Below are extracts from the first statement by JM’s Assistant Manager.
This is an illustration of how JM had favourite staff members that she apparently failed to deal with, and others that she bullied.
JM was the former Housing Manager at WCHP who was dismissed for gross misconduct. At tribunal it was decided that the dismissal was unfair.
So we see here that JM is close friends with “Pete” and as such unable to challenge him.
Now we see some really conclusive evidence, we can clearly see that JM may have been informed about the incident, and then possibly (assuming she was informed) did nothing about it. Fairly damning evidence.
Yet more allegations how this close and exclusive with “Pete” leave JM unable to be assertive with him. And we can clearly see this is important to understand for the rest of the statement.
These three exerts come from the first page of the Assistant Managers statement. See what you make of this exert from page six.
Okay, if I had been investigating the allegations I might have been inclined to decide whether “Pete” was an untouchable favourite or a victim of bullying, as I’m not sure both can be true?