SEXUAL HARASSMENT & BULLYING COST RSPCA £30K

Animal lovers will not be pleased to learn of pay-outs to disgruntled employees by pet charities.

This includes the RSPCA: one of its inspectors was awarded constructive dismissal damages after a saga that included attempting suicide with medication designed to put down animals.

Will Clayton, partner in employment law at the Manchester office of national law firm Hill Dickinson, recently brought a successful claim to tribunal on behalf of former RSPCA Inspector, Dimity Crowley.

Crowley reported sexual harassment and bullying by a chief inspector (who resigned prior to disciplinary proceedings), and medical experts said the experience triggered a “short-term adjustment disorder”.

In October 2004 she attempted suicide. She was successfully treated and her consultant occupational psychiatrist said she had emerged both mentally and emotionally stronger, suggesting in January 2006 that she could return to work. An occupational health expert for the RSPCA disputed Crowley's suitability as an inspector.

Following an appeal by Crowley, a second adviser accepted she could return to work, but insisted on changes to her contract and an agreement from Crowley (who was pregnant at the time) that her GP could report any signs of psychological illness directly to the RSPCA. Crowley resigned a short while later before her maternity leave was due to begin.Trial“I was devastated to lose my job as it was my true vocation,” said Crowley.

“The RSPCA"s treatment towards me has been grossly unfair, enormously upsetting and demoralising given that I was a dedicated Inspector. I received no compassion and little support. I am left exasperated by the way in which I was treated.” After a four-day trial in December 2007, the tribunal agreed that Crowley had been constructively dismissed, that the GP consent issue was an unjustified invasion of privacy and represented a fundamental breach of her employment contract and consequently awarded her £30,000 in compensation. “This case is a severe warning to any employer who adopts overly rigid or aggressive health management practices of employees looking to return to work after a period of long term ill-health,” Clayton commented. “I was left with no choice but to take the RSPCA to an employment tribunal.

This lengthy and daunting process was extremely stressful. “Due to a poorly managed HR department, the RSPCA wasted huge donations received from members of the public in order to fight this case.

I am obviously thrilled to have won, however it is a shame that it ended up in a costly four-day trial.” Employees are now much more aware of their rights and if employers want to avoid embarrassment and costly proceedings then they must ensure that their grounds for dismissal are fair and that their procedures are within the law.

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/FREE/89469861/1162/TOC/-/-/the-cool-calm-and-correct-way-to-avoid-a-tribunal

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/08/47830/tales-from-the-tribunals.html

SEXUAL HARASSMENT & BULLYING COST RSPCA £30K

Animal lovers will not be pleased to learn of pay-outs to disgruntled employees by pet charities.

This includes the RSPCA: one of its inspectors was awarded constructive dismissal damages after a saga that included attempting suicide with medication designed to put down animals.

Will Clayton, partner in employment law at the Manchester office of national law firm Hill Dickinson, recently brought a successful claim to tribunal on behalf of former RSPCA Inspector, Dimity Crowley.

Crowley reported sexual harassment and bullying by a chief inspector (who resigned prior to disciplinary proceedings), and medical experts said the experience triggered a “short-term adjustment disorder”.

In October 2004 she attempted suicide. She was successfully treated and her consultant occupational psychiatrist said she had emerged both mentally and emotionally stronger, suggesting in January 2006 that she could return to work. An occupational health expert for the RSPCA disputed Crowley's suitability as an inspector.

Following an appeal by Crowley, a second adviser accepted she could return to work, but insisted on changes to her contract and an agreement from Crowley (who was pregnant at the time) that her GP could report any signs of psychological illness directly to the RSPCA. Crowley resigned a short while later before her maternity leave was due to begin.Trial“I was devastated to lose my job as it was my true vocation,” said Crowley.

“The RSPCA"s treatment towards me has been grossly unfair, enormously upsetting and demoralising given that I was a dedicated Inspector. I received no compassion and little support. I am left exasperated by the way in which I was treated.” After a four-day trial in December 2007, the tribunal agreed that Crowley had been constructively dismissed, that the GP consent issue was an unjustified invasion of privacy and represented a fundamental breach of her employment contract and consequently awarded her £30,000 in compensation. “This case is a severe warning to any employer who adopts overly rigid or aggressive health management practices of employees looking to return to work after a period of long term ill-health,” Clayton commented. “I was left with no choice but to take the RSPCA to an employment tribunal.

