ANYONE with any doubts about the dismissal of David Christley from his post at Lancaster City Council should take time to read the employment tribunal decision which unanimously found Mr Christley to be unfairly dismissed, both substantively and procedurally.

The council's press release on December 1, presumably issued by the leader of the council or chairman of the service group, was a disgrace. The statement made absolutely no comment that Mr Christley had been unfairly dismissed. What it did say and I quote: "We are committed to providing a work environment which ensures that all employees are treated with dignity, respect and without bias." Clearly this did not apply to Mr Christley. Notes attached to the statement reiterated the reasons for Mr Christley's dismissal, which of course had already been proved unfair. And now we see that the council whoever that may be (certainly not me) has refused Mr Christley the right to address members at the next council meeting. The council's constitution says the responsibilities of the full council are to: "Act as a forum for the receipt and consideration of addresses and petitions from members of the public." Not to obstruct free speech.

One aside if I may. Why did the members panels who considered the case initially have to contain a majority of Labour councillors? Surely this wasn't a party political issue?

Cllr Paul Woodruff,

Halton-with-Aughton.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.