States attacked for poor treatment of school science assistant

Tuesday 26 September 2017

A States watchdog has once again severely criticised a key government panel - chaired by the Chief Minister - for their poor treatment of a school employee.

The States Complaints Board (SCB) – an independent panel tasked with investigating public grievances with the government – says they must accept they badly treated a veteran school science technician who asked for early retirement over fears that her poor health was putting children at risk.

Back in May, SCB published a highly critical report into the conduct of the States Employment Board (SEB) for the way they treated Mrs X.

She had served as a laboratory technician in Jersey schools for many years. Two years away from retirement age, she contacted the head teacher of the secondary school she had been working in to relay her health concerns. She feared that her breathing problems, high blood pressure and growing loss of dexterity could put students at risk.

But she said that the head teacher “made light of the situation” and that she was not properly informed of the process to apply for ill-health retirement by the Education HR team.

Pictured: The highly critical report, which was published in May.

The SCB concluded that the States had failed in their "duty of care” to the technician and asked for a retrospective review to be carried out, “...in order to remedy the fact that a loyal and respected employee, after years of unbroken service and having developed demonstrable ill-health, was treated so improperly and without thought to her welfare."

But the SEB refused to accept the findings or reconsider their approach.

The Complaints Panel Chairman has now hit out at the SEB for failing to acknowledge fault and for acting in a way that was “entirely contrary to natural justice.”

“Such a rigid approach does not reflect well on the States as an employer, especially when the employee concerned has worked tirelessly for the States and demonstrated a strong work ethic,” Chairman Geoffrey Crill commented.

He continued: “The reward for her ‘going the extra mile’ was to be penalised by the system and, as a final insult, not even to be considered for a retrospective review. Such a review, whilst potentially producing a modest adjustment in income for Mrs. X, would be an entirely appropriate response by the SEB in acknowledging her dedication and years of service, and would go some way towards redressing the poor duty of care she was given by the States as an employee.”

It’s the second time that the States have rejected the findings of their own board in little over a year.

A highly critical report from the SCB last year said that ophthalmology surgeon Amar Alwitry was sacked unlawfully, but the Employment Board did not agree, and refused to pay Mr Alwitry four years’ wages as compensation, as he had hoped to receive. The father of four was told that his contract was to be terminated just days before starting a new role as a consultant ophthalmologist, leading to a number of investigations.

Pictured: Mr Amar Alwitry was supported by the SCB, who published a damning report into the SEB’s conduct.

Mr Alwitry nonetheless vowed to carry on the fight to clear his name and seek compensation as the row, which happened in 2012, left him out of work.