Crowner and Justice

by Barrie Roberts

  Bailey looked even more pained. ‘Yes. I did. At the gate of the factory.’

  ‘Can you tell us how that came about?’

  ‘Well, on that first day, you will appreciate that we were in a very confused state. At first we did not know how far the strike would be effective and how many men would withdraw their labour. As a result, there was a meeting of senior staff and heads of sections going on in my office, almost continually. We were receiving information every minute of the state of play in different sections of the plant. It came to my notice that Mulvaney and Martin had made a number of visits to the premises and had been admitted by the gate officers. As a result, Mr Cantrell phoned the security officer in charge of the gate and passed on my order that the, er, the Applicants were not to be admitted again for any reason at all.’

  ‘Why was that, Mr Bailey?’

  As I mentioned earlier, during the period of wildcat strikes that we suffered there was what I would call sabotage, irredeemable loss of product and the like.’

  I bobbed up quickly. ‘That “unfortunate” word again, Mr Chairman.’

  Maddox waved a hand in acknowledgement of my complaint. ‘So you feared that irredeemable harm would be done by the strikers?’

  Bailey nodded firmly. ‘Yes, I did. I had hardly issued the order when someone in my office said that they were at the gates now. I should explain that my office is on the ground floor of the front block of the buildings and commands a view of the gate.’

  ‘What did you do?’

  ‘I stood up and it was true. I could see the, er, the Applicants standing at the gate apparently talking to George Barlow, the gatekeeper. I opened the window of my office and I shouted to Barlow to see them off the premises. They looked round, but I didn’t see any other reaction, so I asked Mr Cantrell to come with me and we made for the gate. Mr Cheetham, one of the heads of section came with us also.’

  ‘And who is Mr Cantrell?’

  ‘Mr Cantrell is the senior officer of the security contractors who were in the process of taking over our security arrangements at the time.’

  ‘And what happened when you reached the gate?’

  ‘I told Barlow that he was to keep them out. While I was doing so, both Mulvaney and Martin abused me and, as I turned away from Barlow, Mulvaney flung a punch at me and Martin grabbed hold of me. I believe that he punched me as well.’

  ‘Where were you struck?’

  ‘Mulvaney’s blow landed in my face, just below the right eye. I felt another blow, which I believe was from Martin, in my ribs.’

  ‘And then what happened?’

  ‘Mr Cantrell and Mr Cheetham intervened, together with Mr Barlow and drove the, er, Applicants away. The last I saw of them, they were heading towards a cafe across the road from the gate.’

  ‘And were you hurt by their blows? Did you require treatment?’

  ‘Mr Cantrell took me to the Nurse’s office, where Nurse Burton examined my injuries and dressed them. I had a black eye for several days after and severe bruising to my ribs.’

  ‘And what did you do then?’

  ‘I returned to my office and dictated letters to all three Applicants, confirming their dismissals. The letters were typed and Mr Cantrell undertook to ensure that they were delivered by hand on the same day.’

  Maddox nodded. ‘Now, Mr Bailey, we are not really concerned with the events of the strike itself, merely with the events which brought about the dismissal of the Applicants, and you have told us about that. Nevertheless, I think it may assist the Tribunal if you will give us at least a summary of what happened afterwards and how the strike proceeded.’

  Bailey went on to tell how, by the end of the first day, most of the Belston plant had closed down. He had made numerous representations to Goatly, who had attempted to persuade the remaining Shop Stewards that they were engaged in an illegal strike, but the strike had remained firm for three weeks. It had been a considerable difficulty for the firm, whose contracts for the Retaliator were with Britain and various other European governments, but who hoped to sell the missile to the United States. The American deal was already under discussion and its success was directly threatened by the strike at Belston.

  After three weeks, the strike had spread to BDS’s Coventry works, where more than half the workforce had walked out. He had personally drafted a statement to the workers at Coventry, explaining the origins of the Belston strike and that it was illegal. The Union had co-operated in persuading the Coventry strikers back to work and, with the collapse of the Coventry action, the Belston strike ended.

