Professor Richard Susskind - dismissal letter

I have noticed that the links to my "virtual court" blog post have been tampered with and no longer open as a document when you click on the link.  This has lead me to believe that someone (probably Richard Susskind CBE KC (hons) or Michael Ford KC has removed access to the evidential documents of corruption by them on the Lesley McDade v Masons case.

As such, I copy you in on my termination letter by Richard Susskind its quite long but don't be fooled into thinking he is being reasonable at all.

Firstly I did not breach confidentiality, Cathy James did and no disciplinary hearings occurred concerning her.  I had to go through two disciplinary hearings during my law exams,  Secondly in IT specialist law firm they were quite ignorant on how to measure megabytes - the system does it automatically.  Thirdly, the loud voice allegation was for gross misconduct - my barrister Michael Ford said it was not even minor misconduct.  This allegation should have been withdrawn, instead it was deemed "not proven" a verdict in Scottish criminal law not available in English civil law.  This was blatant mismanagement by Richard Susskind and others and the unilateral management decision to force me to go on the float team was more of the same. Historically, I had moved by bilateral consent 4 times between float and permanent.  I did not give consent to a unilateral management decision as there were other permanent positions available.  Also Richard Susskind had "expanded without commitment" a paralegal role which I had said I was interested in,  Also I was not safe on the float team anyone could get at me and cause trouble.  The reason given for placing me on the float team was convenience it was there disciplinary procedures that destroyed the working relationship by having the department both managers and secretaries in the same room.  So lets not delude ourselves that this management decision was in any way or form was reasonable.  There then followed corruption in the court case by Bruce Carr, Counsel nobbling the judge to override 9 pages of pleading allowing full discovery process to not disclose 40 man hours of investigation material and nobbling my witness Michael Ford to not attend.  Thereafter on appeal 4 case precedent are missing from the judgment : one of which relates to the ultra vires doctrine which was used against me even although mine was a private domain contract,not public domain then.

"Disciplinary Hearing 28rh June 1995

This letter is further to your hearing on Wednesday 28th June, 1995 from 1500 hours to 1700 hours approximately.  The hearing itself followed on from Tony Bunch's letter to you dated 23 June 1995 to which he said that your continued refusal to work as directed gives us grounds for reviewing your behaviour as gross misconduct, and that you must attend a disciplinary hearing,

The hearing was convened under Clause 11(b) of your employment contract and was chaired by me with Ava Pinnock in attendance).  Its purpose was to investigate the above allegation and to give you an opportunity to state your position.   I understand you have now received a transcript of the hearing.

In the letter I deal with the following issues:

-  The Facts

-  The relevance of your previous disciplinary hearings

-  The Management decision to direct you to work as part of the float team; and

-  The consequences of your refusal to work as directed

These seem to me to be the central questions in your case and in the remainder of the letter I deal with each in turn,

The Facts

I take the key relevant facts underlying your position to be the following.

1,    You were the subject of two earlier disciplinary processes with a disciplinary hearing and a disciplinary appeal hearing (on 18rh May and 9th June respectively). the findings of which were communicated to you in letters of 1st June and 13th June, 1995 respectively.  The cumulative result of these was a finding of serious misconduct and a written warning (from Ric Martin) in a letter dated 1st June 1995.

2.    In light of the first hearing you were directed in Ric Martin's letter to you of 1st June 1995 not to return to your previous work group but instead to join the float team for a period, and after the appeal hearing, this management decision was reaffirmed by Ric Martin in his letter of 13th June 1995 which also asked you to report to Mike Orton at 1000 hours on the 14 June 1995.

3.    On Wednesday 14 June 1995 you reported to Mike Orton as requested  and were allocated by Ava  Pinnock to your first assignment.

4.    On Thursday 15 June 1995 you returned to Mike Orton's office and told him (in Ava Pinnock'a presence) that you were not going to work on the float team.  You also indicated your position not to work for Neil Biggs who joined you later in the discussion.  Mike Prton wrote to you on 15th June 1995 asking you on his and the  firms  behalf to return to the float team as soon as possible to reconsider your decision not to work and to call him on 19th June 1995 to let him know what you had decided/ You did call Mike Orton on 19rh June and said you would not return to work.  He again urged you to reconsider but you indicated you had settled on that decision.

This is my understanding of the basic facts stripped at this stage of any explanation or justification I believe this summary of the facts is accurate and moreover in light of our discussion at your hearing. I expect you will accept it.

The Relevance of your Previous Disciplinary Hearings

It was clear to me at your hearing that you were concerned indeed that I fully understand the details of the earlier two hearings as mentioned above.  For this reason, I was willing to hear you express your full views on these hearings and I have since read the extracts that you directed me in the course of the hearing.