This lengthy and daunting process was extremely stressful. “Due to a poorly managed HR department, the RSPCA wasted huge donations received from members of the public in order to fight this case.

I am obviously thrilled to have won, however it is a shame that it ended up in a costly four-day trial.” Employees are now much more aware of their rights and if employers want to avoid embarrassment and costly proceedings then they must ensure that their grounds for dismissal are fair and that their procedures are within the law.

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/FREE/89469861/1162/TOC/-/-/the-cool-calm-and-correct-way-to-avoid-a-tribunal

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/08/47830/tales-from-the-tribunals.html

WHY ARE THE RSPCA SO VENDICTIVE ?

AN animal lover who has devoted her life to caring for strays was left devastated after Wirral Magistrates Court banned her from keeping them at her home.
Pat Seager 71, of Green Lawn, Birkenhead, was disqualified from keeping animals with the exception of cats, dogs and grey squirrels for which she holds a licence.
The pensioner, who has taken in rescue animals for the past 40 years, pleaded guilty to eight offences of failing to meet the needs of animals in her care and was given a three year ban.
The town’s MP Frank Field wrote a letter to the court that said: “I feel so strongly about your treatment that had I not had a key meeting on the day of your court appearance, I would have come back to Birkenhead to give evidence for you. I believe the RSPCA has grossly mistreated you and now finds it difficult to back off.”
Miss Seager said: “The saddest thing is what will happen to the animals now - people will have nowhere to take them.
“The RSPCA won’t take wildlife in as they will leave nature to take its course.
“I don’t understand why the RSPCA are being so vindictive. I’m devastated.”
Christopher Johnson, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, told the court how several birds had been kept in cages that were insufficient in height, length and breadth for their wing span.
He also told the court that a hedgehog was suffering from decayed teeth possibly due to a diet of cat food and had a skin infection that if left could cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
The court heard how RSPCA inspectors first visited Ms Seagar’s home in 2006.
Further visits in 2007 culminated in a warning notice in which she was given a period of time to rectify the matter and find suitable accommodation for the animals, but nothing had been done when the RSPCA visited again.
Defending solicitor Paul Davison said: “Ms Seagar does not go out looking for these animals, people bring them to her.
"Because of the number she has, she could not accommodate them anywhere else, but neither could she release the wild animals as they would die.”





Report by Carol Emmass

WHY ARE THE RSPCA SO VENDICTIVE ?

AN animal lover who has devoted her life to caring for strays was left devastated after Wirral Magistrates Court banned her from keeping them at her home.
Pat Seager 71, of Green Lawn, Birkenhead, was disqualified from keeping animals with the exception of cats, dogs and grey squirrels for which she holds a licence.
The pensioner, who has taken in rescue animals for the past 40 years, pleaded guilty to eight offences of failing to meet the needs of animals in her care and was given a three year ban.
The town’s MP Frank Field wrote a letter to the court that said: “I feel so strongly about your treatment that had I not had a key meeting on the day of your court appearance, I would have come back to Birkenhead to give evidence for you. I believe the RSPCA has grossly mistreated you and now finds it difficult to back off.”
Miss Seager said: “The saddest thing is what will happen to the animals now - people will have nowhere to take them.
“The RSPCA won’t take wildlife in as they will leave nature to take its course.
“I don’t understand why the RSPCA are being so vindictive. I’m devastated.”
Christopher Johnson, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, told the court how several birds had been kept in cages that were insufficient in height, length and breadth for their wing span.
He also told the court that a hedgehog was suffering from decayed teeth possibly due to a diet of cat food and had a skin infection that if left could cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
The court heard how RSPCA inspectors first visited Ms Seagar’s home in 2006.
Further visits in 2007 culminated in a warning notice in which she was given a period of time to rectify the matter and find suitable accommodation for the animals, but nothing had been done when the RSPCA visited again.
Defending solicitor Paul Davison said: “Ms Seagar does not go out looking for these animals, people bring them to her.
"Because of the number she has, she could not accommodate them anywhere else, but neither could she release the wild animals as they would die.”





