THIS IS A SET OF MINUTES PROVIDED BY GARY WALKER.
Minutes of the Hearing
Date:
1 February 2010
In attendance: The Panel
Tim Staniland (TS)
Paul Richardson (PR), (Chairman)
Mike Cutts (MC)
Others
David Grafton (DG) (HR advisor to the panel)
Marilyn Smyth (MS), (Trust investigator)
Carol Pilsbury (CP), (Witness)
Gary Walker (GW) (Chief Executive)
Caroline (Transcriber)
Location:
Washington Hall Hotel, Lincoln
1.
Paul Richardson: Right if I could.... Everybody knows everybody and you've met Caroline already
Gary. The first thing I would like is everybody’s agreement that we refer to each other on Christian
name terms (can't hear). The third this is can we make sure our mobile phones are switched off
please? Ok so we will start with Marilyn.
2.
Gary Walker: Am I allowed to have ask a few questions about matters that have arisen between
the last meeting and this meeting that are procedural?
3.
Paul Richardson: I see no reason why not.
4.
Gary Walker: A couple of things. I had given to me on Saturday 30 January a rather poor copy but
readable of the minutes from the 17th June remuneration committee meeting which I am happy to
give you, the private minutes. This is not included in the pack. I would like to know (interrupted)
5.
Paul Richardson: Can I just ask where this has come from.
6.
Gary Walker: These were sent to me from David Bowles.
7.
Paul Richardson: These are David Bowles' copies of which I assumed that these are not in the
hospital. These are his a private ones that he removed from the hospital.
8.
Gary Walker: I have no idea. All I know is he sent me an e-mail. It says: "would it help to have
these to hand . I am not sure I sent them in draft to Phil for comment or not." Phil Scarlett was the
other member of the (interupted).
9.
Paul Richardson: Right so these are the ones he refers to in his documentation all are very
confidential notes I see. Now do we accept this?
1 phd 19/9/11 13:31
Deleted: S
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Deleted: interupted
phd 19/9/11 13:45
Deleted: .
10.
David Grafton: Yes we accept that. Is that just the one copy?
11.
Gary Walker: Yes, I’ve only got that one copy.
12.
David Grafton: And these were sent to you on 30th January?
13.
Gary Walker: On Saturday 30th at 6:30 in the evening.
14.
David Grafton: My understanding from all that I have seen here in the documentation is that these
are not available in the Trust itself.
15.
Paul Richardson: That is what I understand
16.
David Grafton: What we don't know is if those are official minutes but you are handing them to us
in good faith
17.
Gary Walker: Well that was the first time I have seen them as well. Although I would not normally
see copies of the remuneration committee minutes anyway.
18.
Paul Richardson: and they are not signed nor are they dated although they refer to 17th of June.
So should we all read these first?
19.
David Grafton: My assumption is that you are going to refer to these.
20.
Gary Walker: I am only going to refer to them in that David Bowles refers to them.
21.
David Grafton: In which case I suggest that the panel reads these in due course.
22.
Paul Richardson: In due course, so we will put these to one side, okay.
23.
Gary Walker: Will the hearing be recorded or just transcribed?
24.
Paul Richardson: Transcribed.
25.
Gary Walker: Will I get a copy of that this time?
26.
Paul Richardson: You did last time. It's in here isn't it?
27.
Gary Walker: Only today. I have only received this just this minute and I've have no opportunity to
review that. I have had 10 minutes to read Adam Wolverson's statement and that's all I have had.
I have previously written to you in correspondence (interrupted)
28.
Paul Richardson: That's right yes. It's in the original pack you were given isn't it?
29.
Gary Walker: This pack that I was given originally? This white one? The one I received upstairs
two minutes ago?
30.
Paul Richardson: No that it the modified pack you received this morning. Correct me if I am
wrong. You have already received this pack last week.
31.
Gary Walker: No. I have received some of that information last week but not the minutes of the
meeting.
32.
Paul Richardson: And they were not in the original information? Right.
33.
Gary Walker: The first point I'd like to make is that I understand that the appointments
commission is currently investigating the appointment of the chairman. In light of that fact do you
consider it appropriate to continue with this hearing?
34.
Paul Richardson: I have no knowledge that the appointment of the chairman is being investigated.
By whom?
35.
Gary Walker: The office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments confirmed this on Friday.
36.
Paul Richardson: To whom?
37.
Gary Walker: To Phil Scarlett, former non-executive Director.
2 phd 19/9/11 13:46
Deleted: e
phd 19/9/11 13:47
Deleted: interupted
phd 19/9/11 13:51
Deleted: meeting
38.
Paul Richardson: Right well I can assure you that the hospital has not been informed, and we
know nothing at all about this and under those circumstances yes we will proceed.
39.
Gary Walker: Would you like a moment to consider that?
40.
David Grafton: No
41.
Paul Richardson: No
42.
Gary Walker: So for the record, you don't know about that and you wish to proceed anyway?
43.
David Grafton: Correct
44.
Gary Walker: The second point I'd like to make. The terms of the Trust policy on these
proceedings state that the management representative must not be alone with the panel.
Throughout the previous hearing Marilyn Smyth was in the room when I entered and remained in
the room during the two adjournments. Can the Panel please tell me how they have made
allowances for this breach of procedure and the obvious bias this has created?
45.
Paul Richardson: (looking towards David Grafton) Well I would question whether it has created an
obvious bias. I don't think it is obvious to the panel but can I just ask you about this procedure?
Does it matter?
46.
David Grafton: I don't believe it matters at all.
47.
Gary Walker: On page 21 of the Trust policy entitled disciplinary procedure, it says one side must
not, in capitals and in bold, be in the room when the other is not. This is in order to prevent
accusations of conversations relevant to the case have occurred outside of the hearing which
could influence the panel's decision. We were adjourned for two occasions, one lasting an hour
and one lasting 20 minutes. During that time Marilyn was present.
48.
phd 19/9/11 13:50
Deleted: occured
phd 19/9/11 13:50
Marilyn Smyth: No hearing was undertaken.
49.
Paul Richardson: Exactly. I wanted to make the point that we didn't have a hearing.
50.
Gary Walker: I'm sorry but much evidence was given by me. Much discussion was had. The day
lasted about 2 and a half hours.
51.
David Grafton: Your comments are noted. What's your next comment?
52.
Gary Walker: So just to be clear you're not going to answer the question you're just saying that
they are noted?
53.
David Grafton: What you have been told is that the hearing did not commence last time. There
were issues that you raised which were points of concern which were discussed but the hearing
itself did not commence.
54.
Gary Walker: Okay. I realise we may discuss this later but a significant issue of procedure has
arisen in the supplementary statement by Marilyn Smyth and I feel it may have significant
implications for the entire process.
55.
David Grafton: Right well we will address that when that particular point is raised during the
course of the proceedings.
56.
Paul Richardson: Right then we can proceed. Marilyn please present the case for the
management.
57.
Marilyn Smyth: In May 2009, the Trust received a complaint regarding the behaviour and conduct
of Gary Walker, the Chief Executive of ULHT. As a result of these complaints and investigation
was conducted. The complaints, firstly a trade union complaint, the first complaint came from the
staff-side chair, where she complained to the Director of HR about Gary's use of inappropriate
and foul language at formal meetings, that was being discussed outside of the Trust, and
therefore, she believed, was bringing the Trust into disrepute. That letter is at appendix 12,
section one. All of my appendices are at section one. So if you want to look as we go through that
one is at appendix 12. Do you want to do that chairman?
3 Deleted: occassions
58.
Paul Richardson: Can you give me a page number?
59.
Marilyn Smyth: All these numbers have change so it is a bit...(mumble).
60.
David Grafton: Is it the letter at the page 137?
61.
Marilyn Smyth: Yes. The second complaint came from a member of staff in August 2009. During
her exit interview she complained that a meeting was called between her, Gary and Liz Murray
her manager. She said that during that meeting Gary's language towards her was extreme and
obnoxious. She said he used the F word throughout the meeting and it was a tirade of abuse. She
said that she was not given an opportunity to speak and that she was scared. She went on to say
that Liz had told her that she had really pissed Gary off and that she should do something or risk
being sacked if she didn't sort things out. There are subsequent complaints. So during the
investigation of the above points further evidence was revealed that had been included in the
overall process because the Trust's duty of care to other employees. These are allegations that
Gary behaves in ways that humiliate managers in front of peers and allegations that Gary targets
people when he wants to get rid of them. Key documents in this case would be Gary's job
description which is at appendix one but I'm sure you know the content of that. Gary joined in
2007 and signed his contract on the 23rd July 2008.
62.
Marilyn Smyth: I'm sure you know this but the contract is for a fixed term until September 2010. I
think this is quite an important point to raise. Just to alert you to that.
63.
Gary Walker: Just as a matter of accuracy I have signed two contracts as the contract was
renewed.
64.
David Grafton: Just for clarity then the contract which you are saying Marilyn expires on the 30th
September 2010, that is the second of the two contracts.
65.
Paul Richardson: So it is the first contract that is relevant?
66.
David Grafton: What is relevant would be the terms of the current contract of employment i.e. that
which is currently scheduled to expire on the 30th of September.
67.
Paul Richardson: Right to the second contract is not relevant to this discussion then? Are we all
agreed on that. The orginal contract.
68.
Marilyn Smyth: They are both the same aren't they, they just got a different end date.
69.
Paul Richardson: Right okay, fine.
70.
Marilyn Smyth: The only reason they are important is because once we sign a contract with an
employer our duty of care to them kicks in. So that's the only reason to make a point. But it is still
an ongoing contract for now.
71.
Marilyn Smyth: Okay. On the 23rd April 2008, there was a quarterly performance review meeting
and a transcript of this meeting was given to me, which shows a number of times when Gary used
foul or abusive language. Nine other senior managers attended that meeting and no other use of
bad language has been recorded in the notes from any other member of staff. The notes do
demonstrate that most of the challenge came from Gary and was made to George Briggs with
some comments from Adam Wolverson. The other managers present said very little. I don't know
if you are interested in this Chair the pages where the language occurs? Do you want to know
that?
72.
David Grafton: Yes that would be helpful.
73.
Marilyn Smyth: 102, 119.
74.
Paul Richardson: Just hang on a second, sorry. 102.
75.
Marilyn Smyth: 102 top line. 119
76.
Paul Richardson: 119.
77.
Marilyn Smyth: Yeah. Which is down here. You can see where my highlighter is.
4 phd 19/9/11 13:52
Deleted: and
phd 19/9/11 13:52
Deleted: r
78.
Paul Richardson: That is not on my copy. Oh sorry. No that's not on my copy.
79.
Marilyn Smyth: It won't be, I just did it, yesterday.
80.
Paul Richardson: Oh right. 119
81.
Marilyn Smyth: The paragraph that starts senario planning. Not my effin problem. I was told that
although these have been abbreviated the words were said they weren't abbreviated at the time.
And 124. Last but one line of the paragraph down the bottom there. 128 three times in the final
paragraph, 127 as well.
82.
Paul Richardson: Where is that? Ah right okay.
83.
Marilyn Smyth: You've done 128 yes? And 130 in the fifth paragraph first line. In June 2009,
Carol Pilsbury the chair of the staff side executive council wrote to Ros Edwards to lodge a
complaint regarding Gary's use of foul language in formal meetings. Carol's concerns were
exacerbated because the use of foul language by the CEO was being discussed outside of the
Trust which she believed was bringing the Trust into disrepute.
84.
Gary Walker: Can I just ask where that letter is?
85.
Marilyn Smyth: We've just seen it.
86.
Gary Walker: So it is the same one you mentioned at the beginning?
87.
Marilyn Smyth: Yes yes. Carol points out that the Trust's dignity at work policy clearly states that
this behaviour is unacceptable. Further she states that the CEO is charged with writing to patients
about using foul language with Trust staff which would be difficult given that the CEO uses that
language himself. On 13th August an external consultant undertook an exit interview with Viv
Delafuente. On the 20th August 2009, Paul wrote to Gary to advise him that he had received a
complaint of alleged inappropriate behaviour from a departing member of staff. On 21st August
Gary responded by e-mail that he was off sick with stress and asked for details of the complaint
against him. On 24th August Gary e-mailed to say that he had been signed off sick for a further
six weeks and had been advised that he should not attend any meetings at this stage. On 11
September the external consultant who had conducted the exit interview with Viv Delefuente
called Roz Edwards to discuss it and Ros Edwards wrote a file note of that conversation. On 17
December Paul wrote to Gary to advise him that another complaint had been received concerning
his use of foul language and abusive behaviour. On 30 September Gary wrote to me to advise he
was unable to attend a meeting on 2 October. On six October Gary wrote to me to update on
progress and he said he had been signed off work for another month and asked for written
questions. On 20 October I wrote to Gary to ask about the telephone interview or a face-to-face
after he returned from his holiday. Gary replied suggesting a meeting on six November. The trust
then requested that I accommodate Gary's request and I arrange this in a meeting room in a local
hotel. On 3 November Gary e-mailed to cancel the meeting. On the 13th Gary responded to
written questions which I then sent him. So that's the chronology. I just wanted to explain the
period of time involved.
88.
89.
phd 19/9/11 13:52
Deleted: d
phd 19/9/11 13:53
Deleted: cellent
Under allegation one that Gary uses foul and abusive language in formal meetings that was being
discussed outside the trust and therefore bringing the trust into disrepute. The evidence on that in
her statement Carol Pilsbury talks about the way Gary's language is discussed in the PCT in that
everybody knows it. Carol believes that Gary's swearing brings the Trust into distribute especially
since the Trust is disciplining someone for the use of offensive language. Also Gary would be the
main person to write to anyone persistently breaching the Trust policies that could include being
abusive which is difficult when Gary is known he is a known perpetrator of it. Carol talks about this
in her statement that she is here as a witness so my suggestion is that we deal with her evidence
when she is in here being questioned.
Deleted: t
In George Briggs' statement. Ah, I would like to alert the panel something about George Briggs. I
only had a work e-mail for him and I have brought evidence that the e-mail that when Gary was
requesting answers to questions the trust e-mailed me those questions as I had a contact for him
but it had bounced back and I have brought you evidence that it bounced back. So that...
Deleted: t
5 phd 19/9/11 13:53
phd 19/9/11 13:53
Deleted: ing
phd 19/9/11 13:53
Deleted: t
phd 19/9/11 13:54
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
90.
Paul Richardson: So bounce back meaning meaning the e-mail doesn't work.
91.
Marilyn Smyth: Yes. So although it worked when he, when I was conversing with him over his
statement it now, here we go I can give you this.
92.
Paul Richardson: we will look at that if we need to.
93.
Marilyn Smyth: just to evidence that we did try and get answers from him.
94.
David Grafton: can I just be clear so that the attempts to get the answers to the questions Gary
was posing failed because the e-mail address that we thought was appropriate for George Briggs
is no longer active.
95.
Marilyn Smyth: that's right.
96.
Paul Richardson: but it had been previously.
97.
Marilyn Smyth: yes. Okay, in George Briggs statement he states that his language was abusive
and offensive towards me whether alone with him or in front of the other members of staff.
Examples of this were when he called me fucking useless and a fucking waster. Pardon me for
the language. It's not something normally I'd say that. If you think your youth come here to retire
you've got another fucking thing coming. I don't want fucking idiots like you working here. I was in
there for an hour and 20 minutes and in that time I was shocked and disgusted at why he was
ranting at me so I said very little.
98.
In Viv Delafuente's statement she states he used the word fuck, fucking and fucking hell. He was
derogatory about staff including medics and the information department. He would talk about
sacking medics and having someone on his hit list.
99.
Liz Murray informed me that he referred to a consultant radiologist as a wanker. He continued to
bombard me with information about a complaint from a manager in my team.
100.
In witness 4s statement she says you could see some people were anxious in his presence and
appear to be frightened of him. He often swore a lot and could be verbally aggressive. The minute
Gary sat down and picked up his papers he was vile. He was aggressive and everything we said
to him was not accepted by him. When Gary began becoming verbally aggressive everyone
remained silent and no one made any attempt to intervene.
101.
In Ros Edwards statement she states that in her own experience and personal view is that Gary
used the F word a lot. And in an executive team meeting he called the HR staff fuckwits. She also
stated that she spoke to Gary about his language when prompted him to apologise to the union.
102.
Nine of the 10 witnesses have heard Gary using foul and abusive language in formal meetings so
thats everybody except witness five. Everybody else reported it.
103.
A transcript of an emergency care quality performance review meeting on 21 April 2008 was
attended by Gary and nine other employees. The transcript shows Gary swore at least six times
during that meeting. Responses from Gary on this point. Gary has stated his responses to
questions. I recall a meeting with the trade union in June or July when I did swear but I do not
recall using the F-word. This is the only occasion I recall.
104.
It is hard to imagine how Gary could only recall one occasion when 9/10 witnesses personally
witnessed it and when the PCT are talking about his use of foul language suggesting it is a
regular occurrence rather than unusual and unusual event.
105.
Okay moving onto allegation two. A leaver Viv Delafuente claimed that Gary had constructively
dismissed her. She complained that a meeting was called between her, Gary and Liz Murray. She
said that during that meeting Gary's language towards her was extreme and obnoxious. She said
he used the F word throughout the meeting and it was a tirade of abuse. She said she wasn't
given an opportunity to speak and she was scared. She went on to say that Liz had told her she
had really pissed Gary off and that she should do something or risk being sacked if you didn't sort
things out. On this point the responses from Gary say. I did meet with Viv and her line manager
Liz on several occasions prior to her leaving at a time when the Directorate was struggling to
6 phd 19/9/11 13:55
Deleted: high
phd 19/9/11 13:55
Deleted: his talking about
phd 19/9/11 13:56
Deleted: placed
meet its objectives. There may be letters to that effect on record. Viv decided to leave and I
believe she went on to a promotion. I did not dismiss her. Liz did confirm in her statement and its
statement 2 para 13 that Gary did want Viv to leave and she stated that Gary swears fluently. As
Viv and Liz were the only witnesses it is difficult to find in any way with certainty. Liz did confirm
that a meeting was instigated by Gary but has not verified the details Viv reported in her
statement. Gary has stated that he did not dismiss her.
106.
Allegation three. That Gary behaves in ways that humiliate managers in front of peers. Witness 4
states during these meetings that he would berate them for their failure to achieve and some
returned in tears. She also refers to the performance review meeting on 21 April 2008 where she
when she states everything that he raised we had actioned or achieved and remained unhappy at
our defences and continue to become more aggressive in his discussions swearing generally
during conversations but also directly at us. She goes on to say Sheila Donaldson who was sitting
there with papers and her hands were visibly shaking and Gary's tone and manner was becoming
more aggressive and intimidating.
107.
There is a point on this. Sheila Donaldson had answered questions that Gary had asked of her
and in those responses to Gary's questions she states that she was scared. So that's the reason.
Gary asked why she didn't say anything. She is an HR, she is not a senior person. She couldn't
challenge the chief executive but this witness says her hand was shaking and she confirmed she
was scared. She then stated that after this time Gary then began to intimidate George on a
regular basis. Lisa Vickers reports her statement. At these meetings Gary is addressing the team
as a whole but on occasion his question seemed to be personal directed at one individual George
Briggs. You would have thought the questions should have should be addressed across the team.