  As Bailey finished his recital, the chairman looked at his watch. ‘I am certain,’ he said, with a sarcastic glance at me, ‘that Mr Tyroll will wish to cross-examine Mr Bailey at some length, and it does not seem to be wise to embark on that late in the afternoon. This hearing is adjourned to 10.15 tomorrow morning.’

  As I had expected, Maddox had filled up the afternoon with rubbish, so that his witness would start cross-examination in the morning, fresh and with the benefit of an evening’s preparation behind him.

  CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

  You can prepare and rehearse a witness to a large extent, but you can’t rehearse a cross-examination. It’s an art form, not a science. All I could do was pore over Sheila’s notes and my own of Bailey’s evidence and make sure I had identified all the weak points in his story. Whether I could open them up was another question.

  Bailey took his place next morning, the chairman reminded him that he was still under oath, and we were off again.

  I decided to go straight for a mystery that had intrigued me the day before.

  ‘Mr Bailey,’ I began, ‘you told us yesterday about the brawl at the gate and that, immediately after you had received medical treatment, you dictated the letters of dismissal. Am I right?’

  ‘Yes.’ Someone had obviously told him that there are five answers to cross-examiners — yes, no, I don’t know, I don’t remember, and I didn’t understand the question — and always keep your answers short so as not to give additional information.

  ‘Then the events at the gate must have been very clear in your recollection when the letters were written?’

  ‘Yes. They were.’

  I picked up the copies of the letters which had been exhibited on the previous day. ‘Now two of these letters are identical. You told both Mr Mulvaney and Mr Martin that, “You have been largely instrumental in fomenting an illegal strike within the Belston plant, you have trespassed on the company’s premises and you have assaulted me personally”. Do you recall writing that?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Then there is the letter to Mr Afsar. That says, “You deliberately disobeyed a legitimate instruction given by your Head of Section and confirmed by me. In addition, you trespassed upon the company’s premises and joined in an assault on me by Mulvaney and Martin”. Did you write that?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Why?’

  He stared at me, pretending not to understand, and repeated the question while he sought an answer. ‘Why? Because those were the facts, that’s why.’

  ‘That surprises me, Mr Bailey, because those were not the facts that you recited in evidence yesterday.’ He began to speak again, but I pressed on. ‘Yesterday you told us that you saw “the Applicants” at the gate, that you went over with your colleagues and that you were struck in the face by Mr Mulvaney and probably in the ribs by Mr Martin. Is that right?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘When you kept using the expression “the Applicants” in your account yesterday, to whom were you referring?’

  ‘All three of them — Mulvaney Martin and Afsar.’

  ‘And you saw them all at the gate?’

  There was a long pause. Then, ‘Mulvaney and Martin were there. They assaulted me.’

  ‘So you say Mr Bailey, so you say, but you also say that Mr Afsar trespassed on the company’s premises and assaulted you.’

  ‘That was a mistake,’ he said, reluctantly. />
  ‘A mistake!’ I exclaimed loudly ‘Two of the three reasons why you were dismissing him were a mistake. Can I ask how you came to make that mistake when the events at the gate were fresh in your memory?’

  Maddox sprang up. ‘If it will assist Mr Tyroll, I am instructed that an identical text was prepared on a word processor for the letters to Mulvaney and Martin and then varied for Afsar. In that process, and in the confusion of the moment, the text of the letter to Afsar included inappropriate material. I can assure the Tribunal that we do not seek to justify Afsar’s dismissal on the grounds of trespass or assault, solely on the question of his refusal of an order.’

  I glanced back at the press table, to see that they were getting all this, and was disappointed to note that Walters and another were missing.

  ‘Thank you,’ I said. ‘I am grateful to Mr Maddox for giving the evidence which his witness was so reluctant to give, and which he strove so hard to conceal yesterday.’

