Further to my post “WCHP – More Lies and Deceit?”
Due to the allegations made by the Assistant Housing Manager JM decided to raise a grievance as this evidence was being completely ignored by the investigating officer (John Holmstrom).
You will see a copy of the letter below sent to the then HR Manager.
Despite repeated requests this was never investigated or responded to.
Fair? Honest? Christian?
2nd April 2014
Re: PART C Company Procedures – C.4. Grievance Procedure
Please note: I reference your document Appendix 21 of Investigating Officers Report – I am unable to send a copy as I have not been able to get electronic copies from yourselves.
Attached as a separate document: Appendix A – Emails from Paulina Dyrda.docx
As per our telephone discussion, I am sending this grievance to you instead of John Holmstrom contrary to the normal course of action detailed in the Grievance Procedure. To confirm, this is because I will be forwarding a Grievance regarding the behaviour of John Holmstrom within the next few days.
In line with the above procedure I would like to raise a formal grievance regarding the behaviour of Paulina Dyrda.
As you will be aware I am currently being investigated as part of a disciplinary. One of the major contributors of allegations about me is Paulina Dyrda. Paulina Dydra asserts that she has been unhappy in her job since day one. That I have not supported her and that I have marginalised her and she was unable to challenge this. She also states that “she [JM] leaves me feeling like I’m the enemy” (your reference: Appendix 21 of Investigating Officers Report).
In the additional information she goes on to say “I don’t think my statement expresses fully the severity and complexity of the issues and how hard it’s been to work in such dysfunctional environment. I cried many, many times, I felt low and depressed and my work situation had a severe impact on my family life. I’m finding it hard to talk about my emotions; I think I have been blocking them for the past couple of years. Trying to remember how I felt in certain situations is just extremely difficult” (your reference: Appendix 21 of Investigating Officers Report).
These are just some examples of where she questions my treatment of her.
Below are extracts from emails from Paulina Dyrda sent to me on my WCHP email (full emails are attached in Appendix A – Emails from Paulina Dyrda.docx)
Extracts from emails from Paulina Dyrda to JM
- Although I do not intend to call you over the weekend, it is a fantastic feeling to know that you are there to listen (to my shit…). THANK YOU JACQUI!! (Appendix A – 1)
- Just read my supervision session notes… Really like you ‘essay’ about my working hours 🙂 Thank you very much for your great and lovely feedback! Really appreciate it. (Appendix A – 2)
- I would like to thank you Jacqui very, very, very much for all your support, assistance, understanding and patience. You have been GREAT!! Although I’m looking forward to my holiday (eat, sleep and lay down) I cannot wait to be back! (Appendix A – 3)
- Looking forward to returning to work already J Take care Jacqui! Will see you on the 5th. Thanks for everything! (Appendix A – 4)
- – And last but by no means least: THANK YOU so much for the lovely card and gift. It’s so kind of you! (And I feel so ashamed for not getting xmas cards for you and other work colleagues…!!!) Most importantly though, THANK YOU SO MUCH for your support, trust and encouragement for the past three months. My start in WCHP was not as easy as I wished for but with your help it was so much more manageable. I am looking forward to 2012- I know for sure that next year will bring load of successes and achievements and it’s because I will work with YOU Jacqui!!!! Thank you again and I wish you Jacqui and your loved ones VERY MERRY Christmas and all the VERY BEST in 2012!!! (Appendix A – 5)
I believe that the above examples of Paulina Dyrda’s correspondence with me specifically contradicts her claims. I consider that sections of the statement made by Paulina Dyrda as part of the investigation into my conduct (your reference: Appendix 21) to be libellous and puts her whole statement into question.
I look forward to receiving your response to this issue.