Camden New Journal - by RICHARD OSLEY Published: 04 October 2007
Joe Laidler, who claims he was unfairly dismissed
‘I knew that if your time had come and if your face no longer fitted there was little you could do’
Lauded for his work, a Town Hall official claims his career was ended without any explanation
WHEN Camden Council scored top marks from government inspectors in late 2005, assistant finance chief Joe Laidler celebrated, to use his own words, “like a good northener should”, by leading his colleagues to the pub to toast their success.
As the beer and wine flowed in the Skinners Arms in King’s Cross, Mr Laidler, with 31 years’ service at the Town Hall and a record which his bosses were quick to describe as “exemplary”, felt he had more than played his part in helping the council win a glowing report which left other local authorities green with envy.
Yet, just 12 months later, things had turned sour. Relations with finance director Mike O’Donnell had broken down and Mr Laidler had been made redundant.
In a case that has drawn some of Camden’s heavyweight figures to an employment tribunal hearing at Victory House in Holborn, Mr Laidler, 59, claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that staff approaching retirement were deliberately weeded out for redundancy.
Giving evidence to the tribunal on Thursday, he said his unusually long service for Camden or his “significant workload” were hardly considered and there was no attempt to avoid redundancy by offering him work.
He told the tribunal he was not offered the chance to appeal against redundancy and was never given a clear indication why his post had been cut ahead of others.
He said: “I’d been in Camden long enough to know that if your time had come and if your face no longer fitted there was little you could do to try and manage the process. At the age of 58 my career was effectively ended for reasons I’m still at a loss to explain. I was never told the reasons.”
Mr Laidler, who represented himself at the tribunal, was a well-known face at the Town Hall and ranked in the inner circle of 30 senior staff, with the title of assistant finance director. It is 10 years since someone as senior as him has taken the council to an employment tribunal.
Mr Laidler described as chaotic his last nine months at the council as some of its top earners waited on tenterhooks to see if their posts would be retained or axed during a wholesale staff restructure. A key part of his case centres on his relationship with Mr O’Donnell, who has been head of the finance department for the past two years.
When he was asked by the panel about the working relationship, Mr Laidler told the hearing: “In respect of some of my work areas – good. In respect of some of my work areas – difficult. In respect of a personal relationship – we didn’t have a personal relationship. “We were two different people. I’m very outgoing and very involved with staff. Mr O’Donnell is different. There was a clash of personalities.”
Mr Laidler also criticised Mr O’Donnell for his handling of the internal consultation over the overall restructure. He said staff were largely kept in the dark about Mr O’Donnell’s plans – even though it was clear there had been orders from on high that employment costs had to be slashed. “Rumours were rife in the department and across the council about who would be individually affected. The delay was creating real difficulty in managing matters in the department,” he said
When a draft restructure plan was mapped out, Mr Laidler was the only named officer whose post was put down for deletion.
He said: “I was a bit of a lifer. If I was thinking of going it would be on my initiative when I was 60 plus. He just picked something he thought was reasonable and that something was me, unfortunately. If somebody had told me why I was going, I could probably have put up a solidly argument against it.”
Mr O’Donnell attended all four days of the hearing last week and twice gave evidence in which he repeatedly denied he had targeted Mr Laidler. He said Mr Laidler had given the impression he welcomed the prospect of early retirement. “My understanding from previous discussions I had with Mr Laidler was that he did want to take early retirement and he was keen to leave the council,” said Mr O’Donnell. “I was hoping it could be a relatively smooth exit and at the end of the day one that Mr Laidler would be happy with.”
He rejected a suggestion that a performance bonus he qualified for as a chief officer was directly related to Mr Laidler’s redundancy.
The finance director said the redundancy decision hinged on the need to find savings without causing harm to the running of the department.
The evidence was completed on Friday, although both sides were warned that there will be no judgment before November 12 when a panel of three will meet in chambers to deliberate.
Comment on this article. (You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)