  Time to change the topic. Never let a witness answer on one point for too long. It allows them to start guessing at the next question.

  ‘Now,’ I continued, ‘we heard a lot yesterday about the long history of BDS and its predecessors and about its labour relations. I don’t wish to go into all of that in detail again, but there are one or two points that I would like to pursue. I think you told us that, throughout its long existence, your company had an excellent record in labour relations until the burst of wildcat strikes a few years ago?’

  He relaxed. He’d rehearsed this bit and done it once. ‘I think it’s fair to say that, yes.’

  I picked up a small sheaf of photocopies that Sheila had prepared for me. ‘And does your view include the strike by women employees in 1917?’

  It was plain from his face that he had never heard of it. ‘I don’t know what you mean,’ he said.

  ‘I mean that, in 1917, your company was engaged in producing gas shells. At the two factories involved there was a strike by women workers, who were worried about the effects on their health of the substances used in the shells. The company’s response to their concern was to sack them all and replace them.’

  ‘I know nothing of that,’ Bailey said, stiffly.

  Maddox intervened to protect his witness. ‘Mr Tyroll has commented on what he characterised as my “giving evidence”. It appears that he is now doing the same. May we know the authority for the incident he has just cited?’

  The chairman asked, ‘Is there authority for that story, Mr Tyroll?’ I lifted the sheaf of photocopies. ‘I have here photocopies of stories appearing at the time in the Times newspaper and in the Daily Telegraph. I will, if you wish, submit them to the witness for him to read, or call as a witness the lady whose research revealed these matters. I was merely trying to shorten the historical part of this hearing.’

  The chairman turned towards Bailey. ‘Do you accept Mr Tyroll’s information as genuine, Mr Bailey?’

  ‘I have to, sir. It was well before I joined the company.’

  That earned him a sympathetic chuckle from all three of the Tribunal.

  ‘Will you, then, accept from me, that there was a further strike in the company in 1932, following a reduction in wages, and that was dealt with in the same way, namely by the dismissal of all the strikers?’

  ‘If you say so,’ he admitted grudgingly.

  ‘And that, following that incident, the company became a non-union company until after the Second World War, when a Labour government became embarrassed at giving defence contracts to a non-union firm and a union was formed within the company’s works?’

  ‘That may be true,’ he said, ‘but if I could explain my remarks of yesterday...’

  I cut him off. ‘There is no need for you to explain why you sought to give a false impression to the Tribunal yesterday. Mr Bailey. I’m sure we can all think of one.’

  ‘Mr Tyroll!’ warned the chairman. ‘What was your explanation, Mr Bailey?’

  ‘In preparing for this case, I thought it helpful to outline a little of the company’s history. Although I have worked in the company all my adult life, I felt it wise to do a little research. I re-read the company’s official history.’

  The chairman nodded, as if that explained everything.

  And was the official history typed on the word processor in your office, too?’

  ‘Mr Tyroll!’ snarled the chairman, and I apologised, but my crack had raised a chuckle in the back rows, so it was good for morale.

  Time to change ground again. ‘You told us, Mr Bailey, that you had spent all your adult life working for BDS, is that so?’

  ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘It is.’

  I nodded. ‘And for much of that time you will have been a member of management, yes?’

  ‘Well, for some years, yes’

  I picked up a book from my table, ‘So you will be fully familiar with the so-called Joint Agreement made between your firm and the Union in 1950 and amended in 1973 and 1982?’

  ‘I am aware of it, of course. I don’t know that I can claim to be fully familiar with it. It’s a long document. I wouldn’t pretend to know every detail of it.’

  I nodded again. ‘Can you just explain, for the benefit of the Tribunal, the nature of the Joint Agreement, what it actually is?’

  He cleared his throat. ‘It’s a wide-ranging agreement, governing working practices in the company and the company’s relations with the Union.’

  ‘And it has a section on discipline, I believe?’

  ‘Yes, it does.’

  Sheila got up and distributed photocopies to the witness and the clerk. Maddox waved his away and produced a copy of the book from the papers on his table.

