Clouseau Mays

Continuing my guide to investigating, he's a little something sent to that ace investigative reporter Roger Mays. Makes Clouseau look like Einstein

From my original grievance meeting, 2^nd February 2011, I would like copies of the appendices that I wasn’t given. I think that was numbers 8 to 23, as I don’t have the paperwork for every Manager’s statements. While I receive those copies, here are a few suggestions for you to follow up. This will enable you to look at the slander & libel aspects from my first grievance.

·        Why was Mo Akhtar not questioned, or prompted, by a copy of my e-mail dated 7^th January 2005, included in my grievance, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. Bearing in mind the proof that I supplied, why did the Company not query the honesty of Mo Akhtar? Why was his verbal statement then presented to me in written form?

·        Why was Richard Watts not questioned, or prompted by a copy of my e-mails dated 9^th October 2003 & 6^th April 2005, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. Has anyone followed up my conversation with Richard? When face-to-face he conveniently ‘chose’ to remember the issues that I had raised. Again, with proof supplied, why was Richard Watts backed up by the Company? Again a verbal statement presented in written form.

·        Why was Karl McGuinness not questioned, or prompted by a copy of my e-mails dated 25^th January 2006, 22^nd February 2006, 2^nd March 2006 & 29^th June 2005, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. Again, with proof supplied, why was Karl McGuinness backed up by the Company? Again a verbal statement presented in written form. Further to those e-mails, has anyone spoken to Craig Scott regarding Karl’s denial of a Centre Board shown on a SEAS presentation?

·        Why was Howard Stone not questioned, or prompted by a copy of my e-mail dated 17^th May 2007, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. Again, with proof supplied, why was Howard Stone backed up by the Company? Again a verbal statement presented in written form.

·        Why was Duncan Coates not questioned, or prompted by a copy of my e-mail dated 10^th August 2007, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. Again, with proof supplied, why was Duncan Coates backed up by the Company? Again a verbal statement presented in written form.

·        Why was Nigel Marsh not questioned further, or prompted by a copy of my e-mail dated 21^st September 2007, when he ‘chose’ not to remember any integrity issues that I had raised in the Dewsbury Centre. He said there was a meeting that was cancelled, why no further questioning by the Company. Again, with proof supplied, why was Nigel Marsh backed up by the Company? Again a verbal statement presented in written form. At least Nigel had the balls to admit that I’d done something.

·        Has Randy Grimes been contacted re e-mails that I have sent to him in Compliance & Ethics? E-mails were sent 6^th June 2008, 23^rd July 2008, 30^th August 2008 & 15^th September 2008. Has Randy confirmed that I continued to raise integrity issues?

·        With regard to Emma O’Toole’s follow-up letter to my grievance letter, why was there no details of any right to reply or appeal? Was Emma hoping I’d go away and not follow it up? It nearly worked.

·        Why were there not alarm bells ringing in the Company’s ears at all these denials backed up by proof? Every Manager denied my claims. If this was true, then shouldn’t I have been disciplined for wasting people’s time and being a compulsive liar? Isn’t it rather strange that no disciplinary action was taken against me for these wild and dishonest statements that I must have made? This is a contradiction and backs up everything that I have said as being honest and true statements.

·        I went through these points with Lisa Bradshaw. Why was I allowed to call these employees liars, without any disciplinary action being taken against me? Lisa stated that the Managers had ‘chosen’ not to remember, I asked if she wanted me to call them liars as I said chosen was merely a euphemism for lying.

·        Why have the Company representatives been allowed to say that they don’t question my integrity, honesty & trust yet continue to ignore the statements that I have made, officially, for over a year.

Does the Company still think that these comments were not slanderous and libelous, as per the statement made by Lisa Bradshaw? I had at this point already spoken to a solicitor. Why did Lisa deny me the opportunity of speaking to someone within the Company about this? Lisa stated that the Company doesn’t have a legal department. It doesn’t take much googling to find one.

My second grievance was mainly a follow-up/response to my original grievance. There are a few things that should have been followed up in the 6 months since it was submitted.

·        Has any follow up been made regarding the 475 Centre Boards that I showed had been on road? As per points 1, 6 & 8. Was my information bogus, or did Chris Marchant dismiss it because of the level of dishonesty throughout the Company, and the fact that his Centre was named on the report?

·        As above, has Craig Scott been contacted regarding point 13 which will back up my claims of Karl McGuinness’s lack of integrity.

·        Point 15 - Chris Marchant said that he had no recollection of the e-mail that he had sent. How did he present it to me at the start of the meeting & how did I copy something that didn’t exist.

·        Point 16 - Can Emma Stott now remember the e-mail that she sent, now that I’ve supplied a copy of the ‘missing’ e-mail? Strange how things keep turning up.

·        Point 19 - Has the Company now re-defined the number six? It clearly states six in the letter sent to Dr. Butler yet this was denied. Why has this been allowed by the Company?