But it was clear that one individual was being held accountable for everything across the
directorate. At this performance review meeting the vast majority of the team felt uncomfortable.
We felt that conversation Gary and George were having should have been conducted in private.
She goes on to say George was questioned in front of his team at that meeting. A discussion
around appraisals went on for some time. The whole meeting seemed to be a meeting between
Gary and George. If I had been in George's position I would have hoped my clinical director would
have supported me but Adam didn't. We all knew Adam had a friendship with Gary. It felt like he
was not speaking up to George for a reason. He also had a discussion with witness 4 about her
appraisal in front of everybody and she said it wasn't appropriate to discuss it there.
108.
For the record the reason I raised with Adam Wolverson in my interview with him whether or not
he had a friendship with Gary is because of this point. That somebody had told me that Adam had
not spoken up in a situation where they would have expected that he would have done. So the
fact that I was told they were friends is what made me ask the question about it. Sheila
Donaldson states that at one meeting in the spring of 2008 George Briggs was being challenged
in a lot of areas. There was a discussion about appraisals. Witness 4 was asked if she had a PDP
in place. It felt as if those two were singled out. He used the F word a couple of times and we
discussed it afterwards. And this is the same meeting we have got the minutes for. To alert you to
that. George Briggs states his language was abusive and offensive towards me whether alone
with him or in front of other members of staff. Examples of this were when he called me fucking
useless and a fucking waster. He accused me of not being committed to the organisation and the
job I was doing. George Briggs goes on. There was one performance review meeting in particular
when Walker belittled and berated me in front of the whole management team. He shouted and
appeared very angry and he swore at us on numerous occasions. Some examples of his
comments were. This is not fucking good enough and what the fucking hell do you think you are
doing so who's fucking responsibility is it? The meeting was well attended by the management
team and at times his abuse was directed at me.
109.
Part two of this allegation that Gary targets managers when he wants to get rid of them. In
witness 4 she states that George did tell us in the team meeting that it was clear Gary wanted him
gone. Later in her statement she states there was another incident where there was a visit by the
Healthcare commission that had not gone well. The head of nursing was told significant issues
7 phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
had been found in her area and that he wanted all of our heads on sticks as we were accountable
for the failings identified. He was extremely distressed publicly in our meeting. Lisa Vickers says
in her statement on this point I believe Gary wanted to get rid of George. For example a number
of executive directors came to visit unit unannounced and then a couple of hours later George
would be summoned to Gary's office. One day he was called and came back with a photograph.
He said Gary slid the photograph across the table and said what you think of that. Gary said he
had taken the picture that morning but it later transpired that picture was not even from his
hospital. George felt singled out and targeted. Over time it was blatantly obvious and it was not
made a secret he was being challenged when other directorates who had not met their targets
were not being has aggressively pursued as George. I believe George was driven out. I feel
saddened because now you because he was a good manager and very motivating. He instigated
all of the current changes but couldn't be here to see it through and never got to implement it at
all.
110.
Sheila states I felt George and witness 4 were being picked on at that meeting. The whole team
were part of it but it was noticeable that those two in particular were being singled out.
111.
George Briggs states that after a meeting with other managers and myself Walker asked me to
stay behind in his office at around 5:30 PM one afternoon in March 2008. His manner towards me
was abusive and demeaning saying how dare you put forward your ideas to the management
team when they go against my express wishes. If you think you've come here to retire you've got
another fucking thing coming. I don't want fucking idiots like you working here. I was shocked and
disgusted at why he was ranting at me. He said I have presented plans to the executive team
asking for more beds when we didn't need them. He threatened me with we have ways and
means of getting rid of you. We will pay you three months salary and you will sign the agreement.
I did not respond as I had been warned by other general managers not to respond to him.
112.
George Briggs also writes in his statement that the new director of Ops Dawn Bloodworth
witnessed some of the meetings and the abuse from Walker invited me out to lunch. She said I
really don't know what you've done but Gary hates you. She said she said could get me three
months notice pay. I said I felt as if I had she had been given this task to get rid of me as an
objective by Walker to get me to leave the organisation. When I asked if he had asked her to get
me out she didn't answer. I told her I need time to think about it but I couldn't go on like this.
113.
Responses from Gary on this point. When Gary was asked about whether he made staff feel
humiliated he responded that this is not intentional but would depend upon the individual. He had
not done so to his knowledge. He stated that if someone was not able to answer a question
posed to them I accept they might feel humiliated that this would not be my intention.
114.
When asked about whether he would be surprised to know that staff feel he targets people when
he wants to get rid of them. Gary responded that it would surprise him as it is not it had not been
raised before. He states he is very supportive of staff for long periods of time and always follows a
strict performance management regime under the advice of HR
115.
Evidently the responses that Gary has given to these questions are not congruent with the
witnesses. Gary describes his own management style is inclusive developmental supportive and
patient and states he believes his reports would describe him in this way.
116.
Generally witnesses have described Gary has some days charming others quite intimidating. He
is a bully and is rude. Questioning and wanting to know a lot of detail. Focused and he clearly has
a strong interest and desire to focus management on delivering patient care and quality. He was
prepared to challenge people if they were not accepting responsibility for areas that were their
responsibility. Gary is very direct, does not hide his feelings and its plain what he thinks. I find that
helpful because I am in no doubt about what he thinks. He can be meeting one in a difficult frame
of mind sometimes. When he is in a good frame of mind he can be quite productive but when he
is not they are less so. I think it is fair to say he doesn't tolerate fools gladly.
117.
When he is not in a good frame of mind he challenges people a lot and not in a constructive way.
He comes across as not fully paying attention. He can be assertive verging on aggressive.
8 phd 19/9/11 13:57
Deleted: someone's
phd 19/9/11 13:57
Deleted: y
phd 19/9/11 13:58
Deleted: George
118.
I can only assume Gary has little or no self-awareness if he believes staff see him as inclusive
development and supportive because some of his comments above are from those staff who are
generally supportive of Gary including one who described him as a friend and yet still the
description of his management style varies greatly from his own account.
119.
Then there is some breach of policy that I would like to draw your attention to. The following
extracts from Gary's contract of employment, job description, trust policies, and code of conduct
for NHS managers are relevant in this context as this as the set out in the obligations of the chief
executive.
120.
Gary's contract of employment appendix 3 says that the post-holder is required to follow the code
of conduct for NHS managers 2002. The trust has a range of employment policies and
procedures which are applicable to this appointment. Details are available from human resources
but the documents are in here in any event. The trust reserves the right to terminate the contract
if the post-holder at any time is guilty of any gross misconduct, gross incompetence or gross and
willful neglect in the discharge of duties or the chief executive breaches the NHS managers code
of conduct.
121.
Job description. Appendix 1 says the chief executive has the following principal areas of
responsibility. One of those is relationships in the trust fostering clinical engagement and overall
staff management and under corporate management to ensure an appropriate and consistent
corporate presence at the separate hospitals in Lincolnshire. Relationships within the trust and
staff management it says to establish an open and participatory of management process and
style within the trust. To ensure that all staff have the opportunity to develop and training from
programs already in place. Have overall responsibility for all matters relating to employees of the
trust including motivation and professional personal and career development. To ensure open
and effective communication throughout the trust. And in the code of conduct for NHS managers
there are numerous relevant references to the conduct towards staff in the code including as an
NHS manager I will observe the following principles: respect for NHS staff show my commitment
to working as a team member by working with all my colleagues in the NHS and the wider
community I will respect and treat with dignity and fairness NHS staff in my capacity as a senior
manager within the NHS I will seek to ensure that no one is unlawfully discriminated against
because of their religion, belief, race, colour, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation,
age, social and economic status or nation of origin. I will also seek to ensure NHS staff are valued
as colleagues (mumble). Given appropriate opportunities to take part in decision-making. Given
all reasonable protection from harassment and bullying. Provided with a safe working
environment and helped to maintain and improve their knowledge and skills to achieve their
potential. He goes on to say that I will seek to ensure the judgements about colleagues including
appraisals and references are consistent fair and unbiased and are properly founded.
122.
The disciplinary procedure talks about examples of gross misconduct and they include abuse or
deliberate action detrimental to patients visitors or employees or abusive language. The use of
offensive or abusive language against employees patients and visitors.
123.
Reach of the trust policies and procedures. Serious breaches of the trust policies and procedures
one of which is bringing the trust into distribute another is bullying and harassment, and the other
is serious breach of professional misconduct.
124.
The trust’s dignity at work policy states that the trust has a duty to provide a working environment
that is free from discrimination, harassment, intimidation, bullying, nonphysical assault or any
other forms of harassment constituting unacceptable behaviour that is personally offensive and is
committed to achieving this. The trust will not condone behaviour that is abusive or offensive and
which affects the dignity or well-being of any of its employees. Thank you.
125.
Paul Richardson: Right that terminates your presentation. Gary do you have any questions for
Marilyn.
126.
Gary Walker: initially I've got a few things to say but three points come up that I haven't covered in
my statement one of them is the photograph that was claimed it was taken was on my wall in my
office. It probably still is on the wall in my office. The photograph I showed George Briggs quite
9 phd 19/9/11 14:07
Deleted: d
phd 19/9/11 14:08
Deleted: ing
clearly indicates where it is from, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, and it was the issues that were
a national scandal there.
127.
David Grafton: can I just say you are going to have an opportunity.
128.
Gary Walker: I know but it is not covered in my statement.
129.
David Grafton: No. No. That's perfectly fine. You can go outside of what's in your statement. At
this stage it is questioning Marilyn on those things she said. Now what you've just told us is that
you are putting to her that the statement that she received from Mr Briggs about the photograph
was in error and you are asking her to accept that what you are putting forward demonstrates
that.
130.
Gary Walker: well, I don't know if I'm asking her to accept that I'm actually asking the panel to
accept that.
131.
David Grafton: yes you are indeed but as I say at this stage you are addressing questions to
Marilyn. The panel will pick up on those responses and draw their conclusions from that
interaction. Does that make sense?
132.
Gary Walker: well I don't need to say that you've just said it.
133.
David Grafton: that's clarified that point but clearly don't let me stop you asking questions.
134.
Gary Walker: I'm happy to pick up the other matters as we go.
135.
David Grafton: so there are no further questions for Marilyn.
136.
Paul Richardson: do we have any questions from panel members know.
137.
David Grafton: Marilyn, you have drawn our attention to a statement from Vivian Delafuente and
that's at page 24 of the bundle we have before us. In your investigative report you tell us that Viv
told you was that there was swearing and abusive language at the interview. Can you just clarify
that the statement I am referring to a page 24 starts off in paragraph 1. He used the words, and it
goes on. Is that reference to the meeting that took place on 26 March in other words using those
words is Viv telling you that there that those words were used in the meeting on 26 March.
138.
Marilyn Smyth: no, I don't believe so.
139.
David Grafton,: in which case if we look at paragraph 2 can you draw to our attention where she
said that foul language was used.
140.
Marilyn Smyth: no it's not here.
141.
David Grafton: okay, what I draw from the statement and from what you told us and please tell us
if you think I have got this right for the panel that what Viv is saying that apparently on a regular
basis perhaps he used the words.
142.
Marilyn Smyth: yes.
143.
David Grafton: he used the words set out in paragraph 1 but that at the meeting on 26 March visit
is silent on whether foul language is used because she is not specific there.
144.
Marilyn Smyth: well, the interesting thing about this is I see in her responses to Gary that she said
that wasn't an interview but what I think has happened here is I did a telephone interview with her.
So what I think is the case is that she didn't perceive it as an interview as it wasn't face-to-face.
I'm assuming. It's a bit of an assumption on my part but I most definitely did speak to her.
145.
David Grafton: yes
146.
Marilyn Smyth: however, I didn't produce this statement she did
147.
David Grafton: Right okay.
148.
Marilyn Smyth: whereas for most of the witnesses I produced the statement and they confirmed
all changed them as they chose. But I didn't do that with her. She drew this statement but she did
10 tell me about the fact that the language was incessant.
149.
David Grafton: all right, thank you for that. Chairman I've got no further questions.
150.
Paul Richardson: Right you have a witness Marilyn. Would you like to, who is going for the
witness.
151.
Marilyn Smyth: I'll get her
152.
(Various people leave)
153.
Gary Walker: strictly speaking I should leave.
154.
(Gary Walker leaves)
155.
Marilyn Smyth: could you tell the panel Carol the date of the meeting referred to at paragraph 13
of your statement. Do you have your statement.
156.
Carol Pilsbury: I do yeah.
157.
Paul Richardson: which pages this.
158.
David Grafton: it's page 20 onwards in the bundle.
159.
Carol Pilsbury: yes that was the staff side executive meeting that was held in the trust board
Lincoln County Hospital and the date was 18th of June.
160.
Marilyn Smyth: okay can I continue.
161.
Paul Richardson: yes please.
162.
Marilyn Smyth: was Gary's use of language for example oh for fucks sake, typical of language
you have heard Gary using previously.
163.
Carol Pilsbury: no.
164.
Marilyn Smyth: no. That was the first time.
165.
Carol Pilsbury: if I recall it was the first time that Gary used that terminology in a formal meeting.
166.
Marilyn Smyth: okay.
167.
Carol Pilsbury: just so I have got it right chronologically we did have some foundation trust
meetings as well where he swore again but I just need to be sure of chronology.
168.
Marilyn Smyth: okay but you say that 18th of June.
169.
Carol Pilsbury: yes.
170.
Marilyn Smyth: was the first time you have heard him use that language in in a formal meeting.
171.
Carol Pilsbury: yes.
172.
Marilyn Smyth: and when did Gary apologise for this paragraph 15.
173.
Carol Pilsbury: the situation that we had following the staff side executive meeting was that when
Gary used that terminology the FTO for Unison was actually present and she made a verbal
objection to the chair of the meeting. Ross was chair. So what happened after the meeting was
staff side had a discussion about how we would minute that because technically it should be
minuted as an objection was made. Our worry was that if it was minuted the minutes go out on
the net and are well distributed so had a bit of a concern as to would it be right for us to minute it.
Or would we be able to say to Gary you do put yourself into bits of a difficult position here Gary
and also staff-side so that's when I went to talk to Ros and raised these concerns with her by
saying do we minute this or not or we prefer not to because I didn't think it was the right thing for
Gary or the organisation. And that's when Ros arranged for us to meet. That being myself as
chair, Ann Ashworth the secretary and Vi King as Vice chair. So the three main officers of the
executive to meet with Gary the following week to see if we can put our position to him and
resolve it without taking minuteswhich we duly did and we met the following week and we met
11 phd 19/9/11 14:09
Deleted: r
phd 19/9/11 14:09
Deleted: 's
phd 19/9/11 14:10
Deleted: a
phd 19/9/11 14:12
Deleted:
Gary at 830. We put our position to Gary and he apologised and we actually did go on to have a
very productive meeting. We think for about three hours. And it was a very good meeting. We got
a lot of business discussed and a lot of agreements were made.
174.
Marilyn Smyth: when was that.
175.
Carol Pilsbury: the following week if I recall.
176.
Marilyn Smyth: so it would have been sometime in the region of 25th of June.
177.
Carol Pilsbury: yes I know it was the following week. I think I wrote it down. What did you say 25
June.
178.
Marilyn Smyth: what you said is that he. That 18th of June was the first time and that he
apologised and I'm trying to see when he apologised.
179.
Carol Pilsbury: trouble is when you went to have your own diary got the staff-side diary has well
for last year which I haven't got so that was the 15th July. Wednesday 15th July
180.
Marilyn Smyth: okay.
181.
Carol Pilsbury: Gary Walker 830.
182.
Marilyn Smyth: okay. What assurances did he give that there would be no repeat of that
language.
183.
Carol Pilsbury: he apologised and as far as I was concerned he did see the view of staff-side and
that it was not appropriate.
184.
Marilyn Smyth: okay. In view of his apology did Gary moderate his language following that.
185.
Carol Pilsbury: He did but following that we had another FT meeting a foundation trust meeting
with the Unison officers. That was about Unison's campaign because we were campaigning for an
opposition to foundation trust application and because of that we agreed to meet with
management side with Gary and the previous chair to put our position and Ros Edwards was
there as well. The people present at that meeting were Carol Brown my full-time officer and
Adrian Morgan our branch organiser and during that meeting Gary used the F word again
because I can remember very clearly after he left the meeting instead of saying things like you
know that went really well we just looked at each other and said I can't believe he did it again.
186.
Marilyn Smyth: and this was when.
187.
Carol Pilsbury: that was I know that was after the executive did I send you the dates Marilyn
because I know I went all through their staff side diary at the time.
188.
Marilyn Smyth: yes you told me it was the 22nd July but I just want to check that it definitely was
for the benefit of the panel.
189.
Carol Pilsbury: if it's in my diary I can confirm yes Wednesday 22nd July 3 PM FT with Gary
Walker etc is written in my diary.
190.
Marilyn Smyth: thank you.
191.
Paul Richardson: Gary do you have any questions for Carol.
192.
Gary Walker: yeah a few. It might be easier though. Have you answered the questions that I gave
to the trust.
193.
Carol Pilsbury: I did. I sent you them Thursday Gary.
194.
Gary Walker: okay. I haven't had those. Are they in here.
195.
David Grafton: they are in here.
196.
Gary Walker: in that case then can I take a moment to read through them because it might save
us a bit of time.
12 phd 19/9/11 14:13
Deleted: r
phd 19/9/11 14:13
Deleted: so
197.
David Grafton: yes.
198.
Gary Walker: has anybody found them yet.
199.
Tim Staniland: no.
200.
Carol Pilsbury: I've got them.
201.
Gary Walker: they are not in mine. Have you got seven copies?
202.
David Grafton: if you have got the answers to the questions there can I suggest that for the
benefit of us all, Gary you go through the questions.
203.
Gary Walker: okay. Can I just be clear of the statement first you said that the first occasion was at
the staff-side meeting. Was that the one you said was on the 18th of June?
204.
Carol Pilsbury: I think so yes.
205.
Gary Walker: Right okay and then you met with me on the 15th July and we had that long
meeting and then on 22 July you said I did it again. What's the last paragraph about then because
if I did it...
206.
Carol Pilsbury: last paragraph.
207.
Gary Walker: of your statement. It's paragraph 17 of your statement and it says that and it's got
handwritten notes in there saying 22nd of June 2009. If that happenned again then surely I did it
again happened in June rather than I did it again on 22 July. Is that correct.
208.
Carol Pilsbury: just asked me that question again Gary.
209.
Gary Walker: well you said that on 18 June I used foul language.
210.
Carol Pilsbury: which was the executive meeting yes.
211.
Gary Walker: and then you said on the 22nd July I did it again but there is a statement in here
that I swore on 22 June. That would be a third occasion that would be I did it again as it were.
212.
Carol Pilsbury: from what I can recall you did it at two foundation trust meetings.
213.
Gary Walker: right so I did it again was actually in 22nd of June. So 18th of June, 22nd of June,
22nd of July.
214.
Carol Pilsbury: if that's when the FT meeting were meetings were.
215.
Gary Walker: Right okay so the letter of complaint that your question here question one has
everyone got the questions at least. I think they are in the pack. Basically it says regarding
paragraph 2 is it not true that you did not write the complaint of June 2009 and please explain
why the document is dated May 2009. So is that the letter, anyway what is the answer to that
question.
