Health service campaigners say trust was "determined to get" Charlotte Monro

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Charlotte Monro, centre, at a protest last year. Charlotte Monro, centre, at a protest last year.

Protesters accused Whipps Cross Hospital’s operating trust of bullying after the failed dismissal appeal of sacked long-term employee and union rep Charlotte Monro.

Representatives from three health service campaign groups confronted Barts Health NHS Trust health board members and demanded Ms Monro’s reinstatement at a meeting on Wednesday at Newham University Hospital.

They claim the trust was “determined to get” Ms Monro, a moving and handling co-ordinator at the Leytonstone hospital, who was dismissed for serious misconduct in October after working at Whipps for 26 years.

Reps from We are Waltham Forest - Save Our NHS, Newham Save Our NHS and Tower Hamlets Keep Our NHS Public read a statement saying: “The government states that it wants staff to feel safe to speak out if they see or hear anything that could compromise patient care.

“Barts Health says it subscribes to the same policy. Yet Charlotte Monro has been sacked, we say because of her work as a trade union rep, not for the main issue she was originally dismissed for – speaking to her local scrutiny committee.

“As a trade union rep she had consulted some of her members on what you claimed was a confidential plan and for assault charges she had not disclosed, dredged up from 30 years ago in protests which resulted in encounters with the police.

“In other words you were determined to get her.”

A Unison spokesman said: "The local trade union Unison Whipps Cross branch believes the sacking was motivated out of a desire to create a climate of fear amongst the workforce. This was at the time when the hospital was preparing for reductions to pay and conditions for members.

"In particular following the Mid Staffs scandal, the sacking can have the dangerous and negative effect of sending out a message to workers that it’s best to keep their mouth shut rather than risk disciplinary action."

Ms Monro was dismissed for failing to disclose previous criminal convictions and breaching confidentiality.

She unsuccessfully appealed her dismissal on Monday.

Barts says the reasons for her dismissal were for personal misconduct and “categorically” not for her union work.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:19pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Thunderbird4 says...

Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice.
Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice. Thunderbird4
  • Score: -7

9:21pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Upshirehorse says...

Thunderbird4 wrote:
Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice.
If she gained employment by lying and failing to disclose what she should have, she has denied a better candidate the position. She should accept defeat and be content that she remained employed so long benefiting financially throughout this time. How you can associate the Duggan case with this only you would know and it is rather silly to do so unless you are trying to start bother or something?
[quote][p][bold]Thunderbird4[/bold] wrote: Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice.[/p][/quote]If she gained employment by lying and failing to disclose what she should have, she has denied a better candidate the position. She should accept defeat and be content that she remained employed so long benefiting financially throughout this time. How you can associate the Duggan case with this only you would know and it is rather silly to do so unless you are trying to start bother or something? Upshirehorse
  • Score: 6

7:37pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Robert19 says...

Upshirehorse wrote:
Thunderbird4 wrote:
Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice.
If she gained employment by lying and failing to disclose what she should have, she has denied a better candidate the position. She should accept defeat and be content that she remained employed so long benefiting financially throughout this time. How you can associate the Duggan case with this only you would know and it is rather silly to do so unless you are trying to start bother or something?
She did not gain employment by lying. As was stated in an earlier article she only had a CRB check in the last year where criminal convictions for assault over 30 years ago were disclosed. Nothing unusual in that. In 30 years in local government I never had a CRB check. You were rarely checked if you were already employed when they brought them in. Many employers did not ask about criminal convictions years ago.

How do you know that she denied a better candidate the position? She was employee of the year in the Trust a few years ago which suggests she wasn't that bad an employee. If they can sack trade union representatives for dubious reasons they can sack anyone. Employment rights are under threat by this awful government. Be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]Upshirehorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thunderbird4[/bold] wrote: Downtrodden people can only suffer injustice for so long. Mark Duggan's aunt asked for peaceful protest, which is the only way forward. I hope any protests over this dismissal take that educated path towards justice.[/p][/quote]If she gained employment by lying and failing to disclose what she should have, she has denied a better candidate the position. She should accept defeat and be content that she remained employed so long benefiting financially throughout this time. How you can associate the Duggan case with this only you would know and it is rather silly to do so unless you are trying to start bother or something?[/p][/quote]She did not gain employment by lying. As was stated in an earlier article she only had a CRB check in the last year where criminal convictions for assault over 30 years ago were disclosed. Nothing unusual in that. In 30 years in local government I never had a CRB check. You were rarely checked if you were already employed when they brought them in. Many employers did not ask about criminal convictions years ago. How do you know that she denied a better candidate the position? She was employee of the year in the Trust a few years ago which suggests she wasn't that bad an employee. If they can sack trade union representatives for dubious reasons they can sack anyone. Employment rights are under threat by this awful government. Be careful what you wish for. Robert19
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree