THE most senior council officer in Bromsgrove is to be the subject of a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman after an Employment Tribunal described him as “intellectually dishonest”.

Kevin Dicks, acting Chief Executive of both Bromsgrove District Council and the Borough Council in Redditch, was heavily criticised by the Tribunal in Birmingham when it found he had unfairly dismissed another officer.

The matter is to be reported to the Local Government Ombudsman by the employee he illegally sacked on the grounds that the officer concerned was made the scapegoat for a political quarrel between councillors and it has unnecessarily cost council taxpayers more than £200,000.

The sacking took place last year when Mr Dicks was chief executive of just Bromsgrove District Council at a time when it was co-operating with Government officials to improve its unsatisfactory administration and avoid the whole council management team being replaced.

In a written judgement, the tribunal accused him of “stretching the evidence” during a disciplinary inquiry against Robbie Hazlehurst, the authority’s £58,000 a year head of Cultural and Community Services.

Mr Hazlehurst was used as a scapegoat for the Leader of the Council, Councillor Roger Hollingworth, who had neglected to tell his own party members and officers about an agreement he had made with the Labour leader, Councillor Peter McDonald, regarding the removal of two heaps of soil in a Rubery park.

“This is one of those rare cases where we believe that the dismissing officer did not entirely believe his stated findings or, alternatively, if he did so, some findings were perverse and unsupported by the evidence,” the tribunal’s judgement stated.

“Mr Dicks had to stretch the evidence. There is an impermissible gloss on the evidence taken overall and demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty with the aim of justifying an adverse conclusion.

“It leads us to begin to question the good faith of the decision maker and whether he did, in truth, genuinely believe what he was saying or whether, in fact, he was attempting to construct what he hoped would be a more watertight case against the claimant.

“We do not consider that Mr Hazlehurst had a fair and unbiased hearing.

The disciplinary hearing and Mr Dicks’ reasoning have all the hallmarks of an approach that had a pre-determined outcome. This creates in our minds a deep suspicion that Mr Hazlehurst’s fate was sealed before the disciplinary hearing began.

“Mr Hazlehurst’s solicitor submitted that Mr Hazlehurst was dismissed for political expediency; he was a scapegoat for the serious disagreement that broke out between the political groups. We agree that his client was a scapegoat.”

Mr Hazlehurst denied breaching council regulations and the tribunal also criticised several councillors from both parties including, June Griffiths, Margaret Sherrey and Peter McDonald. Other officers criticised were Mr Hazlehurst’s immediate superior, Phil Street, and Jo Pitman, the Head of Human Resources.

The tribunal awarded Mr Hazlehurst nearly £64,000, the maximum amount of compensation possible. The Judge, Alan McCarry, said the panel would have awarded him a far greater sum if it had had the power to do so.

The council claimed it could not reinstate Mr Hazlehurst because his job had disappeared under re-organisation.

Mr Hazlehurst, who is in his 50s, has been unable to find a new job despite applying for 150 vacancies and is forming a management consultancy specialising in cost reduction and profit management.

He has lost £185,000 in pension and thousands more in wages and car allowances and is planning to complain to the Council’s Standards Committee and the Local Government Ombudsman.

“I am only taking this step with enormous reluctance because I estimate that the council’s ineptitude in the handling of this case has cost the council taxpayers in excess of £200,000,” he said.

“It seems iniquitous that although I have been completely exonerated by the tribunal while the council, its chief executive, senior councillors and other senior managers have been severely criticised, I can only recoup a fraction of the money I have lost as a result of their unlawful behaviour.”

A council spokesperson said: “We respect the judgement of the tribunal but we still maintain we acted in the interests of delivering the best services to our residents after a full investigation into allegations that senior council members had lost trust and confidence in Mr Hazelhurst.

“Subsequently Mr Hazelhurst is free to pursue whatever further action he feels is appropriate,” he added.