216.
Carol Pilsbury: I think I know what you're asking. Unfortunately when I wrote the letter it was very
remiss of me I didn't date it. And I fully acknowledge I didn't date it. When I did write it I know it
was following the telephone call as it rightly says following the emergency planning meeting which
I understand was held in April. But when I met the chairman I did advise who actually asked me
about the letter when I had an introductory meeting with him. He did ask me approximately the
date. As far as I can recall I'm pretty certain it was May but it could have been early June.
217.
Gary Walker: you mentioned in your statement I think I can't recall what paragraph it was but that
I used bad language soon after starting at the trust, which was in 2006.
218.
Carol Pilsbury: where does it say that.
219.
Gary Walker: paragraph 3. Gary had not been imposed very long with a number of staff
mentioned to me that Gary Walker had used foul language in formal meetings.
220.
Carol Pilsbury: yes.
phd 19/9/11 14:13
Deleted: and
13 221.
Gary Walker: but you just said you've never heard that but you have heard it not personally but
you have been told about in 2006 is that what you say.
222.
Carol Pilsbury: yes my position as staff-side rep is that quite often people would raise their
concerns with me but my position is that when I actually have to advise them are you just telling
me because you want to tell me or are you actually directed me to act on your behalf. And at that
time the people actually mentioning that you were swearing weren't prepared to take any further
so I was in the position I was advised but not instructed to do anything about it.
223.
Gary Walker: and that's the reason why nothing was raised for three years effectively.
224.
Carol Pilsbury: possibly.
225.
Gary Walker: okay would it be possible to get a copy of your answers at some point.
226.
Carol Pilsbury: I've got them here.
227.
Paul Richardson: we have photo faxing.
228.
David Grafton: we have photocopying facilities here.
229.
Gary Walker: okay which way would you like to do it.
230.
David Grafton: are you asking them for them now. Do you need them now.
231.
Gary Walker: no but I would like them. It just might be easier. Okay I will continue. In paragraph 4
can you confirm who you are referring to in a meeting of 21 April 2008 If you're referring to that
meeting.
232.
Carol Pilsbury: are you talking about the paragraph 4 in my statement.
233.
Gary Walker: you mentioned the emergency care planning meeting do you know which one that
was.
234.
Carol Pilsbury: can I just read it a minute. Right sorry the question was.
235.
Gary Walker: which emergency care planning meeting were you referring to.
236.
Carol Pilsbury: the one that was in April.
237.
Gary Walker: April when.
238.
Carol Pilsbury: I'm not absolutely certain of the day but I know an April emergency care planning
meeting.
239.
David Grafton can I just be clear is that April 2009.
240.
Carol Pilsbury: yes.
241.
Gary Walker: okay is there any evidence of that anywhere.
242.
Carol Pilsbury: evidence of the meeting.
243.
Gary Walker: well so far I have had no evidence about a meeting in April 2009 so is there any
evidence or papers that I have missed.
244.
Carol Pilsbury: I haven't got them I haven't got the papers.
245.
Gary Walker: okay so for the record there is no evidence apart from your statement that it
happened.
246.
Carol Pilsbury: say that again.
247.
Gary Walker: well you said that I had been using foul language in an emergency care planning
meeting in April but there is no evidence of that.
248.
Carol Pilsbury: No what I said was very clearly in my statement that a colleague of mine informed
me that a colleague of hers had attended the emergency care planning meeting and was very
distressed about you swearing in that meeting.
14 phd 19/9/11 14:14
Deleted: .
249.
Gary Walker: okay is there a statement to that effect or any evidence whatsoever.
250.
Carol Pilsbury: I do believe that it is in the transcript of that meeting.
251.
Gary Walker: can we have sight of the transcript then...
252.
Carol Pilsbury: Well you will have to ask whoever owns that transcript. But I've been made aware
that it was transcribed.
253.
Mike Cutts: so it might be 2008 that you are referring to.
254.
Paul Richardson: are we questioning excuse me Gary.
255.
Gary Walker: I am trying to establish which meeting we are talking about.
256.
Paul Richardson: Yes. that the meeting took place and the content of it is this a secondary issue.
257.
Gary Walker: well I'm trying to work out which date this emergency care planning meeting is. It
seems to me that this is a new piece of information that this is a meeting that happened in April
2009 that has been transcribed and I haven't seen the meeting of 2009 that has been transcribed.
258.
Paul Richardson: and it won't be in the pack.
259.
David Grafton: No. Okay. We note what you're saying is that swearing occurred occurred and that
you were told this by colleagues.
260.
Carol Pilsbury: in the PCT.
261.
David Grafton: by a colleague in the PCT and your recollection is that this was April 2009 but we
don't have minutes.
262.
Carol Pilsbury: I can't confirm the date.
263.
David Grafton: in which case the panel will note what you said and the fact that there are no
minutes presented and that it was you recounting that.
264.
Marilyn Smyth: is it okay for me to give you some information at this point.
265.
David Grafton: Well, if it helps to clarify this issue.
266.
Marilyn Smyth: Yeah a number of people told me, if you ask me who they were I couldn't tell you,
but when I was interviewing them a number of people told me that generally a transcript of the
meetings did not refer to the swearing. People were leaving the swearing out of the transcripts.
However then a person said to me however I could get you one where it's in there which is how I
got the April 2008 notes which I was informed that generally all the swearing was left out that the
people minuting the meetings didn't put swearing in if that's any help.
267.
Gary Walker: if I can clarify matters it is highly unusual for there to exist any transcript of any
meeting of the trust.
268.
David Grafton: so the only transcript that we've had reference to up until now transcript I'm talking
about is a meeting in April 2008. But your recollection is of the meeting in April 2009.
269.
Carol Pilsbury: I don't have a recollection of the meeting I have a recollection of a friend who
works for the PCT saying to me it was brought to her attention that Gary was using foul language
in an emergency care planning meeting.
270.
David Grafton: Right okay.
271.
Carol Pilsbury: it had been a specific day I would have dated that in my letter.
272.
David Grafton: Right.
273.
Carol Pilsbury: I'm just saying this was given to me as information.
274.
Mike Cutts: when is your recollection that information was given to you.
275.
Carol Pilsbury: I'm pretty certain to say to you that it was May of last year May 2009 or
15 thereabouts because what triggered that then was again I raised my concerns again with Roz
about I keep hearing people saying about Gary using inappropriate language at formal meetings
and really what triggered the letter was as I explained in my statement there were several issues
coming into the organisation. One of the issues was that there was a staff nurse at Pilgrim
Hospital that was actually going to be called to disciplinary action for gross misconduct for using
exactly the same terminology. So my dilemma to discuss it with Roz was you know Ros I said to
you I was a bit concerned with how far Gary goes at some of his meetings and yet now we are
bringing people into disciplinary action and actually that individual was going to be disciplined
under gross misconduct. So there was a dilemma there for me because obviously I was
representing the individual. The other dilemma that I had was that we had a zero tolerance policy
of history which I am sure most people have heard of and it's got this very unique name and again
there is a typo there because it should read be withholding treatment from people over the age of
18 not under but I did change it in my original statement and what happens there is that it's quite
descriptive of what we would consider bad behaviour and amongst that is bad language and
offensive language. My dilemma with that was as well that we were we started to get a rise of bad
behaviour from patients you know. There had been some violent attacks on staff etc. And as staffside every so often we reboot policies to make sure they are current and effective. And my worry
within the zero tolerance policy was that if we have to warn patients that their conduct is not
acceptable that has to trigger a letter from the chief exec and it can only be the chief exec. My
worry in all that and this is what I shared with Ros that if people in the PCT are actually saying
Gary Walker uses foul language at a meeting so then we write to a GP in the PCT saying you
know we are going to withdraw treating Charlie Brown because of bad behaviour and bad
language. The GP and the PCT perhaps heard of this bad language come back and say well I
think that's a bit rich that you are doing that from your GP. So really from your chief executive. So
really what we were trying to do through staff-side to resolve this to get Gary to... Sorry.
276.
Paul Richardson: No we will come to this in a minute. Can I just go back to Gary's question. I
think this is where we are at. Can we continue with Gary's question.
277.
Gary Walker: we are going to bounce around some of the issues raised in the last couple of
minutes but I would just keep it to order so I don't forget anything. So regarding paragraph 5 if you
could just confirm I mean it says here confirm if you had raised concerns when and what they are.
You have kind of alluded to that already but if you could just clarify the point that the points that
are in paragraph 5. It says you were you raised concerns with Ros.
278.
Carol Pilsbury: I did.
279.
Gary Walker: could you explain what concerns and how and what they were...
280.
Carol Pilsbury: I thought I done that.
281.
Gary Walker: yes well as I've tried to explain to the panel before I do have difficulty in following
things so I don't tend to be able to keep track. So if you could help me with that.
282.
Carol Pilsbury: I certainly can. Basically what happened with that several people had shared their
concerns with me about your effing and blinding really and again it puts you in that difficult
position as a member of staff side do you act on it. Although people speak to you in confidence
do you act on it. And because I was in a dilemma I thought it was right that I talk to Ros about it
because I had spoken to her about it before. And as you know we usually have a one-to-one with
Ros on a Thursday morning. And I raised it again but there just seemed to be that you was sort of
becoming pretty famous really.
283.
Gary Walker: and this conversation that you had with Ros was that in writing that you followed it
up with. How was that done.
284.
Carol Pilsbury: no it was a conversation.
285.
Gary Walker: Just a conversation. Do you know when that was.
286.
Carol Pilsbury: if I remember rightly I had the conversation with her...
287.
Gary Walker: sorry is it not in, I thought you were just going to be able to read your answers to the
16 phd 19/9/11 14:16
Deleted: roles
questions.
288.
Carol Pilsbury: oh hang on.
289.
Gary Walker: it's just easier to do that.
290.
Carol Pilsbury: I recall early part of 2009 so we're on question what question.
291.
Gary Walker: it's paragraph 5 and questione 4. Its question 4 sorry about that.
292.
Carol Pilsbury: I recall early part of 2009 use of bad language of trust board I've answered so.
293.
Gary Walker: okay thank you.
294.
Carol Pilsbury: I think we can say that it was the early part 2009.
295.
David Grafton: In Carol's statement Gary paragraph 5 it says in around Springtime 2009.
296.
Gary Walker: yes and not really offered any more clarification on that.
297.
David Grafton: yes quite so
298.
Gary Walker: regarding paragraph 8 then if we can go to that one and you mentioned it several
times already about your friend hearing, let me just get the wording right, I work with a colleague
who works for the PCT who told me she had heard about my use of language. Therefore is it not
true that your friend did not witness foul language from me directly
299.
Carol Pilsbury: that is true because she, I thought I'd put that clearly in my statement, that she
received a phone call from somebody who was present at the meet at the emergency care
meeting. She wasn't there personally no.
300.
Gary Walker: Okay. You mentioned that and haven't so far mentioned verbal concerns raised in
December. How did that happen. Again I'll use the same words, please explain the manner in
which you allegedly lodged verbal concerns in December 2008.
301.
Carol Pilsbury: again as far as I can remember it was probably a conversation with Ros. Just to
say that staff had said to me off the record whatever that you were using strong language.
302.
Gary Walker: thank you. Paragraph 10. Now you've mentioned the dignity at work policy already
and my question here is it not that the dignity at work policy is intended to deal with people using
bad language directly individuals.
303.
Carol Pilsbury: No I wouldn't agree and I did actually respond to you want that I wouldn't agree
because let me give you an example. If we have say for example a patient in A&E where there
are all cubicles and we have patients in on a regular basis that use the most extraordinary
language quite loudly. And I say there was child in two cubicles down hearing all this we would be
absolutely justified in saying your language is not acceptable within this area. Absolutely justified
in saying that.
304.
Gary Walker: in a patient area.
305.
Carol Pilsbury: not just a patient area if there are other areas where we believe it would be
offensive we would challenge it. We as I say we as a member of staff I am a senior sister in the
organisation and I would challenge that.
306.
Gary Walker: okay.
307.
Carol Pilsbury: if I believe others were being offended by it.
308.
Gary Walker: thank you.
309.
Carol Pilsbury if it's in the changing room and everyone is having a bad day and the rest of it I
readily accept that. I readily accept that. It has to be. Judgments have to be made where this
language is taking place and is there a direct effect on other people but also a strong possibility it
would affect other people.
310.
Gary Walker: to your knowledge and you are quite knowledgeable on these things in your role as
17 phd 19/9/11 14:16
Deleted: d
phd 19/9/11 14:18
Deleted: after
phd 19/9/11 14:20
Deleted: s
staff side chair do you know if this has been applied then in those circumstances.
311.
Carol Pilsbury: In the (name withheld) case could you please not use his name the staff nurse at
pilgrim was actually what brought all this to a head because I don't know. Did you. I know you
referred to it I don't know did you read his casenotes Gary.
312.
Gary Walker: no
313.
Carol Pilsbury: But I know you made reference to it.
314.
Gary Walker: I was briefed as usual I don't read them.
315.
Carol Pilsbury: just so you. I want you to be clear where I'm coming from on this. That in the
(name withheld) case there will was quite a few people who had made complaints about his
behaviour. And it was the venue. And this was the difficulty I had because some people were
saying he was using bad language in the kitchen where patients aren't but also the other
witnesses were saying that they witnessed him using bad language in a bed space. Where they
were making up in bed. So we had both issues going on really sort of patient area and nonpatient area. But because the person in the kitchen was offended by it that's why it had to be dealt
with. You see my point.
316.
Gary Walker: since you brought it up what was the outcome of that.
317.
Carol Pilsbury: The outcome of it was that a disciplinary hearing was held.
318.
Gary Walker: (Long pause). Okay. Well I think you have answered 8 then on that basis.
Regarding paragraph 11 the zero tolerance policy is it not true that zero tolerance policies
designed to ensure bad language is not used against individuals. This is presumably the trust
version of the national policy.
319.
Carol Pilsbury: No and I have answered I've given you an answer has no cos with some of the
examples I've given you already about the example of the A&E that if someone is directly
swearing at someone else it's offending a mother and child in the corner then the zero tolerance
policy would apply.
320.
Gary Walker: okay and so your answer to 10 is.
321.
Carol Pilsbury: I wouldn't agree. My answer to you is on question 10 is I wouldn't agree, with the
explanation I've just given you.
322.
Gary Walker: in the meeting that we had on 15 July 2009 you said to me that you agreed with the
sentiment why I was outraged at the matter being discussed at staff side executive meeting.
323.
Carol Pilsbury: I did.
324.
Gary Walker: indeed so is it not true that then that my language at the staff-side meeting was a
result of the situation we were discussing.
325.
Carol Pilsbury: for you yes probably but the thing is as well your response and I quote verbatim
was for fucks sake. So you if you were personally expressing your exasperation I would support
you on that but you was the only person in the room that's used to that type of dialogue and we
believe as a staff side that was too strong and offensive.
326.
Gary Walker: thank you. You made comments that I leave meetings. I left the meeting before it
ended. It is not usually for me to leave, its on paragraph 30, is it not usual for me to do that.
327.
Carol Pilsbury: yes and I answered yes.
328.
Gary Walker: thank you. Sorry it's just that I have not seen those. Is it not true that I apologised
later, you've already answered that. And what was your answer to 13.
329.
Carol Pilsbury: question 13 about you leaving the meeting.
330.
Gary Walker: no that was about, question 13 is it's not true that I apologised in a later meeting.
you've already agreed to that.
18 phd 19/9/11 14:21
Deleted: back
phd 19/9/11 14:21
Deleted: This
331.
Carol Pilsbury: yes
332.
Gary Walker: it was accepted by you and others present
333.
Carol Pilsbury: yes
334.
Gary Walker: and that we had as you have already said a productive meeting about a number of
issues
335.
Carol Pilsbury: we did
336.
Gary Walker: I can't remember all of them but I but it did last quite a long time lunchtime almost
337.
Carol Pilsbury: it was. It was a very good meeting.
338.
Gary Walker: okay. What is your response to question 14.
339.
Carol Pilsbury: what is question 14.
340.
Gary Walker: is it not true that you have raised concerns about me after they have been dealt with
as a result of pressure from the trust.
341.
Carol Pilsbury No that is not true and I have answered no. On the back of that I would just ask
you what do you mean by pressure from the trust. What do you mean by that.
342.
Gary Walker: I mean influencing you to make a statement.
343.
Carol Pilsbury: definitely not.
344.
Gary Walker: okay. 15 says is it's not true that swearing at the trust occurs at all levels.
345.
Carol Pilsbury: I think I answered yes.
346.
Gary Walker: okay.
347.
Carol Pilsbury: I ran out at 14 actually but I will answer that anyway the answer is yes.
348.
Gary Walker: okay thank you and number 16 is it's not true that you have sworn at work.
349.
Carol Pilsbury: yes.
350.
Gary Walker: okay.
351.
Tim Staniland: is it not true or is it true.
352.
Carol Pilsbury: it is true. It is true that I have sworn at work but what I will clarify is that like most
people I do not swear at formal meetings. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that I haven't
sworn in the sluice when I have been having a really really bad shift but I've made sure that I
positioned myself appropriately where I'm not actually technically in the workplace.
353.
Gary Walker: I'm just going to pick up one comment you said there. You said that most people
don't swear in formal meetings. Are you aware that there are other occasions when people swear
at formal meetings then.
354.
Carol Pilsbury: I can't say that I've heard anybody. I can't recall hearing anybody because if I had
Gary I think the staff side reaction would be exactly the same that you know we would have
challenged it whoever they were.
355.
Gary Walker: okay I want to ask a few more questions some of them issues you brought up whilst
we are here but the reason I want to ask these questions is that I feel the actions that Carol has
taken in these proceedings as a result of the action proposed by me previously which may have
resulted in her losing her post that she held in staff side chair. So the questions I've got.
356.
Tim Staniland: could you repeat that.
357.
Carol Pilsbury: I don't understand that at all.
358.
Paul Richardson: can you clarify that.
19 359.
Gary Walker: maybe if I, I've got a series of questions that explores the relationship between
Carol and Ros Edwards and the staff-side chair at Boston. Not staff-side chair I can't remember
what you call him but the head of staff side at Boston and proposals that I made with roles to
change the constitution of staff-side which would have led to a different arrangement in how the
staff-side body would be formed. That would have changed quite significantly the chances of
Carol being voted as chair. I consider that motivation.
360.
David Grafton: so your question is.
361.
Gary Walker: no my questions well there are a few but thats the rationale not the questions.
362.
David Grafton: well there's one question it seems to me. Is the motivation for the actions that
you've taken in writing statements and giving the answers you have given due to the fact that you
resent any actions taken by Gary Walker which adversely affected your position on the staff side.
363.
Paul Richardson: is that the question.
364.
Gary Walker: I think I'd like to ask my questions but it's entirely up to you how you would like to
deal with that.
365.
David Grafton: well is the substance of what I said what you want to know.
366.
Gary Walker: what I want to know are the our questions that I noted for my own memory.
367.
David Grafton: chairman I suggest you allow the asking of the questions as Gary Walker wants to
ask them.
368.
Gary Walker: there aren't that many. First one is how would you describe your relationship with
Ros Edwards.
369.
