EXCLUSIVE

by Ross Lidbetter

ross.lidbetter@essnmedia.co.uk

An employment tribunal has decided a senior council officer was forced out of his job at Croydon Council.

Alan Langridge is set to receive a pay-out amounting to tens of thousands of pounds after winning his case for constructive unfair dismissal.

He had claimed he was left feeling "very ill" because of the way he was treated at the end of his nine-year stint working on the council's finances.

The 45-year-old had landed a "dream job" as an assistant director of finance for the council's environment, culture and public protection (ECPP) department.

But he claimed the job turned into a nightmare and that he was left with no option but to resign last April.

Three months earlier he had received a letter from the council's finance chief Nathan Elvery, telling him somebody else was being brought in to take over his role with immediate effect.

Tribunal judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto wrote in his conclusion: "The appointment of Mr (Paul) Blacker as an interim acting assistant director of finance had the effect of depriving the claimant (Mr Langridge) of any role or responsibility.

"The tribunal find it difficult to understand the respondent's case that Mr Blacker was appointed to provide support to the claimant.

"It appears to the tribunal that Mr Blacker was not supporting the claimant - he was replacing the claimant."

The tribunal considered the treatment of Mr Langridge was "unfair" and that there had been a "serious breach of contract" which was one of the reasons for his resignation.

Mr Langridge, who is believed to have earned around £65,000 a year, had accused Mr Elvery of "manipulating" accounts during the hearing, which took place in March before the verdict was released now.

He alleged that money was being shifted between departments to make Mr Elvery look better - something the council strongly denies.

The allegations about Mr Elvery were not part of the "legal test" and so no judgement was made on whether there was any wrong-doing.

Croydon Council has insisted that at the time its finances were in a serious state which was why Mr Elvery brought someone new in.

A spokesman said: "It (the judgement) went on to state that 'Mr Elvery's actions may not have been to the claimant's liking, but we do not consider there was any detriment (to the claimant)'.

"In conclusion, while we are disappointed with the outcome as we would have preferred to win on all counts, it has been made abundantly clear that the council was entirely motivated by its concern to protect taxpayer funds."

Mr Langridge's case that he was subjected to detriments on the grounds he made a protective disclosure was dismissed.

This related to him sending briefing notes to three top Croydon councillors blaming Mr Elvery for a £418,000 overspend in his department.

After the case Mr Langridge said: "I am pleased that the tribunal has concluded that the council's actions were wrong and they had completely ignored contractual obligations they had with me.

"My health has suffered, and all I did was try to bring to the council's attention what I believed to be wrong-doings which had a direct effect on the spending of public money.

"What remains of great concern to me is the fact that the council failed to investigate any of my grievances, and therefore I cannot be sure that the next whistleblower will not be treated the same way I was treated."