Councillor Fiona Airlie-Nicolson; Councillor Stephen Burns Councillor Andy Doig, Councillor Audrey Doig, Councillor John Gray, Councillor Ben Smith and Councillor Andy Steel. 

There were no declarations of interest or transparency statements intimated prior to the commencement of the meeting.

The Appeals Panel resolved that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business as it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the press and public were present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 

Consideration was given to an appeal submitted by an employee of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure following dismissal from the Council’s employment. 

The appellant was present accompanied by J Carr. C Dalrymple, Head of Facilities & Property Services (Environment, Housing & Infrastructure); and K Dalziel, People Adviser (Finance and Resources) represented management.

The Head of Facilities & Property Services and his witness, J Wallace presented the management case.

The appellant side and members of the Panel had an opportunity to question the management representatives and the evidence presented.

The Panel adjourned at 10.30am and resumed at 10:40am 

J Carr and the appellant presented the appellant’s case.

The Panel and representatives of the management side agreed that supplementary information relating to texts received by the appellant from her line managers in connection with the use of taxis be provided to those present.  

The Panel adjourned at 10.45am and resumed at 11:15am to facilitate printing of the supplementary information. Copies of the supplementary papers were circulated to those present.

Thereafter the management representatives and members of the Panel had an opportunity to question the appellant and the evidence presented.

Both sides summed up their position and then withdrew from the meeting to allow the Panel to consider the matter and reach a decision.

Following discussion, it was the Panel’s decision that the grounds of the appeal had been substantiated in part, that the sanction was considered too harsh and the appeal be upheld to the extent that the sanction of dismissal be replaced with reinstatement of employment and the issue of a final written warning. In addition, the Panel made a number of recommendations to be taken to the Service for consideration.

Both parties re-joined the meeting and were informed of the decision by the Convener.

DECIDED: That the grounds of the appeal had been substantiated in part, that the sanction was considered too harsh and the appeal be upheld to the extent that the sanction of dismissal be replaced with reinstatement of employment and the issue of a final written warning.