Carol Pilsbury: I think I've got a very good working relationship with her. I haven't answered the
previous question yet. Do you want me to answer that.
370.
Gary Walker: sorry I'm not going to ask the question David summarise because I'm only going to
ask these questions.
371.
Carol Pilsbury: Right.
372.
Gary Walker: in my view what I said before was a rationale not a question.
373.
Carol Pilsbury: Right okay but if I had been given the opportunity to answer my answer would
have been emphatically not would have been my answer.
374.
Gary Walker: thank you.
375.
Carol Pilsbury: my relationship with Ros Edwards. I think we have a very robust professional
working relationship.
376.
Gary Walker okay. Do you remember writing a letter to the healthcare commission raising
concerns that you had not discussed with Ross or me or any senior officer at the trust.
377.
Carol Pilsbury: have you got it with you.
378.
Gary Walker: No I don't actually but you recall the letter because there was many discussions
afterwards. It was a multiple signature letter. Your signature was on it.
379.
Carol Pilsbury: was that one from Unison.
380.
Gary Walker: it had your signature on it.
381.
Carol Pilsbury: it would have been from Unison. When was it when was it dated.
382.
Gary Walker: I think it was the early part of 2009.
383.
Carol Pilsbury new: and what was the letter again did you say.
384.
Gary Walker: it was a letter to the Healthcare commission raising concerns about the trust without
discussions with Ros or anybody else.
20 phd 19/9/11 14:22
Deleted: which
385.
Carol Pilsbury: that letter that was actually. I was CC into it into that matter. I didn't write it. I was
not the author of it. The author of that letter was actually from Carol Brown who is the Unison fulltime officer for our area and I didn't countersign that Gary I was copied into it.
386.
Gary Walker: fine. But clearly you have a close relationship with Carol Brown and she wouldn't
have done that without your agreement.
387.
Carol Pilsbury: she was part of the foundation trust campaign.
388.
Gary Walker and the letter, I do now recall the date of the letter because it was unusual. It was
sent on 31 March 2009 which was the last day the Healthcare commission were a functioning
body. The reason for asking the question is you said you had a professional relationship with Ros.
Do you consider that letter to be a representation of a professional relationship.
389.
Carol Pilsbury: I think he'd be more suited to ask Carol Brown that question.
390.
Gary Walker: okay. You are aware that that letter was being sent.
391.
Carol Pilsbury: I was aware of it when I was being copied into it.
392.
Gary Walker: okay. Have you ever had any complaints about you or your conduct.
393.
Carol Pilsbury: no.
394.
Gary Walker: so you've never had a complaint about your conduct as staff-side chair or the staffside committee from those of Boston.
395.
Carol Pilsbury: no. Don't think so. Can't remember.
396.
Gary Walker: okay. I would suggest that there were many complaints made by a chap who is no
longer alive but there are e-mails sent to me and will be on file in the trust that will say there were
many difficulties and that the joint partnership work that was being done with the trust was
suspended as the reaction to that.
397.
Carol Pilsbury: Have you got that?
398.
Marilyn Smyth: Excuse me I don't understand the relevance.
399.
Carol Pilsbury: Well, no, actually...
400.
Gary Walker: This is to demonstrate there is a motivation to manufacture a story against me.
401.
Carol Pilsbury: can I just respond to that. Actually, just to give an assurance to the panel. I would
not manufacture a story against anybody. My role as an elected chair to the staff-side and I am
elected by staff-side so in response to what you are actually trying to allude to about the rep at
Pilgrim. What happened was when the executive re-elections took place several years ago the
person that was in the chair was actually not elected and it was himself that took umbrage to that.
I am a duly nominated and elected member of staff site committee. I don't elect myself.
402.
David Grafton: okay.
403.
Gary Walker: No.No. I understand that and that's why I based my questions about the
constitution. But you said you never had a complaint about you but you did issue a public
apology.
404.
Carol Pilsbury: did I?
405.
Gary Walker: it says here from Roger Hancock that, you say you didn't have a complaint against
you, but there was a lengthy meeting with representatives full-time officers attended any claims
he received a public apology. He also complains that it is with regret that I have decided that I
cannot continue working with such deceitful lying manipulative people. This was passed to Ros to
deal with and you are not aware that she has dealt with this.
406.
Paul Richardson: what relevance is this to what we are discussing this morning Gary.
407.
Gary Walker: the relevance is that I am trying to establish the character of the witness.
21 phd 19/9/11 14:22
Deleted: ed
408.
Paul Richardson: is that under question.
409.
Gary Walker: I think it is
410.
Paul Richardson: I don't follow this I'm afraid.
411.
David Grafton: no I mean there is the question is the question I summarised.
412.
Gary Walker: with respect I did not summarise it and I asked if I could ask my questions and you
agreed.
413.
David Grafton: Well yes but we appear to be going down a blind alley. What you are doing is
bringing forward evidence that you could have included within your statement of case you chose
not to your now asking us.
414.
Gary Walker: with respect, it was only a few days ago that you said Carol Pilsbury was going to
attend after previously saying she was not going to be.
415.
David Grafton: you had the opportunity of giving written questions.
416.
Gary Walker: it was only a few days ago and it takes time to put these things together. I am
asking what I think are legitimate questions. If you want to say I can't ask them then to say I can't
ask them.
417.
David Grafton: Well I think you understand the concerns that are being expressed. What I would
say to you is that be brief. Get to your point.
418.
Marilyn Smyth: Chairman.
419.
Paul Richardson yes.
420.
Marilyn Smyth: I think it's one thing for any one of us to challenge a witness if what Gary is saying
is that she has a motivation against him personally but he is raising issues that are nothing to do
with her and him.
421.
Gary Walker: but I have to demonstrate chairmen how there is that motivation. I can't just say
there is. Without demonstrating.
422.
Marilyn Smyth: but what you are demonstrating is not that she had has a motivation against you.
423.
Gary Walker: but with respect I haven't been able to finish
424.
David Grafton: well in which case give us the question
425.
Gary Walker: well the question is. Are you aware that there was a proposal I'll include it in one
question it was in Ros' objectives for 2008 about changes to the constitution of staff-side
committee to develop a proportional representation how did you feel about this did you agree or
disagree with it
426.
Carol Pilsbury: in response to that from what I can recall there was a discussion about the
constitution and we discussed and actually that piece of work is actually now ongoing because we
are actually looking at the constitution again because we are trying to introduce some sort of
negotiating forum as well. So the whole thing about local staff-side constitution is the constitution
of staff-side exec and negotiating forum. We are actually doing that piece of work now.
427.
Gary Walker: could you explain to the board what the implications of proportional representation
would be on the constitution of the staff-side committee.
428.
Carol Pilsbury: No I can't because I don't know how many membership the other unions have. So
I can't answer that question
429.
Gary Walker: okay
430.
Carol Pilsbury: but if you're talking about proportional representation you have to have the
workplace density figures in front of you and I can't really what's that got to do with this today.
431.
Gary Walker: the point I'm trying to make is that proportional representation would change the
22 phd 19/9/11 14:23
Deleted: going on
balance of power within staff-side and it would likely be likely the RCN have a greater role and not
necessarily vote you in. That is the point I'm trying to make an honour that based on the basis of
the frustration that I have experienced from David I am quite happy to terminate and not ask any
further questions.
432.
David Grafton: okay I think what we can say Gary is that the panel have duly noted your particular
concerns
433.
Gary Walker: I have one final question because it links into another witness and unfortunately
they are not here or able to answer any questions. You represented George Briggs. That's what
he told me. You are his formal representation when he was having difficulties with the trust and
therefore you would have known the performance issues I described relating to him. Did you or
anyone you know influenced George Briggs to raise allegations against me for this hearing
434.
Carol Pilsbury: definitely not. And just for the record just to let you know that when I was engaged
in representing George Briggs it was at that point when we were actually looking at his
compromise deal. Because if you recall Gary and you will recall that he attended several
meetings when his performance had been questioned without representation.
435.
Gary Walker: I'm not aware he attended meetings about his performance without representation.
436.
Carol Pilsbury: that was when with Dawne Bloodworth.
437.
Gary Walker: Right.
438.
Carol Pilsbury: it wasn't until it had got to the position where George felt that he really ought to
look at leaving the organisation when he engaged me and that was purely to support him for his
compromise agreement which if you recall I was involved with because we had it cleared with our
solicitors. That was my involvement in the case. Not right from the very beginning.
439.
Gary Walker: okay so for clarity it was, he met with Dawne without representation and later...
440.
Carol Pilsbury: and I wasn't involved in that at all.
441.
Paul Richardson: do you have any further questions
442.
Gary Walker: I do not have any further questions
443.
Paul Richardson: Right. David do you have any further questions.
444.
David Grafton: we'll just for some clarity with regard to the sequence of events I'm looking at your
statement which in my bundle is 137 for the panel so can follow this but in your statement in the
second line you say
445.
Mike Cutts: letter not statement
446.
David Grafton: sorry letter
447.
Carol Pilsbury: the letter
448.
David Grafton: the letter
449.
Carol Pilsbury: yeah okay
450.
David Grafton: you say you have a telephone conversation with a fellow colleague in the PCT and
must raise my concern again. Can I just ask just to be clear the letter I am looking at is dated May
09 but from what you said you're not clear as to whether it was May or June
451.
Carol Pilsbury: I think as near as I can guessimate it it was May
452.
David Grafton: now you say again in their does that mean that there had been issues brought to
your attention prior to the writing of this letter
453.
Carol Pilsbury: yes. Prior to me actually writing the letter on the one to ones with Ros prior to this
letter we had actually discussed concerns raised about Gary's use of foul language
454.
David Grafton: this wasn't bad language in meetings that you were present these were reported
23 phd 19/9/11 14:23
Deleted: breaks
phd 19/9/11 14:23
Deleted: D
phd 19/9/11 14:24
Deleted: is
matters to you
455.
Carol Pilsbury: others yes
456.
David Grafton: okay but something else had happened whereupon you felt it was appropriate to
put your concerns in writing. So that was a second occasion.
457.
Carol Pilsbury: yes and that was. And what triggered that was the telephone call from my
colleague in the PCT's and my question to her I think if I remember I put in my statement or in the
letter was hang on just bear with me I think it's in the statement, was basically things like, oh here
we are, could I just take you to section 8. And you've asked me basically what triggered
458.
David Grafton: yeah new paragraph
459.
Carol Pilsbury: the letter
460.
David Grafton: sadly things did not improve
461.
Carol Pilsbury: that's it and this is where I was talking to my colleague when she will say how
disgusting she thought it was. She told me that her friend had been in the meeting and being very
distressed by. I asked her if her friend had made a complaint and she said no she wants to
protect herself. But I asked her if it was known across the PCT and she said yes everybody
knows. And that's what triggered the letter.
462.
David Grafton: Well on 18 June then that was the first occasion from what you've told us that bad
language was used in your presence
463.
Carol Pilsbury: that was the executive meeting yes.
464.
David Grafton: that was 18 June
465.
Marilyn Smyth: she didn't say in her presence she said in a formal meeting
466.
David Grafton: okay then on the is there a further date. On 15 July you received an apology
467.
Carol Pilsbury: yes as far as I can recall
468.
David Grafton: on 22nd of July there was a further incident
469.
Carol Pilsbury that was the foundation trust meeting which I think it was he did it again.
470.
David Grafton: okay. So there was an incident also on 22 June, So we have 18 June we have 22
June. 15 July had your apology and on the 22nd of July a further incident. Is that the sequence
471.
Carol Pilsbury: can't answer 22 June as I haven't got I can't recall and I haven't got anything in my
diary
472.
David Grafton: okay have a look at your statement paragraph 17
473.
Carol Pilsbury: paragraph 17. David Grafton yes I have at the end of paragraph 17 in brackets
22nd of June 2009
474.
Carol Pilsbury: I don't think it was 22 June
475.
David Grafton: we just to be clear it says we had another foundation trust meeting prior to the one
above. Prior to 22 July. 22nd of July was a foundation trust meeting. Was there a meeting on 22
June. Your statement at paragraph 17 have a read of that.
476.
Carol Pilsbury: I haven't got it on this one
477.
David Grafton: Have a look at that
478.
Carol Pilsbury: 22nd of June it's not in my diary it may well be in the staff side diary you see. Was
it June. Just check. I've got it in my diary 22nd of July
479.
Marilyn Smyth: yeah that is the one
480.
Mike cuts new: that's the previous paragraph 16
24 phd 19/9/11 14:24
Deleted: June
phd 19/9/11 14:24
Deleted: r
481.
David Grafton: that's paragraph 16
482.
Carol Pilsbury: year
483.
David Grafton: in paragraph 17 new state we had another foundation trust meeting
484.
Marilyn Smyth: prior.
485.
David Grafton: prior to the one above
486.
Carol Pilsbury: I think if I remember that was a guestimate date because I can't remember. It's not
in my diary unfortunately. Sorry to confuse you but I'm not sure. I'm not sure on that one.
487.
Paul Richardson: anything further. I assume you'd like to ask another question.
488.
Gary Walker: yes if you don't mind thank you Chairman. I got very confused in paragraph 8 at the
beginning David you raise the issues of a sequence of events. It says there was a complaint in
June and then because Carol you'd heard that it was continuing you were concerned but you
refer to the emergency care planning meeting is continuing and we just establish that was in April
which was before June whatever year. So I'm confused about this sequence.
489.
Carol Pilsbury: all I can tell you Gary is that prior to me writing the letter it had been I had received
a telephone call from my colleague so prior to that so it would be prior to May I have received a
telephone call from my colleague to say what it says in there.
490.
Gary Walker: right. Which is different to what is we've just discuss them that makes sense. Okay.
491.
Carol Pilsbury: but I'd like but like I said chronologically I am not absolutely sure that I've not got
all the dates written down
492.
Gary Walker okay
493.
Carol Pilsbury: and I've already said that
494.
Paul Richardson: is that you are finished.
495.
Gary Walker: thank you
496.
Marilyn Smyth: chairman can I just ask whether Carol is allowed to leave
497.
Paul Richardson: we haven't questioned yet we haven't questioned Carol
498.
Marilyn Smyth: sorry
499.
Paul Richardson: Mike do you have any questions
500.
Mike Cutts: no I don't have any questions
501.
Paul Richardson: Tim
502.
Tim Staniland: is there and I'll ask David this is there any reason why we can't ask for the result of
the hearing with regard to the staff nurse in Boston
503.
David Grafton: no not at all.
504.
Carol Pilsbury: Okay. The result of the hearing was that no disciplinary sanction was taken and
there was a performance management objectives put in place about this individual's behaviour
505.
Tim Staniland: okay thank you
506.
Carol Pilsbury: and the reason there was no disciplinary sanction taken the management case
was extremely weak
507.
Tim Staniland: okay thank you
508.
Paul Richardson: I just have one question about these emergency care planning meetings. This is
a joint meeting between the PCT and the trust I assume. Am I correct
509.
Gary Walker: I don't know. 21 April 2008 is the only one we have evidence for is an internal
25 phd 19/9/11 14:25
Deleted: his
meeting. The meeting in April 2009 I've no idea I don't have a diary. I don't know. Not necessarily.
There were very few meetings with the PCT and very few that I attended. They were normally
around commissioning.
510.
Paul Richardson: Right so these meetings would normally be taking place on the hospital site of
the PCT site.
511.
Gary Walker: it would vary. It was almost a tennis game of his office you went to.
512.
Paul Richardson: Right. You did make the point earlier Gary that transcripts of meetings are not
normally taken. The point I'm trying to make here is that this meeting took place in the PCT it
might very well be that there is a transcript if the minutes were taken by someone in the PCT. Is
this worse worth pursuing if this is relevant. I just wondered what these meetings were. Perhaps
outside the meeting we could find out what those meetings are.
513.
Gary Walker: I can't comment because I don't know.
514.
Paul Richardson: okay thank you very much so there are no further questions from anybody. You
are now free to leave Carol and thank you for your time. But before you go I think we need copies
can we take these from you copy them and return them to you
515.
Marilyn Smyth: I've given Gary the questions the answers. You've already got all of this
516.
Paul Richardson: have we? We've already got that.
517.
Tim Staniland: just the answers to the questions
518.
Paul Richardson: this is the only document we are short of then. Fine we will have a short break.
Thank you Carol. Thank you for your time.
519.
BREAK FOR LUNCH AND RETURNED FROM LUNCH
520.
Paul Richardson: welcome back everybody. Right whenever you're ready Gary if you would like to
present your case.
521.
Gary Walker: okay. I can see you've got in the pack my statement 23rd but given that I read it out
and it's in the what looks like the transcript I don't see any point in going over that. So I'll just go
through item number 5 which was on the 25th and then resubmitted on Friday with green
amendments to it. I don't know if they came out with green. It was either Thursday or Friday. I
don't remember what particular date that was sorry about that. But it was probably Friday last
week. So all I have done is tracked changes so you can see where the changes are from the one
you had on the 25th.
522.
Paul Richardson: just excuse me just a moment Gary. Have you not got the last one.
523.
Gary Walker: it's got lines underneath it.
524.
Tim Staniland: is this the last version
525.
Paul Richardson: the one that came by e-mail
526.
Tim Staniland: I've read it and I did get one on e-mail
527.
Paul Richardson: oh you did
528.
Tim Staniland: I've got one here in front of me
529.
Gary Walker: it's not a major problem because I intend to go through it anyway
530.
Marilyn Smyth is that the right one
531.
Tim Staniland: no that's the other one isn't it
532.
Paul Richardson: this one. It looks like that.
533.
Marilyn Smyth: yeah
534.
Paul Richardson: Right sorry about that please go
26 phd 19/9/11 14:25
Deleted: items
phd 19/9/11 14:25
Deleted: s
535.
Gary Walker: Right my apologies but to make sure I don't forget things I'm going to well actually
do pretty much what Marilyn did when she went through paragraph by paragraph. Okay so
apologies for reading along. The statement of case is provided in relation to today originally
convened on 23rd. I reserve the right to amend my statement given disclosure by Marilyn on 25th.
And I have amended it to some degree as best I could at the time and if there are any other
matters I will pick them up as best I can as we go through. I do want to go back, before moving to
the specifics of the allegations, there are a number of issues that I still feel are extremely relevant
and have expanded since 23rd December. In my view is that the trust has failed to adequately
consider my right to representation at this disciplinary hearing. In view of the seriousness of the
allegations and potential impact on my career I requested the right to be represented by a legal
representative. This was denied by the trust on numerous occasions despite medical advice from
the occupational health service stating, I will read it out for completeness, with the help of an
appropriate advocate. Mr Walker should be able to follow and engage with proceedings liaise with
his advocate and be capable of understanding the outcome, and my own medical advisers which
have suggested that I should not be attending at all. The bit that I have added on here is in
addition I am aware that other individuals in the trust have been allowed legal representation.
Other, well, a case that has been heard in the last few months by the trust had barristers
representing the staff and I consider that to be discrimination at the very least extreme double
standards. And the allegations against those individuals were theft and misuse of trust property.
