton – to leave the council after an order from on high to slash employment costs and slim down management layers.
Mr Laidler did not mention any names as he outlined his case to the tribunal but he said: “There were cases of long-serving officers who have left Camden for various reasons which I could cite. There was a new set of chief officers and they were, and it’s a phrase I don't like using, but they were removing the old guard.”
He moved to his specific role in charge of internal audits and risk management in 2005. “I could not have expected this post to be deleted within a couple of years when a lot of other London boroughs were creating posts like this,” he added.
During two days of evidence, the case has revealed the fractious nature of Camden’s internal restructure and exposed how relations between senior council staff broke down following the order to make a series of savings, which even Camden’s finance director Mike O’Donnell said could be described as “fairly dramatic”.
Evidence heard over the first two days has also revealed the existence of a bonus system reserved exclusively for the Town Hall’s inner cabal of senior staff.
In Mr O’Donnell’s case, he admitted that he was working under the knowledge that if he managed to cut staff costs and still keep his department running effectively, he would qualify for a bonus.
Mr O’Donnell was also financially rewarded for successfully reorganising the ‘procurement’ arm, which Mr Laidler was partly responsible for.
Mr O’Donnell, one of the highest-paid civil servants at the Town Hall in his role at the head of the finance department, was asked by Mr Laidler whether he had “a vested interest” in making sure that the savings drive was a success.
He said: “You used the term vested interest. The answer is yes. That’s the purpose of a performance related bonus. It is to reward the people who are getting it.”
There is no suggestion that Mr O’Donnell received a bonus for the direct deletion of Mr Laidler’s post.
It is rare for somebody so high up the Town Hall hierarchy to follow a case all the way through to a tribunal. Mr Laidler is representing himself at the hearing leading to the unusual situation where Mr O’Donnell was cross-examined for three hours under oath by a man who used to report to him as an assistant director.
The tribunal heard how Mr Laidler was ranked in the 30 most senior posts, at times investigating potential fraud cases which he described as “ a significant workload in some very difficult areas”.
He left the council as one of two assistant directors – from five in the department – to be made redundant and said that he has found it difficult to find work since, a problem he partly blamed on a dispute over whether he could be allowed to agree a wording for his reference from Camden.
In regard to Mr O’Donnell, Mr Laidler said: “We didn’t see eye to eye over the internal audit function.”
Tribunal members delayed the start of the hearing on Tuesday morning to see if the dispute could be reconciled by redeploying Mr Laidler to a new position or offering part-time work.
Mr Laidler said he would be happy to be considered for work but Camden declined the invitation.
During the hearing, Mr O’Donnell and Mr Laidler disagreed over whether Mr Laidler had given the impression that he was looking to take early retirement.
Mr O’Donnell said that in one-to-one meetings Mr Laidler had agreed with his view that there were too many assistant directors and that too many of them had the support of personal assistants. “I didn’t mean my post should be deleted,” said Mr Laidler, who was the only assistant director not to join the bonus scheme.. “I told him I thought the number of personal assistants was ludicrous.” Mr Laidler was one of only two employees on his grade not to use an assistant.
Without Mr Laidler’s knowledge, Mr O’Donnell contacted the human resources department early last year and asked how much it would cost in severance fees to make Mr Laidler redundant. He did the same with another assistant director Joy Harris, who, the tribunal heard, was made redundant on the same day as Mr Laidler at the end of last October.
Mr Laidler said that Mr O’Donnell should have been aware that information “leaked out of Camden like a sieve” and that requests for such details should have been handled more sensitively. Mr O’Donnell’s draft suggestions for a restructure – including the deletion of Mr Laidler’s post – were posted on the council’s intranet, an internal computer network accessible to all staff.
Mr O’Donnell repeated several times that he was under the impression that Mr Laidler was looking to take early retirement.
Mr O’Donnell said the savings were called for in anticipation of a reduction in government funding to local authorities.
The case continues today (Thursday) when Mr Laidler is due to give evidence.
Comment on this article. (You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)
