Day 203 - 12 Jan 96 - Page 60
1 or 19th July, the one that you did not give to Ray Coton in
2 the end -- did you put that in his personnel file?
3 A. I believe -- could you refer me to the document?
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. If you look in, I think it is pale blue
6 2, 31, on page 66.
7 A. Section 31, pale blue 2?
8
9 Q. Section 32, divider 32, page 66, very near the back of the
10 bundle.
11 A. OK. The letter was retained in Sutton Coldfield
12 because they typed it. The Human Resources department in
13 Sutton Coldfield typed it. They would have automatically
14 put it on his file.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: That is a bit irresponsible, is it not? It is only
17 a draft document, not signed by anybody?
18 A. Correct. It was not administered. There is no problem
19 with that, and we all know that.
20
21 Q. Was it kept in the file?
22 A. Because I assume they were awaiting an administered
23 copy, there is nothing irresponsible about it. That was
24 our plan. That is a record that is made, that that was the
25 plan at the time. I do not see what could possibly be
26 irresponsible about it.
27
28 Q. That is the same file which the performance reviews would
29 have been in, but have now disappeared?
30 A. There would have only been one performance review,
31 Mr. Morris. The other review was not administered. They
32 did not type it. I would have written it probably
33 manually, and so that would not have necessarily gone
34 anywhere. But the first performance review, if I sent the
35 copy off to East Sutton Coldfield, would have been kept on
36 his file.
37
38 Q. Sorry, the performance review dated 17th July 1991 referred
39 to this document ---
40 A. Yes.
41
42 Q. -- is something that you never sent to them?
43 A. That is right.
44
45 Q. They typed up a document, kept it in the personnel file,
46 even though they did not have any evidence it existed?
47 A. Correct. But I told them the date -- I would have told
48 them the date which was on the review, on the date it was
49 written, and that says "unsatisfactory as per your
50 performance review dated 17th July 1991". It makes
51 absolutely no reference to any date when the performance
52 review was conducted; and, as I have said, I am willing to
53 admit there is a mistake been made; I did not administer
54 that performance review.
55
56 Q. It is just as well the document was not signed, then,
57 really?
58 A. By me or by the -----
59
60 Q. By anybody?