The outcome of which they were not dismissed. The constitution of the panel I think I've possibly
mentioned similar wording on the 23rd. The trust chairman, yourself Paul, is chair of the
disciplinary hearing. I have written to you/him, apologies for the way it is worded, on a number of
occasions with regard to the trust's treatment of myself following protected disclosures relating to
bullying and harassment by the trust and the SHA which refer to potential endangerment of health
and safety of myself, patients and staff. Details were subsequently shared, and I mentioned this
last time with all 7000 staff by the acting chief executive Bernard Chalk and for reference that was
on 28 October. In my view Mr Richardson has not taken these allegations seriously. Likewise he
did not take any steps to prevent adverse publicity following articles in the press despite being
raised with him at the time. More recently, comments attributed to him appearing in the
Lincolnshire Echo on 2 January 2010. He commented without context that he had the power to
dismiss me. When asked for an apology and an explanation he simply disputed the comments
were said. I have been informed that they are correct. Am I reading at the right speed I apologise.
536.
Carolyn (transcript transcriber): that's okay
537.
Gary Walker: okay thanks. In addition, Mr Richardson has taken action to remove me from post
without due process. He has previously instructed solicitors on behalf of the trust to attempt to
effect my exit by way of a compromise agreement during my period of sickness absence. To
make that clear the offer by Capstickswas the offer and was despite knowing being fully aware of
my mental health at the time I was given 48 hours to reply or the offer was withdrawn. It was an
extremely threatening e-mail and was certainly not any approach I've ever understood. This has
since been reported in the press despite express agreement from the trust that it would be dealt
with in the utmost confidence. No adequate explanation as to how these comments became
public have been provided. I note that you have written to me about that and that is presumably in
the pack. Further Mr Richardson was present when I was threatened by Barbara Hakin of the
SHA. I think that was possibly only one of two meetings we had actually Paul and is aware of the
desire to remove me from my post and for clarity this is when she discussed her ability to remove
my accountable officer status. Of additional concern are the calls for Mr Richardson to be
removed from post duties actions including those relating to these proceedings. Mr Richardson
has also denied that certain comments in the press referred to in his letter of 14 of January were
attributable to him. I have been informed that they are accurate and Mr Richardson denial is
incorrect. For these reasons I do not consider the chairman can be considered to be impartial.
This I have said before Tim and I know that you denied it but I'm leaving it in the statement as I
believe it is true. I also understand that Tim Staniland, trust non-executive director, was recently
invited to resign but the decision was made only to reprimand when he refused therefore his
position was at risk and in my view he may not be impartial as his thought processes may be
swayed by his consideration of his future at trust. He was also present at a meeting where the
27 phd 19/9/11 14:26
Deleted: is
phd 19/9/11 14:26
Deleted: s
phd 19/9/11 14:26
Deleted: at
phd 19/9/11 14:27
Deleted: in the few months
phd 19/9/11 14:27
Deleted: was
phd 19/9/11 14:27
Deleted: a
phd 19/9/11 14:27
Deleted: red
phd 19/9/11 14:30
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Add space
between paragraphs of the same style,
Line spacing: single
phd 19/9/11 14:28
Deleted: is
phd 19/9/11 14:29
Deleted: .
phd 19/9/11 14:29
Deleted: F
phd 19/9/11 14:29
Deleted: actually
phd 19/9/11 14:31
Deleted: t
phd 19/9/11 14:30
Deleted: attributed
phd 19/9/11 14:30
Deleted: am
threat to my continued employment if I were to continue to complain about the SHA conduct
towards me was discussed. This is a further reason in my opinion that affects Mr Staniland's lack
of impartiality. Both Mr Richardson and Mr Staniland contend that they should remain on the
panel.
538.
539.
Throughout the process the trust has not treated my illness seriously. The impact of
unsubstantiated allegations and the opaque nature of the process has exacerbated my health
problems. The trust has simply dismissed these. Just for clarity there is correspondence in the
back of here that contains all the letters between myself and Paul asking for clarification on how
evidence was collected etc etc. For example Marilyn Smyth suggested a short holiday would
somehow alleviate my medical problems. I note this is referred to in her supplementary statement
which I will come to in a second. It appears to me that the trust are content to continue to
pressurise me with a view to ensuring that I am dismissed or in the long term simply force to
remain off sick. I considered the trust to have used ambush tactics against me. The first time
issues which now make up part of the allegations against me were raised where reference was
made to Viv Delafuente by the trust after I went off sick and George Briggs who left the trust in
2008 and refers to matters dating back more than one year ago which were not raised at the time
in her written questions. Again this is referred to in Marilyn's main statement and slightly in her
supplementary statement. Okay I'll come back to that one I want to go through them. No context
or explanation was provided these allegations now appear to be used as evidence to remove me
from the trust.
I note that David Bowles was approached by Marilyn Smyth but was not questioned. We
discussed that last time I know you denied that you did approach him but certainly somebody
from the trust approached him for this hearing. However he's subsequently issued another
document at the back of this. We will go through that as well. I find this concerning given his role
at the trust. It is my understanding that Mr Bowles now considers issues to have been prejudged
and that he has no confidence in the process being anything other than predetermined and
fundamentally flawed.
540.
By way of contrast the Goodwin report which relied almost entirely on documentary evidence this
process is almost entirely reliant on others and unsubstantiated witness evidence. Only one
substantive document has been provided which makes reference to my language which is the
minutes of 21 April 2008 and these are more than 20 months old. I think these next couple of
points concur with Marilyn's report which is on 20 August I received a letter making reference to a
complaint from a departing member of staff of alleged inappropriate conduct. No further details
were provided and the letter was copied to various other individuals who in my view did not need
to be informed. This letter was copied to staff that report to me. On 17 September 2009 I received
further correspondence making reference to further potentially serious matters. Sorry potentially
serious complaint made by a trade union representative involving foul language and abusive
behaviour. Once again no further details were provided. Marilyn Smyth was then appointed.
541.
Despite requests I've never been provided with any documentation in respect of the above and
save for a letter from Carol Pilsbury which I understand the complaint referred to from the trade
union representative. And that seems to have been confirmed today. Even now it's unclear how
the complaints referred to in the correspondence of 20 August were made. That goes back to
several times when I have asked how were the questions raised and how is the process being
conducted. The investigation has been conducted on a clandestine manner without adequate
explanation of its terms of reference, evidence gathering process or context. Despite requests
neither of the documents nor a reply has been received from the trust in this regard. My view it
has simply been a witchhunt against me with the intention to affect my dismissal. In response to
Marilyn Smyth I've suggested the issues were prejudged. She denies this. The role of the
investigating officers not to take, to make decisions as to whether charges have been proven.
However she crosses the boundary into decision-making within her report. She stated that she
upheld various allegations. Therefore the issue has been prejudged. Further she has failed to
provide a balanced view in accordance with the trust's own procedures and has exhibited witness
bias, evidence which is biased. I realised she disputes this in her supplementary statement but
again I will come back to that. For example she criticised Adam Wolverson when he made
28 phd 19/9/11 14:30
Deleted: t
phd 19/9/11 14:30
Deleted: the
phd 19/9/11 16:38
Deleted: i
phd 19/9/11 14:31
Deleted: e
phd 19/9/11 14:32
Deleted: n
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
phd 19/9/11 14:33
Deleted: pull through the
phd 19/9/11 14:33
Deleted: has
phd 19/9/11 14:34
Deleted: S
positive comments during his interview stating they would only make such comments because he
had holiday with me in the past. She selectively quotes from witness evidence in her report. Again
I will come back to Adam Wolverson's statement in answers to my questions which we had this
morning. Marilyn Smyth appears to criticise me for not being able to meet her in person as a
result of medical advice. In my view this is prejudicial. We are clearly going to disagree on that
point and is also covered in her supplementary statement. Marilyn Smyth also raised an issue
confirmed by Liz Murray regarding a rumour about myself and a colleague for absolutely no
reason. In my view not only is this unprofessional but I am suspicious as to why she did so and I
require an explanation. I'm happy to take that at the end or now.
542.
Marilyn Smyth: I can answer it now. Whereabouts are you up to
543.
Tim Staniland: 24
544.
Gary Walker: 24
545.
Paul Richardson: 24
546.
Marilyn Smyth: oh right. Yes one of the questions I asked all of the witnesses was whether Gary
treats people the same or if he treats people differently how does he treat them differently. And
that's a standard question I would ask in this kind of investigation always. It wasnt picked out the
Gary. And I brought the questions if you want them. I brought the questions that I asked
everybody because I printed off a schedule of questions. I asked people supplementary questions
following their responses. So I have them here.
phd 19/9/11 14:34
Deleted: K
phd 19/9/11 14:34
Deleted: Not
547.
Gary Walker: I trust the same amount of frustration will be shown that was shown to me about
tabling documents
phd 19/9/11 14:34
548.
David Grafton: you have asked a specific question the answer
Deleted: about the
549.
Marilyn Smyth: I am answering it now
550.
David Grafton: requires in Marilyn's view the showing of the actual questions that were asked of
everybody I think it reasonable to say that she would not have known that this was an important
issue to have included within her bundle prior to you asking this question. It is fortunate that
Marylin has an answer to this question today
551.
Marilyn Smyth: so I always asked the question in this kind of case does so and so treat everybody
the same and if not what differences have you observed. And somebody told me quite early in the
process that there was an allegation sorry a rumour about Gary's behaviour with a particular
employee so the only reason that question was asked was because the person that told me was
Viv Delafuente and she said Liz Murray told her. So I asked Liz Murray about it. And I would have
been failing in this investigation had I not explored it particular as Gary could have brought that
person as a witness in which case the panel would need to know that there is an allegation a
rumour about him and that person. But as it turned out not to have any particularly weighting it
hasn't been highlighted by me through my report because that would have been an unfair thing to
do which is why it's not been highlighted
552.
Paul Richardson: does that answer your question Gary
553.
Gary Walker: I stand by that point. I don't accept that type of questioning is appropriate in the
circumstances at all but
554.
Marilyn Smyth: well I've given you my reasons
555.
Gary Walker: yep
556.
Paul Richardson: okay can I just before you continue just make a point here that you've just
expressed a point about frustration about documentation not being presented. I interpreted that
that we had expressed or shown frustration when you had been looking for documentation. I hope
that is not the case. Certainly not intended. And this hearing is not time-limited.
557.
Gary Walker: thank you. That's fine. It wasn't the panel's frustration it was David's frustration
which I pointed out at the time
29 phd 19/9/11 14:35
Deleted: io
558.
Paul Richardson: I do apologise and misinterpreted what you meant
559.
Gary Walker: where was I up to. 25. Mr Richardson has also refused my request for
documentation together with refusal to allow me to cross-examine witnesses. Following the
hearing on 23rd of December it had been agreed that I would be provided with a copy of the
transcript. I also requested a copy of the recording itself. Given that my recollection differs from
that expressed by Mr Richardson in correspondence to me. I consider it important that I received
these. On 6 January Mr Richardson said he would send me the notes as soon as possible. On 14
January Mr Richardson refused to provide them. In my view the trust appear to be able to move
the goalposts whenever they feel like it.
560.
561.
I am also informed that the trust were considering going out to advert to appoint a replacement for
my post before Christmas. In my view this is further evidence of a prejudged outcome. One
further concern is the fact that I have been informed that Mike Napier, trust board secretary, was
discussing my disciplinary hearing on a fact that was I believe that is not the right date. I'll have to
come back to you on that I think it was one or two days later than that. I think it was 27th but I'm
not quite sure so I'll have to look that up. But anyway he was discussing my disciplinary hearing
with his door open so as to allow the telephone conversation to be heard in the corridor. This is
yet another breach of confidentiality relating to matters which should be treated with the utmost
confidence.
I have been provided with an index of papers to be used for the hearing. The covering letter
states that I have seen them before. However I have not seen them. Despite requesting a copy of
the previous hearing minutes my request was refused by Mr Richardson. In addition there are
various references to e-mails between Marilyn Smyth and David Bowles which the trust have not
provided to me. Likewise I am unclear what will be provided in relation to correspondence
between myself and Mr Richardson therefore I have not had the opportunity to consider these in
advance of the hearing but when they will be provided at a later stage which I have been today. I
am still unclear as to whether I am being given a chance to cross-examine most witnesses
referred to by Marilyn Smyth and that was the case up until a few days ago. At one stage I was
informed I would be able to put written questions to them as they would not be called despite this
being viewed negatively by the investigating officer. Mr Richardson was ambivalent in his letter of
14 January 2010 then failed to make any comments in respect of questioning witnesses following
receipt of my written questions before stating the answers will be provided at the hearing itself. I
have now been provided with some but not all of the responses with less than one working day
before the hearing. In my view this does not give me enough time to adequately prepare for the
hearing. The trust is well aware of my mental state and the pressure this process causes. I note
at least one of the responses is dated 26 January 2010 but it was only provided to me at 13:11 on
29 January. I require an explanation for the delay. Happy to pause there.
562.
Paul Richardson: well I certainly can't give you an explanation for the delay I'm afraid. Can
anybody else? We will pursue that and find out
563.
Gary Walker: okay I am concerned that Marilyn Smyth suggested in her report that Viv Delafuente
made a statement to her and in her follow-up questions Viv Delafuente states that she was not
questioned nor was she interviewed. I require an exclamation how her purported statement was
made. This contradicts her follow-up questions. For example she states in her follow-up questions
that she does not know if various people have seen me allegedly bully her yet in her original
statement she said she did. I think you partly answered that Marilyn.
564.
Marilyn Smyth: it was a telephone interview.
565.
Gary Walker: but not maybe the second part because she claims in her statement that she signed
that these people, if you want to look at the statement, I'm not sure where it is. In the statement
she claims a list of people that have witnessed bullying of her and then denies that in the followup questions.
566.
Paul Richardson: what section is that.
567.
Marilyn Smyth: it will be in this section 1 and her statement was quite near the beginning I believe
30 phd 19/9/11 14:35
Deleted: a
phd 19/9/11 14:35
Deleted: with
phd 19/9/11 14:35
Deleted: f
phd 19/9/11 14:36
Deleted: there have been
phd 19/9/11 14:36
Deleted: allowed
phd 19/9/11 14:36
Deleted: and failed to make
phd 19/9/11 14:37
Deleted: could
phd 19/9/11 14:37
Deleted: adequate
568.
David Grafton: 24
569.
Marilyn Smyth: thank you. Now what she said here under number six. Witness to my personal
situation in respect of bullying tactics. I don't know if that's the same thing as you are raising Gary
570.
Gary Walker: well I think that would be a matter of judgment and...
571.
Marilyn Smyth: what's the question she's answered I don't know. What was the question you
asked her
572.
Gary Walker: is it not true that Patricia Adams, Ann Wood and Julie Pipes have never witnessed
bullying against you by myself. Yes.
573.
Marilyn Smyth: I wouldn't know. I wasn't in her mind and I didn't write this for her to alter it and I
told you that earlier.
574.
Gary Walker: okay. I also note noted that a number of the witnesses’ responses I have seen to
date when answering my questions appear to answer whether swearing in formal occasions is
acceptable. This was not asked by me and appears to suggest all were guided in terms of their
responses. Specifically a lot of people said when I have asked them the question is swearing, let's
get the right question. Right, I think it's question 13 to some but it's a question that varies slightly
by numbers.
575.
Marilyn Smyth: six or seven it might be.
576.
Gary Walker: no. It's either 13 or towards the end of the individual questions. Is it not true that
swearing at the trust occurs at all levels. Very many of the respondents have said 'not in formal
meetings'. That's an example of them being guided in my opinion.
577.
Due to this lack of transparency I will provide witness statements for the following and I have
done so and I will come to that. Now the first one is Connie Galati who, as she explains has been
executive assistant to me and has worked for a number of chief executives for the trust I think for
about 8 chief executives in the last 10 years. She has explained her role there. She has a good
relationship with me she says and she has said I am supportive, patient, motivated, efficient,
innovative and rewarding. They are not the same words but they are of a similar ilk that I stated in
my questions (answers) to Marilyn Smyth. As part of my role ideally attended weekly executive,
sorry I think you can read that. I don't really want to read her statements but she has not
witnessed in all her time with me that's 3 1/2 years me harassing or bullying. She explains how
she is outside my office and I have an open door policy and she feels that I always I was always
supportive. Never witnessed me use bad language towards an individual or acted in an
inappropriate manner. She feels that swearing occurs at all levels in the trust and I think that's
shared by almost all the witnesses, the management witnesses and mine. Swearing by senior
individuals due to pressure of work is commonplace. I've never felt particularly strong about is
what she says. She is aware of people being in performance issues as she would be because if
any of those performance issues came to me she would write letters and that sort of thing on my
behalf. Not write them, you know...
578.
Paul Richardson: produce them.
579.
Gary Walker: no type them. I wish but even I had to do that sometimes. So she would be aware of
all correspondence and she would also have access to my e-mail accounts as well so she knew
she would know all the traffic. She did largely manage the e-mail account which was good. Never
been aware of Gary directing individuals within the trust to effect the removal of another
individual. As I've explained that's not the way I have ever worked. Essentially that is that's it.
580.
Richard Lendon is the next one. Richard is a director and reports to me. His background is a GP.
He has worked with the trust prior to. He worked in a part-time capacity for service improvement
and that's where I met him. He was originally employed by Silvia Knight. And then I discussed the
performance role with him in terms of that taking on service improvement as well. On a fixed term
basis he took on the full-time role. So he is an interim director. He's been around the trust for
some time. He goes to all the formal meetings. He chairs the performance meetings. Again
Richard describes me as having an open door policy. Again he is copied he has never had any
31 phd 19/9/11 14:38
Deleted: very
phd 19/9/11 14:38
Deleted: a
problems with my management style. As I stated, others have stated that I am not adverse to
raising issues of performance but I do it in a manner and you should be able to see from all the
director's personal files that I do so both in a constructive as well as a supportive way but you
know I don't think you should gloss over areas that need improvement so you need to make that
clear. And so therefore I think I always provide a balanced approach. And Richard here describes
it as constructive criticism. Right. I've never witnessed or heard Gary swearing at an individual.
He has heard me use bad language. He has done so in a situation manner which I personally
never found offensive. It would not be out of the ordinary for example it would not be out of the
ordinary for example if someone is provided with bad news in terms of trust performance or a
particular issue it would not be out of the ordinary for a person to utter such words as...I don't
really need to say it do I. There have been enough expletives. I would not personally view this as
offensive and would be surprised if others at the trust do so as it is relatively common. He says
he's never witnessed me threaten, bully or harass anybody.
581.
582.
The next one is from Phil. Again I won't go through that. You will have known Phil as well. He
recalls the earlier meeting on 28 April that I've referred to about what was going on with myself
and the East Midlands Strategic Health Authority, and the decision by the board and that was one
of a few occasions where every member of the board was there. And the decision was taken to
support me. It's fair to say Phil has been attending more senior meetings with me although he has
been involved in a lot of the projects like performance plus and some of the work around
transformation programmes, as a non-executive governance arrangement. He feels I challenged
people legitimately and I think that probably says it all. Clearly agrees with others that I am
supportive of individuals but I want to see a want people to improve their performance if it's
deemed to be underperforming. Never seen me swear at anybody. And my language is no
different to others.
Hayley Jackson is a general manager. She has been at the trust for quite a while and was given
the general manager post on an interim basis in filling a vacancy and then the post was
subsequently advertise in open competition. Obviously she has a wide range of responsibilities as
all general managers do. So that same with Viv Delafuente and the same with George Briggs.