I have two general observations to make in this connection.  The first is I do appreciate that you feel frustrated with the results of the previous hearings and that you are of the view that others are at fault and should themselves be subject to disciplinary action.  My second observation, however, is that no matter how strongly you feel, the purpose of this disciplinary hearing I was asked to convene was notor investigate or question the findings of your previous hearings, for that earlier disciplinary process has formally been completed (in accordance with your contract).  

Nonetheless, I do believe the hearings are relevant to my purpose - as a partial explanation (but not justification) of your feelings, as a partial explanation (but not justification) of the feelings of others and some insight into some of the background events which led to the management decision to direct you to work on the float team.

I have taken seriously your concerns about the earlier hearings.  I hope you do now understand the extent to which I believe they can bear on this current investigation. 

The Management Decision to Direct you to Work as Part of the Float Team

The next issue for consideration, is the nub of the matter.  A management decision was made to remove you from your previous position to allocate you to the float team (where you had worked well in the past).  You feel this was unfair and not justifiable, whereas the Managers concerned believed this the best management option in the circumstances. I would like now to outline my understanding of these views towards many of the Federation, it would be hard for any reasonable employer to understand why you would want to go back there,  A satisfactory working relationship with one fee earner hardly seems sufficient. especially as you would be expected to have to work with others as part of a team.

Given their feelings towards you and you towards them I endorse and support the view of the managers that not permitting you back to your former Group was in your own interests  as well as those of the firm,  It was your previous conduct that led to a formal warning..  It was principally your behaviour that caused and continues to cause considerable unrest. To direct you to not return to your previous position is not to punish you. it is in my view the only management decision available in the circumstances. Our firm requires effective team working and not just individual technical competence.

I am satisfied that at that time there were no other permanent positions available and so I also support that you should be asked to join to the float team - there were no other options at that stage.

In summary, I conclude, that the management decision directing you to work as part of the float team was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

I am conscious that I may have been procedurally remiss in not giving you an opportunity to hear for yourself the views of all members of the Federation. I have given this matter a great deal of thought;  I know I did ask you how you would prefer to proceed and you indicated you would like an opportunity,  But you will also remember that I would like to reserve my position on this and that I wanted to talk to members of the Federation informally myself before I decide how to proceed.  I now take the view on the strength of the substances of the transcripts of all three hearings and my meetings with the relevant partners and staff that there is so much acrimony from you towards managers and staff and in reverse that having a further hearing to confirm what is beyond any doubt the feelings of those concerned would be emotionally damaging for you and the Federation members and damaging for the well-being of the Business Unit.  I believe I have followed the requirements of your employment contract, complied with natural justice. and acted in your and the firm's interests in concluding that no further meetings take place as part of this level of disciplinary hearing.

The consequences of your refusal to work as directed 

Given my finding about the management decision to direct you to work as part of the float team I must finally consider in that context the consequences of your refusal to work as directed.

As I understand it, you believe taking you from a position as a permanent secretary and putting you on the float team involves such a fundamental change in your employment contract that this cannot  lawfully be done unilaterally.  Because this direction to you was unlawful, you argue, this justifies your decision to work on the float team.

I have taken advice on this issue and have come to the view you were misguided in refusing to work on the strength of the arguments  you have put to me.  In coming to this view, I rely on one or both of the  following arguments

First, I believe the direction to you to float was lawful.  Moving to a floating position  does not in my view constitute a fundamental change to your agreement to require consent.   Both positions are secretarial in nature, with identical pay, working hours, benefits and conditions of employment.  I accept there can be a shift in emphasis and working relationships but not nearly so your refusal to work causes me alarm.  It was a most extreme reaction in the circumstances.  A far more balanced approach would have been to float while you discussed the matter further with various managers  (given, in any event, there were also indications that floating would not necessarily be a permanent state of affairs - see for example Ric Martin''s letter of 1st June.1995).

Given my conclusion that the decision to direct you to work as part of the float team was reasonable, justifiable and necessary in these circumstances your refusal to work is a very grave matter indeed.

Given that undertaking work for the firm  is the very heart of your employment contract with Masons. I feel I have no option but to take your refusal to work as constituting gross misconduct.

In mitigation, snd on your behalf, I would like to record formally, that I do not believe your refusal to work was intentionally to commit an act of gross misconduct.  I believe you genuinely thought, or were advised, that you were entitled to refuse to work in the belief that the direction to float was not lawful.  However, because the test for gross misconduct is an objective not subjective one this cannot affect my finding of gross misconduct.

I should add that under Clause 11(f) of your contract of employment you are liable for summary dismissal where gross misconduct  on your part has been established.  It is beyond the scope of my powers to exercise or waive the right to dismiss you but you will hear from the firm in that regard very shortly/

Finally I would like to remind you that there is an appeal procedure now open to you under clause 11(d) of your contract..

Yours sincerely

Dr Richard E Susskind"