Pitmans scater@pitmans.com F: +44 (0) 118 9505901 Our ref: SAC/PRW/MANCHES.1805 Your ref: JMT/SKJIOI 30461143868
Strictly Private and Confidential
Manches LLP DX 4322 Oxford
19th May 2004
By Fax and by DX01865 813760
Dear Sirs
OUR CLIENT: MR DIAMOND VERSI YOUR CLIENT: KEBLE COLLEGE
We have been consulted by Mr Diamond Versi, who was employed by your client, Keble College, ("the College") from 6th March 1989 until the recent termination of his employment on 2nd April 2004.
We are instructed that our client's employment was terminated in the context of a restructuring of the accounts function at the College, which restructuring was initiated by the Bursar of the College, Mr Roger Boden at the beginning of this year. Our client's position was apparently made redundant in the course of that restructuring. We understand that a new position of Financial Controller was created in the restructuring, and that this was similar to the previously existing position or Assistant Accountant, which was also removed in the restructuring. The Assistant Accountant has applied for, and obtained, the position of Financial Controller. As the Financial Controller post would have represented a substantial demotion for our client, he did not applv for it.
Our client has been informed that the bulk of his duties will pass to the Bursar as a result of the restructuring. As you are no doubt aware, our client has always been of the view that it will be impossible for the Bursar - who is not an accountant - to cope with all the accounting functions previously carried out by our client, and that as a result, a considerable amount of the College's accounts work will have to be "outsourced" to the College's external accountants, thereby incurring substantial additional expense. Our client believes that that increased expense, coupled with the increased salaries of the Colleae's internal accounts staff, will substantially increase the College's expenditure on accounting, rather than reducing that expenditure, as was apparently the aim of the restructuring.
As you are aware, our client therefore believes that the restructuring was effectively a "sham" exercise, designed to remove him from College's employment, and he believes that that his removal was on the grounds of his race.
You will be aware that there is a history behind his concerns in this respect. In particular, we are instructed that in early 2003, the Bursar invited representatives from Grant Thornton, the College's auditors, to conduct an investigation into the College's accounts, apparently on the basis that he suspected some fraud on the part of our client.
We have seen the Bursar's explanation for this investigation (contained in a "Note to File" dated 23rd December 2002). We do not wish to comment in detail on that explanation at this stage, save to observe that it seems to us natural that our client should be highly aggrieved at the suggestion that, because he had just bought a new car and was about to go on an expensive holiday, an investigation of the College's accounts by external auditors was justified. This is tantamount to accusing him of dishonesty. Our client's view is that he would never have been subjected to this level of suspicion had he been a white member of staff in a similar position. He therefore believes that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his race. We understand he is the only senior employee of Asian origin employed by the College.
Our client's clear perception is that, although the Bursar was subsequently forced to apologise for this incident, the discriminatory treatment continued, culminating in what he perceives as a "sham" redundancy exercise designed to remove him once and for all from the College's employment.
We have set out the history of this in some detail partly to notify you that our client intends to lodge a claim for race discrimination and unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal, and partly to put into context the contents of your letter to our client dated 28th April 2004.
In that letter you enclosed a cheque in respect of his redundancy payment, but stated that the payment in lieu of the balance of his notice period will not be paid to him at this stage. You stated that this is because matters have come to light "which may amount to a fundamental breach of contract of employment".
Our client has an innocent explanation for all of the allegations set out in your letter (all of which, incidentally, would presumably have been picked up by the College's auditors long ago had there been anything untoward). The explanation is as follows (following the numbering in your letter).
1. Telephone Expenses
The telephone line at our client's home is in the name of Keble College, and this was authorised by the previous Bursar, Ken Lovett. The line was initially set up for internet use, so that our client could transfer work from home to work and vice versa. It was effectively an extension of the facilities provided by the College, and was treated exactly as our client would treat his telephone at work. It is true that he occasionally used it for private calls when he worked from home, in the same way that employees at Keble College occasionally used the College telephone for making private calls. We are instructed that the College employees have not been told that the telephone should be used for business purposes only, and nor was our client told that the telephone line at home was only to be used for business purposes.
The particular telephone bill you have referred to was larger than normal because our client was on sick leave and needed to have internet access for longer periods than normal. The College authorities needed to contact him via email during the process of the grievance procedure.
2. Authorisation of Telephone Bills
It is correct that the authorisation for the payment of these telephone bills was given by our client. This is because he was the budget holder for telephones and authorised all telephone bills in that capacity.
3. College Property
In August 1995 our client purchased a computer (a Gateway 2000 Pentium P5-75), a laser printer (Panasonic KX-P-6100) and other accessories for about £2000.00. This was bought mainly so that he could work from home. He claimed capital allowances from the Inland Revenue, who agreed to a 75% business use. The previous Bursar, Ken Lovett, authorised link-up to the College servers so that he could access College computer files from home. Simon Knee, who was then the College's Computer Officer, set up the equipment in order for him to have this link. Mr Lovett also wrote to the Inland Revenue confirming our client's computer use for work.
In September 1999, Mr Lovett authoriscd through Stephen Kersley, the College's IT Manager, an upgrade of this equipment. Therefore our client brought his computer and the laser printer to the College, in exchange for a Comet Datacomputer and a printer. Our client's old computer was placed in the Junior Computer room at the College, and his laser printer was also used somewhere in the College.
In May 2002 the Comet Data Monitor was upgraded to a flat screen monitor. Our client believes that the College still benefits from the large monitor he brought back. The authorisation for this came from the IT Manager, because the item was purchased from his budget.
Our client's old Umax scanner was upgraded to a Canon scanner, and again the College still has the use of the old scanner. Again, this was authorised by the IT manager.
We are instructed that the current Bursar knew about the upgrade of the scanner and indeed of all the other upgrades, and the telephone link. Furthermore, as stated above, had there been any irregularity about any of these matters, the auditors would have picked this up at the time.
At present, it appears to our client that the College is simply raising these issues in order to deny him his contractual entitlement to payment in lieu of notice. This has been outstanding since as long ago as the 2nd April 2004. This appears to our client to be a continuation of the unfavourable treatment on the grounds of race referred to earlier in this letter.
There is one further matter, which also appears to be a continuation of the unfavourable treatment to which our client has been subjected. This relates to the suggestion (contained in your letter of the 15th April 2004) that our client has been receiving an "unauthorised enhancement" to his pay. This is quite simply not the case. We are instructed that the College's previous Bursar agreed in October 1996 that our client would receive a 1.35% increase in his salary, to compensate for the fact that he was not eligible to be admitted to the Oxford Staff Pension Scheme. This was set out in a memorandum from the Bursar to the Warden dated 21st October 1996. There is no suggestion in that memorandum that the payment was a "one-off" payment (nor does it make sense that it should be). We are instructed that our client was not the only College employee to whom this increase in salary applied, (and still applies).
Please arrange for our client to be paid the payment in lieu of the balance of his notice period - without any deduction for alleged "unauthorised enhancements" - by return.
Please also let us know what proposals your clients have for compensating our client in respect of his claims for unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal. If we do not hear from you within 14 days, we will be advising our client to lodge proceedings at the Employment Tribunal without further notice to you. In the meantime, all his rights are reserved.
Yours faithflilly
Pitmans