Their responsibilities are for the £50 million or £60 million budget and one or 2000 staff
underneath them. These are big roles. They are effectively strategic business units and that's
what the intention of the organisation has been for quite some time although this has been not
necessarily entirely effective in terms of support functions like finance and HR. Again she says
pretty much what everybody else has said. She would attend daily meetings. She talks about the
formality and informal nature of it all. Again open door policy is mentioned. Supportive, mentoring
type style. Never seen me bully or harass anybody. Swearing is normal in the trust. She was a
witness as Adam Wolverson was to the conduct of George Briggs in a leaving party. Bit alarmed
at what she is saying because I thought it was the Gary Walker escaped committee but I
understand there is an asterix there now. So I don't really think I need to go into that you can read
it for yourself. In my opinion that cast serious doubt on the statement by George Briggs. He was
offended by things that he alleges or he wasn't. And I deny making those comments to him. Adam
Wolverson's statement, it may be because I was given it this morning because I've had a little bit
of difficulty in following page numbers because I think it's a bit repetitious and I'm not sure it
answers quite answers the questions that, I mean essentially he made both neutral and positive
statements. He and I don't know if we are going to be on the same page here but he did attend
Ann Symon's leaving party. He did witness George Briggs and his use of foul language in print. I
think that it is probably self-explanatory and I don't really need to explain what I think about that
other than it's completely unacceptable. He explained about questions that were asked by Marilyn
Smyth. He was unsure about the questions relating to our partners. He describes them, who were
third parties, and that he believes his partner's relationship with my partner does not have any
direct relevance to the enquiry in any way. He feels that the meeting was starting off as being
from very firm and questioning turned into inquisitional and he compares it to a coroner's court
and something else a criminal court. I consider the comments here that he has made about he
was hesitating searching for political politically correct answers, as harassment of witnesses. I
think that it is totally inappropriate form of questioning. He does recall me swearing during
meetings but does not recall being upset about it. Not swearing directly at him. He talks about a
32 phd 19/9/11 14:39
Deleted: earlier
different recollection in the way George Briggs had of meetings with him in that I was quite clear I
wanted people to take responsibility for the areas that they were responsible for and one person
taking responsibility for everything took that responsibility away from the wider directorate team
and he acknowledges that and considers that to be correct. He says that swearing is normal in
many situations and doesn't feel the trust is different from the rest of society.
583.
Then there's arrangements about the meeting. Ms Smyth related her own knowledge of my
relationship with Mr Walker both professionally and socially and asked about the social side of our
relationship. That's been brought up before. Again I don't consider that to be an appropriate
question and style because that is a leading way of questioning people. I think it pretty much says
the same thing. I am happy to pick up any other points but I'm not sure I can follow it anyway at
the moment.
584.
So going back to the allegations. I'm going to follow I think the numbering sequence for the
allegations used in the investigation report. I'll respond to each one below. I reserve the right to
address the panel and to the issues raised in the questions posed by the management witnesses
and I've already done that. Happy to answer any further questions on that and at the time I had
not received a response.
585.
So allegation one. Witnesses have confirmed that swearing occurs at all levels in the trust I think
the majority of all witnesses management and the four that I put forward. While I may have on
occasion uttered a swear word I never directed swearing at a particular individual. In my view this
is completely different. I strongly deny having sworn at anybody in the manner described or
otherwise. The only documentary evidence that has been provided showing swearing in a
meeting is the meeting notes of 21 April 2008. It is clear that this is not directed at an individual
and no one present appear to take issue with it. In Marilyn's opening statement she said that
other people didn't really contribute to that meeting and it was only a meeting of myself and
George Briggs. I would dispute that just by looking at the transcript. Many other people spoke and
many other people are noted as speaking. It is probably half of the meeting between myself and
George Briggs and Adam Wolverson but that is rightly so. They are in charge of their
directorate/Business unit. I wouldn't necessarily question a HR officer directly anyway because
they report to the General Manager so I would expect the business unit to answer the questions.
They can answer the questions in anyway they like but I dispute it was a meeting as described by
Marilyn this morning. However, if that has caused the offence as I state I now apologise for
having done so.
586.
In my view the case referred to which was Horkulak is not relevant. This was a case referred to in
the statement by Carol Pillsbury. It is not relevant as I understand it refers to foul language and
abusive language used against an individual. Therefore the comparison is wrong. Likewise as far
as I am aware there has not been any claim in respect of alleged breach of implied terms of trust
and confidence between myself and anybody else at the trust. With regards to my alleged
swearing this issue has been previously dealt with by the trust's previous chairman. I have
apologise for this previously and this was accepted by those concerned. David Bowles
considered the issue, found it to be relatively minor, and issued me with the verbal informal
warning in accordance with the trust internal procedures. The panel had been provided with
confirmation of this. I'm aware that Marilyn Smyth desputes this warning took place. As far as I
understand it it would not necessarily have been recorded in the minutes of the remuneration
committee. As I said before I don't normally see those anyway. Nor be recorded in my own
personal file as this was dealt with informally. The fact that David Bowles did not recall this verbal
warning is irrelevant given the confirmation has now been provided.
587.
Now I'm going to go to appendix 1 at this point and also state that as we go through this David
Bowles did offer to meet with Paul to do a handover but instead I think, to get the wording right,
where it could have put that. The offer to meet with Mr Richardson but this was not taken up and
indeed he was instructed not to make contact with the trust. This matter of the minute I gave you
this morning could have been part of that briefing to the chairman on a handover and in his
opinion and incoming chair and mind actually would have thought that wanting a handover from
an outgoing chair would be appropriate. So what David said here and this is the matter I really
33 phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
wanted to bring up this morning so if I could perhaps bounce around a bit but this is the first item I
was told we were going to bring up later and I couldn't bring up first thing which I feel is...
588.
Paul Richardson: sorry can't just for clarification where am I finding this
589.
Gary Walker: it's at the end of my statement
590.
Paul Richardson: sorry I beg your pardon
591.
Gary Walker: my statement of the...
592.
David Grafton: the updated statement
593.
Marilyn Smyth: is this the letter from...
594.
Gary Walker: it is an e-mail, that's right, from David Bowles 27th of January 7:11
595.
Paul Richardson: I've probably got it here. I have seen it so I do recall
596.
Gary Walker: okay. He makes some comments there about reading about me in the media etc.
He says he has indicated a willingness to assist but are still searching questions. I don't know. Is
that in the pack. Because I don't know what's these searching questions are. They, I assume the
trust, have not replied to those. I am very disappointed. Comment as follows: for some reason
ULH seemed to think I spoke to you on 17 June. This is not the case. I spoke to you after the
meeting on 17 June. Without access to my other files I cannot confirm a date. The reason that I
mention the 17th is that I know from my e-mails that on this date I agreed with other members of
the RemCom how to handle it. So it is clearly after that date. I did not ask Elaine to prepare at the
minute dealing with the committee's discussion on giving you a warning for obvious reasons of
confidentiality. So that shouldn't be no surprise that they had difficulty in finding them. I am
pleased that at least Ros Edwards acknowledges that she raised the matter with me but very
surprised that she made no effort to contact me. I told her I would deal with it and I like to think I
have a reputation of doing what I say I will do. I am also surprised that Ros only looked at the
minutes as Ros is well aware that highly confidential documents were handled by me personally
including typing them. I am not aware of any allegation about swearing at people. And he is
concerned, as I am, above all I am concerned at the supplementary report from Marilyn Smyth
seems to miss interpret my statement deliberately. Now this refers to in the supplementary
statement paragraph 2.4. In paragraph 2.4 there is an assertion, get the wording right, says Mr
Bowles stated that he had issued Mr Walker with this warning on 17 June. In my opinion this is a
very clear assertion that is untrue. On 15th of January 2010 Marilyn Smyth sent an e-mail to
David Bowles which I think he has extracted into this e-mail here in which she asks David Bowles
what stage he had spoken to me about my language. In Mr Bowles's e-mail which is attached
here Mr Bowles states that he did not reply to this e-mail. In my opinion this proves Marilyn
Smyth's statement to be biased and untrue and as such I feel it should be removed from the
evidence pack. I will take a pause there if I may for some water. I would like to know do you
consider that it should be removed from the evidence pack.
597.
Paul Richardson: what paragraph are we at
598.
Gary Walker paragraph 2.4 of the supplementary statement
599.
Mike Cutts: page 157
600.
David Grafton: Right I think that what you are saying is that that's an error
601.
Gary Walker: I'm not saying it is an error. I'm saying it is an assertion that is untrue
602.
David Grafton,: well it's an error. Well as I see it, it’s an error that arose on the basis of the
interpretation of David Bowles letter e-mail to you dated 23rd of December in which he said that I
do know that I spoke to you after the remuneration committee on 17th of June as it was at the
meeting I discussed a complaint. So an assumption had been made.
603.
Gary Walker: the point I'm trying to make is not that at all
604.
David Grafton: what you are saying is that there was a wrong assumption
34 phd 19/9/11 14:41
Deleted: wa
phd 19/9/11 14:41
Deleted: some
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
phd 19/9/11 14:42
Deleted: A
605.
Gary Walker: I don't think I want to have you put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that on
15th of January Marilyn Smyth wrote to David with a statement that clearly she did know the date
at which the warning to me was given. It says here for my records that can you please confirm the
date you gave a verbal warning to Mr Walker. David goes on in his e-mail and says I did not reply
to this e-mail. Now if he did not reply to this e-mail which is it then an error or...
606.
Marilyn Smyth: would you like to ask me
607.
Mike Cutts: shall we ask Marilyn
608.
Paul Richardson: yes
609.
Marilyn Smyth firstly I made an assumption that it was the 17th based on the e-mail of 23
December. My e-mail to David Bowles was only checking my assumption. When I didn't get a
reply the only thing I could do is go with my assumption. Now if that is correct I am perfectly
happy to accept that the warning became after 17 June because actually 17 June is neither here
nor there. It makes no difference to this case whatsoever. What makes a difference to this case is
that David Bowles left the trust on 21 July. Gone. There is an incident that Carol Pilsbury told you
about earlier on 22 July so whatever happens whenever that verbal warning was given makes no
difference at all to this case because there definitely is an incident after the warning. That's the
point not when it was.
610.
David Grafton: do you want to correct
611.
Gary Walker: I would like to know how you would treat paragraph 2.4. Do you accept it is an error
then or not
612.
David Grafton: we accept what you are telling us that it is incorrect
613.
Marilyn Smyth: Could we know when the warning was what date it was and what state was the
warning
614.
Gary Walker: I don't know. It was shortly before David left but I don't know the precise date.
615.
Marilyn Smyth: would you not. If somebody gives you a verbal warning something as serious as a
verbal warning you don't know when it was
616.
Gary Walker: I think you'll find there were many other issues going on at the trust at the time.
Significant issues and as you know shortly afterwards I went off sick with stress. So I think it's fair
to say I might not be able to recall that information
617.
David Grafton: okay. Let's be clear. What you are saying is you don't know. You cannot recall
when the verbal warning was given.
618.
Gary Walker: I don't recall much from that period nor much from the last six months
619.
David Grafton: Right you do not recall
620.
Gary Walker: correct
621.
David Grafton: it may have been the 17th it may have been the 18th it may have been the 19th
622.
Gary Walker: I don't know
623.
David Grafton: but you don't know the answer. And that's duly noted that particular point
624.
Gary Walker: so what's the answer to my question then
625.
Mike Cutts: sorry
626.
Paul Richardson: that was the answer
627.
Gary Walker: No. No. That was another question. The answer I would like to know is because you
know let me just get the words again to make it very clear will remove...
628.
Marilyn Smyth: there is no need to be condescending Gary
35 phd 19/9/11 14:42
Deleted: 8
629.
Gary Walker: I asked a question and I keep getting railroaded into what you are saying is, trying
to finish my sentences for me to what I am asking you is will you remove this statement from the
evidence pack
630.
David Grafton: no
631.
Gary Walker: thank you very much for that answer
632.
David Grafton: well it was the answer given earlier
633.
Gary Walker: I think there was hesitation that's why I wanted clarity . So for the record you won't
remove it thank you
634.
David Grafton: which doesn't mean we accepted in the same way as that we haven't asked you to
withdraw errors in yours
635.
Gary Walker: thank you very much David Grafton: but we have noted a concern
636.
Mike Cutts: the ex-chairman hasn't replied still
637.
Marilyn Smyth: no
638.
Mike Cutts: with a date
639.
Marilyn Smyth: no. And it is interesting that in the e-mail on 23 December there is no data either.
So even when asked a specific question he still hasn't answered it but manages to produce a
statement as long as his statement is and still hasn't answered it.
640.
Gary Walker. I think that the bits that I am interested in is he said I have asked for searching
questions and they have not replied to those. So it sounds to me as if it's some sort of stand-off.
You are not answering his questions and he is not answering yours and you know that's very
unfortunate is in it
641.
Marilyn Smyth: well I haven't asked him any questions so it's not that he's not answering.
642.
Gary Walker: you have. You have asked him...
643.
Marilyn Smyth: well I've only asked him to date nothing else
644.
Gary Walker: well you have asked him questions and he has ask you questions so there you go.
Okay thank you very much.
645.
David Grafton: okay
646.
Gary Walker: That was all my question was. I would describe my swearing if it does happen as
situational due to the pressures of my role in particular the bullying and harassment from the
SHA. This is common to many other individuals at the trust has evidence during these
proceedings including the current chairman. I have it on good authority that the current chairman
has used bad language in front of various members of the trust staff. But for obvious reasons the
individual does not wish to be named for fear of reprisals. Situational swearing such as
expressing words such as and I apologise for fucks sake, or fucking hell when faced with news
such as target breaches poor performance or potentially negligent action occurs at all levels in the
trust. I note that Liz Murray describes herself as, I apologise again, a brick shit house. Later that
she say she is a brick outhouse in a statement. There is clearly aspects of the various witnesses
recollections of the meetings meeting on 21 April 2008 which are disputed by the transcript. In my
view this cast doubt on the evidence as they have clearly made comments in their statements
which are untrue. It has on occasion been used to alleviate stress in the workplace as previously
discussed with Ros Edwards. Studies confirm this to be useful. It does not bring the trust into
disrepute. There is conflict between the statements of Viv Delafuente and Liz Murray. I deny
dismissing Viv. Sorry apologies have gone on to allegation two.
647.
Allegation two. There is conflict between statements of Viv Delafuente and Liz Murray. I deny
dismissing Viv Delafuente. And refute any allegation that I behaved inappropriately towards her or
forced her to leave. The simple fact is that there were performance issues which required
36 phd 19/9/11 14:42
Deleted: e
phd 19/9/11 14:42
Deleted: fork
phd 19/9/11 14:44
Deleted: the
phd 19/9/11 14:44
Deleted: her
addressing. As far as I can see there is no evidence to support this allegation. It should be this by
the way if you have got a copy.
648.
Allegation three. I deny this completely however I do admit that I challenge people according to
their roles and responsibilities. Having reviewed the meeting notes dated 21st of April 2008 in my
view there is no suggestion of me asking any inappropriate questions I simply asked questions
which I require answers to. I note that George Briggs make specific allegations against me in the
context of this meeting. The transcript does not uphold his version of events. George Briggs
actions are vindictive and untrue. He has an agenda of his own and has acted in an
unprofessional manner in the past directing bad language against me. At a leaving party for Ann
Symons he wore a T-shirt which had a picture of me on it with the words 'Gary Wanker escape
committee'. Stating that he was chair of that committee together with the words 'fuck off' printed
on the back. He provided Ann Symons was a similar T-shirt which she also has which also said
secretary on it in full view of numerous trust staff and made a speech about me. I understand
there may have also been a baseball cap and pens marked similarly.
649.
It is regretful that individuals consider performance management in accordance with my role as
chief executive to be an issue of humiliating people. This is never my intention and has never
been raised before. I will endeavour to alter my management style in the future to ensure that my
actions cannot be similarly misconstrued. As far as I can see there is no evidence to support this
allegation.
650.
Allegation four. I deny this completely. Both George Briggs and Viv Delafuente had serious
performance issues which were managed by the trust accordingly. Their personal files will
indicate this. Their actions are as a result of these valid concerns being raised by me in my
capacity as chief executive. As an example. I'm not sure if it was said that the last meeting but
there is a letter certainly on George Briggs's file of 11 March 2008 that lists all the performance
issues in the directorate and it runs to 4 pages.
651.
I deny acting inappropriately towards Ann Dray, Dawne Bloodworth, Patricia Adam, Ann Woods
or Julie Pipes. I know that in general terms if there are performance issues relating to an
individual which are not resolved over time by the individual with assistance from the trust if
required termination of their employment as a legitimate outcome. As far as I can see there is no
evidence to support this allegation.
652.
In conclusion, I have worked in the NHS in some of the most challenging roles in some of the
most challenging roles more than 20 years and until now I have never had a complaint about me.
I know that Marilyn Smyth suggests I am not telling the truth in her supplementary statement but
clearly I am talking about this. I have never had a complaint against me until this. I thought that
would have been clear.
653.
I have heard numerous people in the trust swear and I'm not aware of any disciplinary action
being taken against other individuals save for one employee that swore at a patient and we've
heard a slight difference of opinion on that and maybe I am wrong in that case but as we've heard
the outcome of that case was that no disciplinary action was taken. It is a reality that in a
pressurised environment people do on occasion swear.
654.
I would go so far as saying swearing is commonplace. I have never bullied or harassed an
individual. The allegations against me have been made after the event by those who appear to
have a vendetta against me. They are not substantiated by a third party and there is no evidence
that any action that I have taken is anything other than management of poorly performing
individuals and directorates.
655.
I deny the allegations which have been made against me. In my view the trust have manufactured
a case against me following issues of bullying and harassment by the trust and the SHA being
raised by me. This is this is in my view victimisation directly related to the previous allegations
something I was warned about by non-executive director when I first raised the concerns
656.
Paul Richardson: are there any questions of Gary please
37 phd 19/9/11 14:44
Deleted: be being
phd 19/9/11 14:44
Deleted: pressurised in
657.
Marilyn Smyth: okay under allegation one Gary in response to my written question about using
the F word in meetings the only occasion on which you recall swearing was in June or July last
year following which you apologise is that correct
658.
Gary Walker: what I stated is what I stated when I sent that reply to you which it is that it is difficult
to make a reply to questions without any context. And you e-mailed me back and said yes it is
which is why I wanted to meet you.
659.
Marilyn Smyth: well yes
660.
Gary Walker: so I replied in a context which that I understood those questions to be asked
661.
Marilyn Smyth: yes and you replied that you only recall swearing on one occasion
662.
Gary Walker: because I thought...
663.
Marilyn Smyth: in June or July
664.
Gary Walker: if you look at the other questions and my response you will see that that's the
context in which I was believing you were asking the question. So I'm happy if you would like to
go to that now. Is it in the pack
665.
Marilyn Smyth: I'm sure it is. But I'm more interested in. I don't want to get caught up in the
semantics of it. I'm interested in the fact that you answered that you can only recall swearing one
occasion in a formal meeting and that was in June or July. Is that correct
666.
Gary Walker: that is the statement I made in the context I describe
667.
Marilyn Smyth: okay now on the basis...
668.
Gary Walker: and I've already made reference by the way in my statement just now about the
problems of how those questions were raised
669.