Report by Carol Emmass

RSPCA FREEDOM FOOD DISGRACE

RSPCA FREEDOM FOOD DISGRACE

ANOTHER RSPCA CASE FAILS

Two days after being the subject of two more hard-hitting BBC documentaries highlighting its serious flaws, the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department has experienced yet another serious reversal.
The case took so long to determine - 18 months - that it could not be referred to in either Radio 4's "File on 4" or Five Live's "McIntyre".
Ludovic and Murvilla Kancels' pet dog Bully, three years old, was seized 18 months ago by the RSPCA and kept in an RSPCA secret "place of safety". The RSPCA's expert Martin Lawton claimed that the seized animal had "suffered unnecessarily" from thinness as a result of being "starved".
Defence vet Daniel Mackenzie-Frazer made clear Bully was not suffering. She was, in fact, feeding pups and this led to loss of condition. He said: "She was thin but not emaciated and followed her owner into the vets which she wouldn't have done if she was in considerable pain".
Mr Kancel had approached Oak Hill Vets the day before Bully was seized and asked for advice on feeding her. It was obvious that he cared deeply for her. Mr Mackenzie-Frazer added: "There has been no evidence of pain in this case. The dog was thin because she had just given birth to puppies and had dedicated her time to allowing them to feed rather than feeding herself".
However, the RSPCA, always hungry for a conviction, elected to rely on Martin Lawton. Both the Kancels, and Kino Hines, were charged with cruelty by starving Bully, perhaps the most serious and emotive animal welfare offence there is, and subjected to the usual media campaign against them.
Criticisms of Lawton made in other matters, in the proceedings against Newham pet-shop owner Simon Gilbert and Lawton's own admission of "reprehensible conduct" in disciplinary proceedings against him before the RCVS, were not disclosed to the defence or to the court.
However, Magistrates saw through the RSPCA's thin case. The submissions of the RSPCA's Solicitors Male & Wagland and Counsel Rex Bryan were, like Martin Lawton's evidence, not accepted.
The court found Ludovic and Murvilla not guilty of causing suffering, AND that there had been no suffering at all.
Bully must be returned and the RSPCA must pay the massive costs. Ludovic and Murvilla very much look forward to having Bully back, and getting to know her again.
After the case, RSPCA Inspector Dawn Avery, herself well-known to the SHG, said that she wanted to "rehome" Bully. Ms Avery said she was "unhappy that Bully spent 18 months in RSPCA kennels while the case was decided".
Ms Avery continued, ominously, that she would "try to monitor the situation and make sure that Bully is okay in the future". The charity paid thousands of pounds for "place of safety" kennels to ensure that Bully was kept away from Ludovic and Murvilla throughout the case.
The charity - given the new powers contained in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 - is perhaps therefore unlikely to leave the matter there.
Anne Kasica, of the SHG, said:
"Bully, happily, was not euthanized, and did not die in the RSPCA's kennel, as happened to Annette Nally's dog Holly. The vast resources spent every year by the RSPCA on its team of fat-cat lawyers, vets and 'place of safety' kennel-owners is sickening."
"The RSPCA says it's 'only' £8 million a year."
"Rex Bryan, Male and Wagland and RSPCA independent witness Martin Lawton have each earned a king's ransom from a series of RSPCA cases."
"I agree with Frank Field MP. It is time that each and every one of the RSPCA's decisions to cause misery is subjected to proper review by the CPS, not by lawyers who personally benefit from the decision to prosecute."
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:
"The RSPCA's new Head of Prosecutions Phil Wilson is not even a lawyer and, after his shameful performance on File on 4, I don't think that the RSPCA should let him near any microphones for a bit."
"Sally Case was hopeless, but Mr Wilson is worse. He is also continuing her policy of wasting RSPCA donations. There are defence and court costs to consider too."
"This ridiculous case about an allegedly thin dog took four days to present to the court. At £300 per hour - and some RSPCA lawyers get even more - each member of the RSPCA's legal team have billed £10,000 for court time alone."
"Martin Lawton is, of course, looking to have his costs of attending the trial for four days paid by the court, and therefore the taxpayer, as usual."

For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: s...@the-shg.org

The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since.

The national help line number is 0844 700 66 90
A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org/

THIS BLOG COMMENDS AND SUPPORTS THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY SHG