The sacking of Karen Hutchet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7932844.stm

The suspended chief executive of a Jersey charity has had her contract of employment terminated. Karen Huchet was suspended from Family Nursing and Home Care last August after an unspecified complaint was made by a member of staff.  Richard Pirouet, the chairman of the charity, said the committee's decision to cancel the contract of employment had been unanimous.  Ms Huchet said she intends to take the matter to an employment tribunal.  The nature of the complaint against Ms Huchet has never been made public.  In an e-mail to staff, Mr Pirouet paid tribute to the work Ms Huchet had done for the charity over the past 24 years, but he said there had been an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between employer and employee. The disciplinary process had not been completed, he added, and Ms Huchet had neither been cleared, nor had the allegations against her been proven.

This is the committee of which Jim Perchard has complete confidence - a committee which sacks an employee without completing the disciplinary process, or settling on whether allegations made against her are true or not. What kind of example of good management is that supposed to give? Are these people accountable themselves in any way - without threats (whatever you call it) against the membership by Jim Perchard for withdrawing funding from health if the members decide against them?

When I look at the culture of the banks, and big business in the UK, with managements almost completely unaccountable to shareholders, able to put all kinds of obstacles in the way of any attempts to derail them (the disgraceful cheap tricks used by Tesco against Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's motion), it is little wonder that the economy is in a state.

Evidently the management committee of Family and Home Nursing has taken this as a model for how to conduct themselves - ignore the public, ignore any criticisms, and sack someone without even managing to verify accusations against them. I just hope that now the case can go to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, that the tribunal make very public and open what appears (in my opinion) to be an act of gross mismanagement and injustice.

Kafka in Jersey

A suspended Chief Executive Officer has defended her style of management. Karen Huchet, CEO for Family Nursing and Home Care, says she's a firm but fair boss. She was speaking after an extraordinary general meeting of the charity at the Town Hall Speaking publicly for the first time since her suspension last August, Miss Huchet said she felt punished and stressed by the ordeal.

http://iliffe.portalconstructor.co.uk/channelonline/displayarticle.asp?id=381193

The Trial is a novel by Franz Kafka about a character named Josef K., who awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime.

We seem to have our own version in Jersey, where a character called K. awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed, is suspended pending an inquiry for an unspecified allegation.

This has happened since August last year. There is still no resolution.

K visits the advocate and finds him to be a capricious and unhelpful character.

Listening to the Radio Jersey report, about meeting on the suspension of K., the lawyer present for the trustees certainly seemed unhelpful. Capriciousness is a matter of opinion, but it sounded very much as if most of the people present would have judged the lawyer to be capricious.

K returns to his bank but finds that his colleagues are trying to undermine him.

As far as we can tell, the allegations may be something about people at Family Nursing which concerns K's colleagues.

The Trial is both a chilling tale that maintains a constant, relentless atmosphere of disorientation right up to the surreal ending. Superficially the subject matter is bureaucracy: an illustration of a truly twisted yet realistic brand of law and church.

In Jersey, trying to make any sense of what is going on with this suspension from the BBC report, and the various authority figures such as the trustees and the lawyers, a constant, relentless atmosphere of disorientation was very strongly in evidence.

I hope that this clearly Kafkaesque situation does not continue for much longer. In her statement, Karen Huchet said this suspension could not be regarded as a neutral act. Considering the length of it - apparently because of unforeseen complications, but we have no idea what they are - this is a grotesque travesty of justice, of the legal procedures seemingly being used, as in Kafka's Trial, to befuddle and confuse.

That is not to say that there might not be problems at Family Nursing. Mrs. Brennan in 2006 was awarded compensation pursuant to the Employment (Awards) (Jersey) Order 2005 in respect of her unfair dismissal claim, and Family Home nursing seem not to have followed best procedure in her dismissal.

Yet at least with a dismissal claim, there is a law in place, tribunals to assess the evidence, and publically published findings. There seems to be nothing of this with a suspension, instead the timetable disappears into a black hole, out of which no light can escape so that anyone can see what is happening. It is not transparent, it seems to have no statutory guidelines, not much oversight, and can go on for as long as necessary, although use of the word "necessary" in such ill defined circumstances borders on Stalinesque.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
http://iliffe.portalconstructor.co.uk/channelonline/displayarticle.asp?id=381193
http://www.jerseyemploymenttribunal.org/judgments/2006%20judgments.doc