Marilyn Smyth: yes. On the basis of Ros Edwards statement this was a meeting at the end of
June wasn't it.
670.
Gary Walker: the, which one, the meeting with of the trade unions
671.
Marilyn Smyth: what I'm trying to tie up you recall swearing on one occasion. Ros Edwards talks
about the meeting at the end of June that she was at and it was raised with you. So I'm trying not
to make an assumption but is it correct that the meeting at the end of June is the one you
remember because it was raised with you.
672.
Gary Walker: it was the staff-side meeting. I don't remember the date of it but it was a staff-side
meeting.
673.
Marilyn Smyth: okay is it a fair assumption that was at the end of June
674.
Gary Walker: it's a fair assumption
675.
Marilyn Smyth: okay and according to Carol Pilsbury you apologised on 15 July
676.
Gary Walker: yes and that's a reasonable assumption is well
677.
Marilyn Smyth: okay but you swore again at another meeting on 22 July didn't you.
678.
Gary Walker: that's an allegation which I do not recall ever swearing at that meeting if I indeed
that meeting took place because I'm not sure if it happened
679.
Marilyn Smyth: okay. Why didn't you mention...
680.
Gary Walker: the reason why I don't think it happened is because in the statement from Carol
Pilsbury she said that David Bowles was present at the meeting, the FT meeting. And if you said
he left on 21 July then how could I how could he be present at a meeting on 22 July. Carol states
that she had a meeting of the Unison trade meeting. David Bowles was there and that was dated
22nd of July 2009. So I don't understand how he can be at a meeting if he's left the trust.
38 681.
Marilyn Smyth: yes that's fair enough comment. I couldn't answer it so. Okay. Why didn't you
mention when I asked you about when you've been swearing that you've previously been warned
by the chairman about your language.
682.
Gary Walker: to be honest all I remember about that time was being frightened being as far as I
was concerned bullied and immediately as that happened my career was tarnished in the press.
My character was destroyed and as far as I'm concerned that's pretty much where my memory
stops and most of the summer has disappeared. And I've had to write down every single thing
since that day in order to be able to recollect it
683.
Marilyn Smyth: so you forgot you received a warning about your language
684.
Gary Walker: I'm not even sure how whether I had or not and that's why I don't remember the
date. I remember a discussion about my language. I'm not quite sure I remember it as and I'm
going to write this down and put this on your file discussion but that's all I recall.
685.
Marilyn Smyth: okay so if you've only sworn once to your recollection why did the ex-chairman
considered necessary to issue you with a warning. I accept that you've been unwell for some
months but you've been at the Trust for more than three years
686.
Gary Walker: I can't answer that question. That's a question you'll have to ask him. He clearly
and Carol Pilsbury alleged there were a number of complaints. I'm not sure I'm aware of any,
apart from the one I dealt with.
687.
Marilyn Smyth: okay but you didn't contest the warning did you
688.
Gary Walker: the warning? I don't remember the conversation, I don't remember any great detail
and there is nothing I can do to improve that. I didn't write it down. I don't have a copy of the letter
that says I've given you a warning and I don't have any record to refer to.
689.
Marilyn Smyth: so he didn't follow it up with a letter
690.
Gary Walker: well,...
691.
Marilyn Smyth: which is what you'd expect.
692.
Gary Walker: I don't know whether he departed to quick or what happened. That week was a very
interesting week
693.
Marilyn Smyth: okay moving on then. Isn't it therefore the case that the evidence of the 9 out of 10
witnesses I've interviewed who reported your frequent use of swearing in meetings is in fact true.
In other words you are so notorious for your use of foul language that the ex-chairman considered
it necessary to step in and pull you up at about it.
694.
Gary Walker: all the witnesses said I think said that swearing happens throughout the trust and
many of them said they happen in formal meetings, not all.
695.
Marilyn Smyth: I don't recall any witness telling me it happens in formal meetings other than you.
696.
Gary Walker: Richard Lendon, Adam Wolverson, they say it happens in formal meetings. I'm
happy for you to read their statement.
697.
Marilyn Smyth: well I interviewed Adam Wolverson and I don't recall him saying that to me.
698.
Gary Walker: Well, in the statement you have just given me this morning he said it does. I'm
pretty sure I read that as I may have got that wrong and I'm happy to read that.
699.
Tim Staniland: I think he did.
700.
Gary Walker: and in Richard Lendon's statement he says it happens in formal meetings.
701.
Marilyn Smyth: why didn't he say it to me.
702.
Gary Walker: sorry, let me finish. Carol Pilsbury this morning also said it happens in formal
meetings so there were three people who stated, on the record, that swearing happens in formal
meetings.
39 phd 19/9/11 14:45
Deleted: clearly he
703.
Marilyn Smyth: no I'm sorry I didn't hear that
704.
Gary Walker: I'm happy for the transcript to be...
705.
David Grafton: we will look at the transcript not now but we will look at the transcript but my
recollection is that Carol Pilsbury said the reverse.
706.
Marilyn Smyth: I think she said the reverse.
707.
Gary Walker: the question I put to her this morning was you said most meetings and then I asked
her to a question about that and I'm happy to read that question and answer out
708.
David Grafton: you're quite right the other two people that you mentioned it takes very occurs in
formal meetings
709.
Marilyn Smyth: But Adam Wolverson didn't say it to me when I interviewed him I am sure. I'm sure
I would recall it if he had.
710.
Gary Walker: I don't think it's commented on in his original statement
711.
Marilyn Smyth: no and he was asked about it
712.
Gary Walker: well, there is no comment either way in his original statement.
713.
Marilyn Smyth: you said in your last presentation that the warning was given to you in accordance
with the trust's internal policies. Is that correct?
714.
Gary Walker: I believe so
715.
Marilyn Smyth: if you look at the disciplinary policy on page 265 paragraph 5.1 informal, it
provides that a record of the discussion will be made in the form of a file note that would be
retained on the personal file. The individual should sign a file note as a true record of the
discussion. There is no such note on the file. Do you recall ever signing one.
716.
Gary Walker: I just answer that question. I didn't receive and I don't recall ever signing anything
and nothing in writing. And as far as I'm concerned I assumed it was on advice from Ros because
David has said that he discussed it with Ros so Ros would have advised him on how to give me a
warning so I assumed it was in accordance with the trust policies and procedures. I wouldn't
expect chairman to read the trust procedures first and then I'd expect him to take advice from HR.
717.
Marilyn Smyth: Well...
718.
David Grafton: can I just ask that when you are referring to David is that me?
719.
Gary Walker: no sorry.
720.
Marilyn Smyth: no, David Bowles
721.
David Grafton: okay sorry
722.
Gary Walker: you are only part of this in the past few weeks
723.
Marilyn Smyth: okay so the verbal warning was sometime between 17th I think you said you
couldn't look exactly recall
724.
Gary Walker: what I said was it was a few days before David left I don't know if it was one day or
three days or longer.
725.
Marilyn Smyth: you didn't say that actually.
726.
Gary Walker: my words were a few days before he left
727.
Marilyn Smyth: but you can't remember the warning at all you told me.
728.
Gary Walker: no.
729.
Marilyn Smyth: so how do you know if it was a few days before you left.
40 730.
Gary Walker: no what I said what I say is that I don't remember the specific of the warning. I have
said that countless times.
731.
Gary David Grafton: I ask you the question so it could have been on the 18th and 19th or 20th.
732.
Gary Walker: and I said yes (I said "I don't know" - 622)
733.
David Grafton: of June.
734.
Marilyn Smyth: of June.
735.
Gary Walker: my apologies.
736.
David Grafton: I was specific you couldn't remember.
737.
Gary Walker: no I'm absolutely clear it wasn't in June at all otherwise there wouldn't have been an
issue of there being a problem with records. I'm sure it was a few days before he left. I don't
remember the specifics. I remember a conversation that nothing specific about it. Don't remember
it being a warning. Don't remember there being any paperwork associated with it.
738.
David Grafton: okay so your memory is coming back.
739.
Gary Walker: no I've always said it was a few days before he left. I'm sorry if I've made that
unclear.
740.
David Grafton: okay.
741.
Gary Walker: I've maintained that all along.
742.
Marilyn Smyth: okay you've received a warning.
743.
Gary Walker: and when you said 18th and 19th you didn't say June.
744.
David Grafton: I did.
745.
Gary Walker: well my apologies I didn't hear that.
746.
Marilyn Smyth: let's just accept that it was the second week in July.
747.
Gary Walker: no I'll stick by what I said.
748.
Marilyn Smyth: well that is the second week in July isn't it.
749.
Gary Walker: okay well I don't know. He left on the 21st it would have been the third week of July.
750.
Marilyn Smyth: okay it's just getting worse not better.
751.
Gary Walker: I can't answer the question so why do you keep asking me.
752.
Marilyn Smyth: okay let's suppose it sometime between the 10th and 20th of July. Yes. Are you
prepared to accept that?
753.
Gary Walker: no I've already made my position clear but if you want to carry on that's entirely up
to you.
754.
Marilyn Smyth: but on the 22nd it happens again. So despite being given a warning so soon after
you were doing it again. So how can the trust have any confidence that you wouldn't continue to
use foul language. Because you took no notice of a warning from the chairman last time. Do you
want to address the panel on that point.
755.
Gary Walker: I don't know what you want me to say. I've already answered all those questions.
I've already made statements to that effect. I'm not going to add anything because everytime I try
to explain something I've got David on the right you on the left saying well that's slightly different.
You so you know I'm trying to be helpful and cooperative and you are using that as an opportunity
to attack me. So I've already made that answer and I'm not going to answer any questions about
that....
756.
Marilyn Smyth: okay.
41 757.
Gary Walker: ...for the reasons I've already stated.
758.
Marilyn Smyth: fair enough. You told George Briggs in front of others that he was fucking useless
and a fucking idiot and a fucking waster. That was directed at him as an individual.
759.
Gary Walker: I totally deny that. He has not proven it. No one else has proven it. There is no
evidence to that effect and I've already demonstrated that George Briggs is not a credible
witness.
760.
Marilyn Smyth: okay. You say that you are aware that others have sworn but that no action has
been taken. Yes.
761.
Gary Walker: no I'm not aware of, well, again being selective about what you pick out. The
sentence continues, I have, but save for when a swear word is directed at an individual. That's
what I said in my statement somewhere in here. So no action has been taken against people
save for when individuals have sworn that other individuals. Action is taken then when it is
brought to people's attention. No question about it.
762.
Marilyn Smyth: okay As a chief executive you ultimately responsible for ensuring that the trust
dignity at work policy is upheld aren't you?
763.
Gary Walker: yes.
764.
Marilyn Smyth: the policy page 284 provides that the trust will not condone behaviour that is
abusive or offensive and which affects the dignity of staff. Do you accept in your unique position
you have a particular responsibility set out to set an example and not to resort to the use of
offensive and abusive language against employees.
765.
Gary Walker: I think that it is incredibly awful way to phrase a question. What I will tell you is what
I have told you before in many different ways that swearing is part of the culture of this trust. It is
part of being part of this trust and if swearing is directed at an individual then people involved
need to answer that.
766.
Marilyn Smyth: okay I'm moving on to allegation two so I'm going to leave the panel to make their
decision on those answers. Viv Delafuente claimed that you constructively dismissed her. There
was some performance issues with Viv that you thought had to be addressed whether.
767.
Gary Walker: yes.
768.
Marilyn Smyth: yeah. When someone isn't performing you become very impatient with them don't
you?
769.
Gary Walker: the performance issues relating to Viv were actually raised by the Dir of Operations
before Dawne whose name is Paul Grant. He should have records on file. Which is why I keep
referring to people's files that you can look in. Those were discussed with her line manager who is
Liz Murray. And it was a conversation with Liz that had quite often who said there were ongoing
performance issues. And it was that then that I said well in the absence of a director of operations
let's work at it. Liz was quite clear as she said in her statement that she wanted to help and I
apologise for forgetting names, Viv, thank you. So that's exactly what happened Paul Ahmet was
support. Chris from Banana Park was support. And that's the process that we followed and
performance continued to decline.
770.
Marilyn Smyth: okay
771.
Gary Walker: and this lasted for more than six months and in most businesses that would be
regarded as taking a long time to turn around individual performance and that's what I have
always done with people.
772.
Marilyn Smyth: but Liz Murray who was not adverse to you in her statement I don't think.
773.
Gary Walker: what Liz Murray said about this is that initially she didn't want Viv to go and then she
it was clear after this time that Viv was not going to perform.
42 phd 19/9/11 14:47
Deleted: breaks
phd 19/9/11 14:47
Deleted: that
phd 19/9/11 14:47
Deleted: live
phd 19/9/11 14:48
Deleted: It
phd 19/9/11 14:48
Deleted: using
774.
Marilyn Smyth: but also Liz Murray says that use their fluently and become assertive bordering on
aggressive. Which is similar to how others have characterised you isn't it.
775.
Gary Walker: your witnesses yes and I've already discussed my view about your...
776.
Aaron Smyth: okay.
777.
Gary Walker witnesses and...
778.
Marilyn Smyth: okay...
779.
Gary Walker: your interview methods.
780.
Marilyn's five: okay when you went into the meeting with the Viv you were impatient and behaved
aggressively towards her didn't you.
781.
Gary Walker: I never had a meeting with Viv I can't recall without Liz being present. It was an
issue that I didn't want to get between Viv and Liz. They are the line managers. So I always made
sure people were there.
782.
Marilyn Smyth: well yes but Liz has described you as assertive bordering on aggressive as well.
783.
Gary Walker: well that's an opinion not shared by others.
784.
Marilyn Smyth: okay will you may perceive your behaviour differently but Viv's perception.
785.
Gary Walker: I'm sorry my witnesses would counter that argument and I didn't feel I should bring
10 witnesses to argue your ten. The point is the views of many of the people in the trust that is not
the case.
786.
Marilyn Smyth: okay but we're talking about a particular meeting between you and Liz and Viv
when your witnesses were not there.
787.
Gary Walker: well sorry I don't believe I've ever acted aggressively ever.
788.
Marilyn Smyth: okay.
789.
Gary Walker: okay maybe in my teens I might have done but certainly not since then.
790.
Marilyn Smyth: as I started to say. You may perceive your behaviour differently but Viv's
perception was such that she felt bullied into leaving.
791.
Gary Walker: well I think if you look at the file of Viv, what the performance issues were. Which
were multiple. Most of the directorate's performance was poor. I don't think one target at the end
of her tenure was being delivered. I think that she had, it was on record that she had promised to
do things and hadn't. It was on record that she blamed her staff. Many people witnessed this in
performance review meetings where she would say and I quote none of the staff have been
taking that seriously. So I think there is copious amounts of evidence that I don't have access to
that would not uphold your version of events.
792.
Marilyn Smyth: well regardless of whether there were genuine concerns about her performance or
not do you really consider it appropriate for a chief executive to behave in such a way that it
makes an employee feel so intimidated that they have to leave.
793.
Gary Walker: I don't accept that I did behave in that way. That is her version of events.
794.
Marilyn Smyth: okay. Moving on to allegation three. Some of the things George Briggs has said
you said to him. Would you not think that is humiliating.
795.
Gary Walker: what for example.
796.
Marilyn Smyth: fucking idiot.
797.
Gary Walker: I've already denied making their statements.
43 phd 19/9/11 14:50
Deleted: they've without
phd 19/9/11 14:50
Deleted: with
phd 19/9/11 14:51
Deleted: on
phd 19/9/11 14:51
Deleted: it
798.
Marilyn Smyth: Do you accept that you have a special responsibility under the trust policy and the
NHS code of conduct managers to ensure the trust will not condone behaviour that is abusive or
offensive and that affects the dignity of staff.
799.
Gary Walker: I believe that every employee has the same responsibility. I don't believe I have a
exceptionally special one. Everybody is responsible.
800.
Marilyn Smyth: well as the line manager of everyone in the trust you don't think that's a unique
and special responsibility.
801.
Gary Walker: I believe and you mentioned the code of conduct for NHS managers and I said I
believe it applies to everybody.
802.
Marilyn Smyth: can you honestly say that given that Viv and George and others have said what
they have said that you value them as colleagues and gave them all reasonable protection from
harassment and bullying.
803.
Gary Walker: can you say that again. I think the answer is of course but can you say that again.
804.
Marilyn Smyth: well given what staff have said about the way you have behaved. Would you say
that you value them as colleagues and gave them all reasonable protection from harassment and
bullying.
805.
Gary Walker: I think there are two parts to your question. I don't behave I don't believe what your
witnesses have said is accurate or true. I don't believe they provided any evidence and I do
believe that I offer people all the support and training and development that they need to carry out
their duties before going down a performance management route.
806.
Marilyn Smyth: okay thank you end of my questions thank you.
807.
Paul Richardson: do you have any questions David.
808.
David Grafton: Just for the panel on a number of issues. Discussion has taken place regarding
the use of bad language, swearing, within the trust. And what you said is swearing occurs at all
levels. That you use the phrase that there was a culture of swearing at the trust what is your view
about at just as an issue.
809.
Gary Walker: when I first arrived at Lincolnshire I notice the amount of swearing and I asked
about it and they said it was normal for Lincolnshire. And I think that's part of the culture. I think
it's not just the trust I think this part of that there is part of that I would go as far as to say that to
more or less a degree it's part of society.
810.
David Grafton: so you're saying that you accept that it was part of the culture accepting it. Did you
not take an alternative view that was not an acceptable culture.
811.
Gary Walker: I took the view that swearing at people and swearing in the context of situations
different.
812.
David Grafton: well let's look at that because that's a fine line it seems to me. If we take the
example that Pilsbury has given us. Which if we believe what she says in response to an issue
you were discussing concerning foundation trust your reaction was to say oh fucking hell.
813.
Gary Walker: well I don't know. I've denied that.
814.
David Grafton: yes I know.
815.
Gary Walker: and I don't know what the situation was even if that did occur even if that did.
816.
David Grafton: okay if that was the discussion that took place and there is and if there and you're
denying that it did would that constitute unacceptable use of bad language.
817.
Gary Walker: I think there is a difference. I don't agree there is a fine line. I think there is a very
clear line between swearing in context of the situation and swearing at somebody. I think that the
two are extremely different than I've made that statement several times.
44 phd 19/9/11 14:52
Deleted: relationship
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Deleted: ed
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Deleted: your what
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Deleted: Lincolnshire in
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Deleted: where
phd 19/9/11 14:53
Deleted: you
818.
David Grafton: but what you have heard is the Carol Pilsbury and her full-time official to exception
hence a complaint was raised. Is it unreasonable that people should be offended by the use of
language in the situation that I described.
819.
Gary Walker: well Carol Pilsbury also admitted she swore as well.
820.
David Grafton: well she described a situation where she would perhaps swear. I mean for
example I stubb my toe and an expletive comes out that might be one situation. If I'm talking to
you and you don't like what I'm saying and you respond with a string of expletives would you
regard that as the same situation.
821.
Gary Walker: I would regard that as swearing directly at somebody.
822.
David Grafton: okay.
823.
Gary Walker: which is different to swearing the context of the situation.
824.
David Grafton: how is that different name to the situation I put to you which is Carol Pilsbury's
allegation which is denied that your response in the discussion about foundation trust status was
oh fucking hell.