·        Point 21 – As at 24^th January 2011 Matt Gale said that Rob Burrows wasn’t DOK certified. Has this been checked out and if so, who was the liar? As at 3^rd June 2011, Matt Gale was still saying that Rob Burrows wasn’t DOK certified. This would imply the liar was Rob Burrows. Maybe he ‘chose’ to forget that he wasn’t certified. Who had said that Rob Burrows had passed his DOK test? Was it Rob? (if so, see comments on Rob Burrows being unprofessional) Maybe I should request a copy of the paperwork, or has it been ‘lost’?

·        Point 22 – Are my photographs of Rob Burrows’ car bogus? This shows a willful disregard of UPS’s Space and Visibility policies, which was the point of the argument with Matt Gale.

·        Point 24 – Has my statement regarding 340 methods training been verified by Craig Scott? This will show a lack of integrity in Steve O’Donnell.

·        Page 37 – Is my photograph of the whiteboard in Steve O’Donnell’s office bogus? Have the drivers that attended the meeting been asked to confirm that bullying was discussed so long ago and that it was written on the board?

·        Page 40 - If there was a planned reduction in accidents over the year of 50%. What factors may have influenced the horrific figures of being at 130% well before the end of the year. Was it the fact that UPS were continuing to over-despatch drivers?

In addition to these points raised in relation to my first and second grievances, I have a number of follow-up questions. Apologies if I have already raised these. I’m not sure which paperwork you have been given.

·        Has there been any follow-up to the planned Performance Improvement meeting that was going to be held with Steve O’Donnell and Lisa Bradshaw. Is the reason that it didn’t take place, based on the fact that I had e-mailed Lisa Bradshaw with the details of the lies that this planned meeting had been based on?

·        Has my survey into bullying at Dewsbury been followed up and verified? It shouldn’t need to be. I assume that it will be, as I’m obviously not trusted.

·        A further point on bullying. I’m not 100% sure on this, but I believe that Scott Fowler was the Manager when virtually all the drivers and pre-loaders submitted a grievance about bullying by Shayne Williams. If the employees are questioned about this grievance, you will find that in their opinion, this grievance was ‘swept under the carpet’. This is backed-up by the fact that bullying was brought up in the drivers meeting, mentioned above, and my survey showing that bullying still continues, again mentioned above. Both of these happening after the bullying grievance was swept under the carpet.

The more silence there is from UPS, the more it looks like there is an organised cover-up of what has gone on. There are points raised at the start of this e-mail and there are other instances which I will list;

·        Nothing from Compliance and Ethics in the past.

·        Emma O’Toole said retaliation was a co-incidence.

·        Emma O’Toole and Lisa Bradshaw both told me not to submit grievance 2.

·        Chris Marchant ‘chose’ to ignore most of my first grievance.

·        Second grievance has been ignored. Why? Bullying issues?

·        Third grievance, no response to date.

·        No exit interview. Why not? Scared of the issues that would be raised? Is this not increasing the integrity issues within the Company and compounding the lack of integrity?

Just because I have left the Company, it doesn’t mean that I’ve gone away. This is what the silence implies to me. That the Company thought I would just go away and roll over. Being outside of the Company gives me a louder voice. I assume that this is what Cindy Miller was scared of, when still an employee, she accused me of threatening the Company. A point that she felt she needed to enforce with her ‘back-up’ crew. How Cindy, Tony Colaizzo, Craig McIntosh & Steve O’Donnell on the opposite side of a table against me, on my own, cannot be described as intimidatory, completely baffles me, (Conversation with Craig McIntosh, witnessed by Steve O’Donnell 23^rd December 2011), but UPS have their own definition of certain words, just so it fits their bill.

The Company’s wall of silence has now meant that from it being just me who knew all the details about the Company’s lack of integrity, this information has already gone to numerous outside agencies. How far does the Company want this information to spread, before it decides to take any action? I volunteered to stop ‘spreading the word’. Why should I? It isn’t me that has been, and continues to be, in the wrong. Craig McIntosh spoke about respect, and I demolished his argument. Why should I have any respect for UPS? I can call ‘all the named parties’ liars and know that I am correct. The reason I have only discussed the principals with VOSA and Watchdog, for example, rather than releasing the Company’s name is the respect that I have for the Company & Jim Casey. Jim founded the Company on sound principals and morals. That cannot be said of the Company now. Jim must be turning in his grave.

The current UPS Management are abusing their position within the Company. I thought it was just the UK, but the lack of action from Compliance & Ethics would seem to imply that it was a worldwide problem. Who is pressurising Cindy, (who worked in Compliance & Ethics) as another example, someone higher up the pecking order?

UPS maybe happy to disregard its own policies and procedures, harass and bully its employees, but is this the conduct of an Olympic Partner? What about the Olympic ethics & ethos? Shouldn’t UPS be observing all of the Olympic standards, in addition to its own?