825.
Gary Walker: I'll keep saying it. I'm not going to say anything different because I don't see any
difference. Swearing in context that you've just described is not directed at an individual.
826.
David Grafton: in the second situation that I have described.
827.
Gary Walker: which one was that then.
828.
David Grafton: that's longer Carol Pilsbury recanting to us a situation were in response to...
829.
Gary Walker: I denied about happening and we would have to look at the specifics of the context
and the evidence of that. But I can say again that there is a difference. A very marked difference
and it is not a fine line in my opinion.
830.
David Grafton: okay then let's look at the April 2008 meeting which we have a transcript of and
bad language is used in several marked instances. Do you recall.
831.
Gary Walker: I recall the transcript.
832.
David Grafton: now there typically the use of bad language in response to something that you
have been told. Information that you have received. Do you accept that is swearing directly at the
individual who has given you the information.
phd 19/9/11 14:54
833.
Gary Walker: no.
834.
David Grafton: Who are you swearing to then
835.
Gary Walker: If I made those. I cannot recall what happened only 21st of April 2008...
836.
David Grafton: no.
837.
Gary Walker: and I doubt anybody around this table could. So if those comments were made I
have said before, if I ever swore it was in the situation and never directed at an individual.
838.
David Grafton: okay.
839.
Gary Walker: I have not been swearing at an individual ever.
840.
David Grafton: okay what you have heard and seen from witness statements is that the number of
people Carol Pilsbury verbally to us today and others in their written statements have said that
they found the use of bad language offensive. Do you think it unreasonable or is reasonable that
people should be offended.
841.
Gary Walker: every person is different.
842.
David Grafton: if I can draw you to page 284 the bundle which is the dignity at work policy for the
trust. It says all employees have a personal, this is paragraph 2.2. All employees have a personal
45 Deleted: as very directed
phd 19/9/11 14:55
Deleted: okay
phd 19/9/11 14:55
Deleted: by word, as far as
phd 19/9/11 14:56
Deleted: unreasonable
phd 19/9/11 14:56
Deleted: for
responsibility not to behave in a manner others may find offensive you think that you were
contravening that policy.
843.
Gary Walker: not if everyone, not everybody, not if a majority of people in the trust consider it to
be normal behaviour.
844.
David Grafton: why then in the disciplinary procedure and it's a very common paragraph to enter
into disciplinary procedures with employers. Why then is their reference to foul and abusive
language being a gross misconduct issue.
845.
Gary Walker: where is that written down here.
846.
David Grafton: I'm moving away from the dignity at work policy now. We dealt with that and I'm
looking at the disciplinary procedure. And the disciplinary procedure makes very clear that...
phd 19/9/11 14:56
847.
Gary Walker: its page 259 onwards.
Deleted: at stop
848.
David Grafton: in the examples of gross misconduct on page 269. Abusive language is regarded
as gross misconduct. A potential that potentially gross misconduct issue.
849.
Gary Walker: yes.
850.
David Grafton: do you think that it is reasonable it is a reasonable thing to have in the disciplinary
procedure.
851.
Gary Walker: yes.
852.
David Grafton: and what you are saying here is that when I used the example of Carol Pilsbury
when she alleges that your response in the discussion was to use an expletive that you've saying
that it's not directed at her.
853.
Gary Walker: that's right.
854.
David Grafton: even though the discussion is between you and her on that particular occasion.
855.
Gary Walker: I think that to qualify as abusive language and needs to be directed at somebody.
856.
David Grafton: well my point is or my question to you is is it not reasonable to believe that in the
debate that I've just described in the foundation trust status a reaction by you to the individual that
is making the expletive.
857.
Gary Walker: we are going around in circles David because I have already denied making that
and I can't comment on the situation because it would be difficult to me to go back there without
any information or even the context of it.
858.
David Grafton: okay right.
859.
Gary Walker: I mean if your analysis of abusive language is somebody swearing at all then well
you'd need to discipline most of the trust David.
860.
David Grafton: so what you're saying is that what you are not accepting is that there may be a
grey area as to the use of abusive language.
861.
Gary Walker: no I've said to you that I believe there is a clear distinction between the two. And I
don't think it's a great line I think it's a marked line.
862.
David Grafton: all right. In conclusion then what you are saying is that the use of foul and abusive
language is perfectly acceptable so long as it's not directed at a particular individual. So what's
the purpose...
863.
Gary Walker: no I'm sorry David you cannot put words into my mouth which is what you have
been trying to do for 4 hours.
864.
David Grafton: no. No. No.
46 phd 19/9/11 14:56
Deleted: nd a
phd 19/9/11 13:31
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
865.
Gary Walker: David you keep saying what you are saying is. That is putting words into my mouth
and that is not appropriate. I've already said what I have said which is there is a difference in is
swearing at somebody and in context.
866.
David Grafton: Right. Are you the champion of the policies and procedures of ULH.
867.
Gary Walker: pretty much all of them yet.
868.
David Grafton: yep. And you believe that using bad language is unacceptable proposition in your
trust.
869.
Gary Walker: I believe you have to fit into the culture of an organisation.
870.
David Grafton: not to create the culture of that organisation.
871.
Gary Walker: I think you can influence the culture you can't create one.
872.
David Grafton: and if we used the use of swear words was okay.
873.
Gary Walker: not if your organisation is built in the society of a certain culture now.
874.
David Grafton: is that unusual in the NHS.
875.
Gary Walker: swearing is very very common in the NHS.
876.
David Grafton: right so that your experience of the NHS.
877.
Gary Walker: I've only worked with 30 or so organisations and I would say yes.
878.
David Grafton: okay.
879.
Paul Richardson: is that it. Right, okay. Before I asked the panel if they would like to ask any
questions you want to ask another question.
880.
Marilyn Smyth: No I just...
881.
Paul Richardson: can what you want to say be included in your summary.
882.
Marilyn Smyth: no, no.
883.
Paul Richardson: it can't it's something separate.
884.
Marilyn Smyth: yes.
885.
Paul Richardson: do you have any objection to the question from Marilyn. No.
886.
Marilyn Smyth: so Gary would you describe calling, saying to Ros Edwards your HR staff are
fuckwits swearing at somebody or not.
887.
Gary Walker: you're assuming that Ros accurately describing a word that I used.
888.
Marilyn Smyth: well you are denying it.
889.
Gary Walker: yes.
890.
Marilyn Smyth: so.
891.
Gary Walker: why would I call people fuckwits.
892.
Marilyn Smyth: well it's quite interesting how many of the witnesses you are describing as liars.
893.
Gary Walker: well most of those...
894.
Marilyn Smyth: you also say you don't remember.
895.
Gary Walker: ...most of those witnesses have a vendetta against me or a reason to make
astatement. Those that haven't haven't really said much as you pointed out. And I've already
criticised the interview technique that I'm still oblivious to because I have asked for how you
interviewed people. The one witness who has described in detail how you interviewed said you
asked inappropriate questions. So in my mind the evidence collecting methods is highly suspect.
47 phd 19/9/11 14:57
Deleted: e
phd 19/9/11 14:57
Deleted: towards
896.
Marilyn Smyth: well it's interesting that you raise that because there is quite a few incongruous
remarks in Adam Wolverson's statement. But particularly as you raise it here he states that Ms
Smyth did explain at the outset of the interview that she felt it important she explore the issues in
depth and she adopted a professional but firm and challenging manner throughout the interview.
Throughout the interview. In terms of temperament Ms Smyth appeared very calm and composed
throughout the interview. And although very firm and questioning. Twice in one paragraph he
says throughout the interview and yet further down he says this interview was more in keeping
with my own experiences of being questioned in that context. And he is talking about being a
witness in a criminal court. So I find it quite incongruous that he says one thing early on in his
statement and something quite opposite later on.
897.
Gary Walker: it seems we have the same problem with it delivering to you doesn't seem to recall
making a statement.
898.
Paul Richardson: okay.
899.
Marilyn Smyth: yes.
900.
Paul Richardson: Tim do you have any questions or Gary.
901.
Tim Staniland: first of all just for the sake of the record so that it is recorded. Point 11. I have not
been asked to resign my role as a non-executive director and therefore my position in the trust is
not under question.
902.
Gary Walker: it's not .11 of my statement is .11 of your statement.
903.
Tim Staniland: yes sorry yes. And therefore I think I'm perfectly capable of holding an impartial
view of the proceedings. With regard to point 12 of your statement as well I just like to say that
for the record the meeting where we discussed the issues about the SHA to the best of my
recollection was not a, as Phil Scarlett described it, a special meeting of the remuneration
committee. To the best of my recollection it was an informal meeting. I think it.
904.
Gary Walker: I think it was the one in the hotel was it.
905.
Tim Staniland: yeah.
906.
Gary Walker: it was a meeting of the entire board and not the remuneration committee.
907.
Tim Staniland: Just for clarification I just wanted to say that. I've got a question about appraisals.
If I can ask a question about appraisals. Who normally carries out appraisals on managers.
908.
Gary Walker: the line managers:
909.
Tim Stanton: the line manager. So who is Viv Delafuente's line manager.
910.
Gary Walker: all the general managers have a clinical director to report to. On a day-to-day basis
are managed by the Director of Ops and the clinical director and the Director of Ops should do
jointly. Mainly because one is the line manager in the business unit lead and the other one has
day-to-day contact.
911.
Tim Staniland: well then it would appear that Viv Delafuente had an appraisal of May 2009, sorry
if I've got this wrong. It appears that in May 2009, Viv had an appraisal which Liz wasn't present
because Liz asked her afterwards if she'd...
912.
Gary Walker: I'd have to say that you'll have to look at the letter after that. If it was me and Viv on
our own it would have been because Liz couldn't get there.
913.
Tim Staniland: Right. So that could of been just you on your own.
914.
Gary Walker: it could have been.
915.
Tim Staniland: okay
916.
Paul Richardson: okay.
917.
Tim Staniland: yes thank you.
phd 19/9/11 14:58
Deleted: he as you raise it
phd 19/9/11 14:58
Deleted: 's
phd 19/9/11 14:58
Deleted: a
phd 19/9/11 14:59
Deleted: and
phd 19/9/11 14:59
Deleted: sh
phd 19/9/11 15:02
Deleted: land
48 918.
Paul Richardson: Mike.
919.
Mike Cutts: still on the offensive language Gary you talked about a majority of the trust employees
speaking that if it was used against somebody that was offensive. Well even if a minority say 49%
just hearing in their presence offensive language or abusive language offensive would you not still
think that contravenes the policies.
920.
Gary Walker: I think it had to have a discussion as a trust about it. I didn't think it would be it
would contravene the policies if it was part of the culture. If it was 49% I would say was a
significant minority but it's a big group and that on that basis you'd probably find 20% would it be
bothered and 30% when my because they would be they would do it so therefore you've probably
got majority anyway. If that's statistically correct. So I think we have to have a debate about the
use of language.
921.
Mike Cutts: even if just a few people were truly offended by that sort of language should we not
protect them. Is that not what the policies have been written in the way is a wider policies have
been written in the way they have.
922.
Gary Walker: despite what Roz Edwards says that's why I was so quick to apologise. When I did
apologise. As far as I'm concerned it happens all the time and if it caused offence I apologised
and we got through that and spent 2 1/2 hour talking about I don't know what actually but the
word put the world to rights.
phd 19/9/11 15:03
Deleted: calls
923.
Mike Cutts: I don't have many more questions chairman. I had a lot but I think Gary has answered
them all throughout the day.
phd 19/9/11 15:03
Deleted: that automatically
924.
Paul Richardson: Right before I ask.
925.
David Grafton: can I just ask something that Gary mentioned right at the start. You were saying
that legal representation had been granted by somebody else at the trust some little while ago.
Can I ask you who that person was.
phd 19/9/11 15:03
Deleted: but
926.
Gary Walker: two doctors were involved in, well, they received national publicity.
927.
David Grafton: Well in fact legislation allows for representation by a legally qualified people for
medical staff. Just so...
928.
Gary Walker: if you want to debate the legal aspects of it you will find that actually the NHS was
deemed to be a monopoly employer and I'm sure you'll find that teachers have the same rights.
Therefore it would be extended all people...
929.
David Grafton: alright you raised the particular issue and I just wanted to tell you I was aware of it.
930.
Gary Walker: if it goes further then we will obviously.
931.
Paul Richardson. Anything before we start. Right: I've just got one question. So I can understand
the sequence of events will you have any opinion why that on 17th June these allegation of your
language was discussed by the held in this private session of the remuneration committee yet as
I've understood it correct me if I'm wrong it took more or less a month before the previous
chairman decided to talk to you about it. Have I misunderstood that or was there something in
that month before he spoke to you about it that could have prompted or reminded him. Would you
have an opinion on that.
932.
Gary Walker: I don't he may well have been away. He does take quite long holidays.
933.
Paul Richardson: Right so he didn't remember.
934.
Gary Walker: he was a very nonexecutive non-executive chairman. If that makes sense.
935.
Paul Richardson: Right and this particular note I notice in fact that it isn't anywhere in the hospital
but it is hospital property because it is headed United Lincolnshire hospitals which I find that a
little odd. It is hospital property this note although nobody can find it. So end of that incident. Right
okay would you care to sum up.
49 phd 19/9/11 15:04
Deleted: a
phd 19/9/11 15:04
Deleted: ..
phd 19/9/11 15:04
Deleted: all
phd 19/9/11 15:04
Deleted: says
936.
Marilyn Smyth: Yes quite quick summing up. I would like to draw your attention to the case of
Horkuluk V Canterfitzgerald International. The High Court held that because the use of foul and
abusive language that gave no chance of the applicant to respond to any criticism breached the
implied terms of trust and confidence. Secondly that the management approach seem to have
been to frighten the claimant into performing according to the requisite standards. That the user of
swear words, expletives and foul and abusive language could not be regarded as incidental or
meaningless. It was a hallmark of the manager's dictatorial leadership and exemplifies his attitude
as an employer and that restraints and obligations arising out of the contract of employment were
not at the forefront of his thinking. So that's the case of Horkuluk. And I believe the Horkuluk case
is a prime example of the kind of management being used by Gary Walker on a regular basis.
Additionally this behaviour is totally against the code of conduct for NHS managers that forms an
explicit part of Gary's contract of employment. Therefore it could be said that this behaviour
breaches and express term of his employment contract. Further the evidence is overwhelming the
Gary uses swearing on a very regular basis and not as a one-off as stated by him in his response
to questions pertaining to this case. There is significant witness evidence that Gary uses foul and
abusive language in formal meetings. Even though he states he can only remember it once. A
leaver claimed that he constructively dismissed her and taking into account that there is no doubt
the meeting did take place according to Viv, Gary and Liz's evidence the weight of the evidence
as to Gary's use of language and the evidence from Liz that Gary did want Viv to leave means
that when I was looking for findings I partially upheld. Oh, and I'd like to address the issue about
upholding or not upholding. It isn't that I am making a decision about this case at all. It's that when
I use the phrase upholding it's uphold the allegation as far as my investigation is concerned it is
not intended to influence the panel in any way.
937.
Paul Richardson: I think that is understood.
938.
Marilyn Smyth: it's that I can't come here and defend my case if I haven't upheld it or not myself.
There is a significant amount of evidence that Gary uses humiliation as a way to manage people.
And whilst there was no intention to investigate this as a specific issue in the beginning there was
enough evidence being relayed by witnesses in their investigation interviews that Gary's style of
management had to be considered as part of its investigation generally. And that staff had felt
humiliated.
939.
I ask the panel to make a decision that takes all this evidence into account including the strength
of feeling that has come across from some of the witness statements. And that a decision was
made not to have witnesses here personally out of a sense of fright that I saw when I interviewed
them. The only witness I felt that could be here and not be afraid is Carol. Which is why she is the
witness I asked to be here. One witness broke down in tears in front of me when I asked her why
she felt afraid. And we have heard evidence about another employee also being disciplined for
this but that employee is not the chief executive. And arguably the chief exec is a line manager for
all the staff. The policy breaches are considerable and the chief exec in my opinion has to act as
an exemplar for all the rest of the staff. I don't think it's acceptable to say it's a culture because if
the chief executive is perpetrating the culture it will continue forever. Further David Bowles left the
trust on 21 July and Carol Pilsbury is pretty certain that another incident happened on the 22nd
and therefore must have happened again after the warning. Thank you.
940.
Paul Richardson: thank you. Gary would you like to sum up your case.
941.
Gary Walker: just to come back on some of those points and I think and then I think I've pretty
much says it all. There is no evidence in this case around the words I can't say Horkuluk. I don't
believe the evidence has been collected in a transparent way and certainly the answers have
been led. I've already stated that I believe that to be as a direct result of the claims I've made
against the trust and the SHA. In terms of stating upheld in the investigators statement. The
investigator's responsibilities are to provide a balanced report that doesn't include say I uphold the
allegation. Humiliation. There is no evidence of that except from people who were being
performance managed or not performing.
942.
The comment about the 21 July, David left and Carol Pilsbury saying that I swore 22 July is a
concern given that Carol's own statement says that David Bowles was present at the meeting.
50 phd 19/9/11 15:04
Deleted: they
phd 19/9/11 15:05
Deleted: s
Clearly he couldn't have been. The key issue here for me is that swearing is commonplace at all
levels and whilst it isn't condoned if it is deemed to be inappropriate. The fact remains that I am
not the only one who has used bad language but I'm the only one being vilified in this way. The
treatment of somebody else in the trust who has allegedly sworn at people has resulted as we
have heard today in no disciplinary action being taken. During the period in question and going
back as far as the Christmas before last now I have been under a lot of pressure to work to
deliver targets against a backdrop of rising demand and told that if I didn't deliver those targets I
would need to go. That is an extreme amount of pressure to be under and if I have sworn during
that time that somebody has brought it to my attention that I have on that one occasion
apologised. In my view if this means that the culture of the trust needs to change then clearly I
would look to moderate my behaviour as well try to improve the way the trust is currently excudes
its behaviour.
943.
Paul Richardson: is that it? Well thank you both for summing up. It goes without saying that I will
say it is critical that we all remember that what has happened here today and what has been
discussed is treated as confidential and must not be discussed ouside this meeting. Now the
protocol I understand states that we will be we will arrive at a conclusion in 15 days and let you
know what the conclusion is.
944.
David Grafton: Chairman can I just corrects myself on that because that's the procedure for
formal disciplinary appeal hearings gives 15 days. I'm looking now to see how long would
normally be the case for providing a conclusion to this matter in writing and I'm struggling to find
it.
945.
Marilyn Smyth: usually it is 10 in public service.
946.
David Grafton: It is.
947.
Marilyn Smyth: usually.
948.
Paul Richardson: Right well whatever it is we want to arrive at a conclusion as quickly as
possible.
949.
Gary Walker: whatever it says on the disciplinary document.
950.
Paul Richardson: we will not exceed. Hopefully we will meet, easily meet, whatever it says we will
write to you when we have arrived at a conclusion whenever that is.
951.
Gary Walker: thank you.
952.
Paul Richardson: thank you both your time and your input and we will now start our deliberations.
Thank you
953.
Marilyn Smyth: thank you.
954.
Gary Walker: thank you.
End 5 hours.
51 phd 19/9/11 15:05
Deleted: five