  ‘These,’ I said, ‘are copies of the Agreement’s section on discipline, which starts at Page 110 of the book. I take it you will accept that they are genuine copies?’

  Bailey looked at Maddox, who nodded.

  I asked for the document to be exhibited, and went on, ‘You will see that Section B, on Page 112, is headed “Dismissal”. Would you be good enough to read the opening paragraph, Mr Bailey?’

  He glowered at me suspiciously, and began. “‘In cases of serious industrial misconduct, e.g. violence, dishonesty, drunkenness etc, immediate dismissal may be deemed appropriate. If a question of immediate dismissal arises, the following procedure shall be followed...”’

  I stopped him there. ‘Now,’ I said, ‘there follow a number of lettered paragraphs setting out the agreed procedure. Paragraph A says that the employee shall be informed of the proposal to dismiss him by written notice, setting out the reason or reasons for his dismissal. Is that right?’

  He scanned the copy briefly. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘it is. But if you’re suggesting that I broke the procedure, it is obvious that I didn’t. The letters of dismissal set out the reasons.’

  ‘Apart,’ I reminded him, ‘from Mr Afsar’s, where your word processor accused him of an assault when he was not even there. However, it was the word “proposal” that I was interested in. What does that suggest to you?’

  ‘I don’t know. Immediate dismissal is immediate dismissal.’

  ‘Well, let us look at Paragraph B, which says that “Any employee aggrieved by a decision to dismiss him or her immediately shall have a right to appeal against the decision to dismiss, provided that notice of appeal is given in writing to the Personnel Manager within fourteen days of the letter of dismissal”. It goes on to say that “Notification of this right and the deadline shall be included in the letter of dismissal”. Is that correct, Mr Bailey?’

  This time he didn’t even glance at his copy. ‘Yes,’ he snapped. ‘But I think in all the circumstances—’

  I moved in quickly ‘All what circumstances, Mr Bailey?’

  ‘That I was exasperated. I had a major strike on my hands caused entirely by these people and I had just been assaulted.’

  ‘You were, in fact, very angry, were you not? If what you say is true, that’s quite understandable.’

&
nbsp; ‘Yes. I was very angry.’

  He wasn’t far from very angry again, his pale face having darkened considerably.

  ‘What,’ I enquired, ‘makes you believe that your exasperation and anger override the Joint Agreement, Mr Bailey?’

  He turned towards the Tribunal for support. ‘I’m sure you will understand the pressures on me at that time and the anger I felt at being assaulted on the company’s premises. I was not in the mood for following the letter of procedures.’

  I nodded, sympathetically. ‘So you say, and I’m sure the Tribunal will know how to assess the importance of your mood against the procedure laid down by an agreement between your company and the Union.’

  Maddox had been looking at his watch every few seconds, in the hope of bringing relief to his beleaguered witness. It worked at last; the chairman looked at his and called the lunch adjournment. As I left the room I glanced at the press table. There was nobody there. No headlines for me.

  CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

  It was difficult to get to the lift. Not only did Mulvaney, Martin and Afsar want to congratulate me, but also some of the lads from the public seats. I seemed to have convinced them they were getting their money’s worth.

  ‘Good stuff!’ said Mulvaney, clapping me on the shoulder.

  ‘Good enough,’ I agreed, ‘but it’s easy when they’re batting. Wait till you’re giving evidence and Maddox does it to you. Apart from which, we still haven’t got round the fact that you called an illegal strike.’

  Sheila and I retreated to the Cathedral churchyard again, while Con and the boys went off to celebrate Bailey’s discomfiture. I hoped that Bailey was drinking deeply somewhere.

  My hopes were rewarded by Bailey’s complexion when we reassembled. Its pallor had turned pink with the flush of alcohol taken too quickly.

  ‘Mr Bailey,’ I began, ‘if I may return to the dismissal procedure in the Joint Agreement, what you seem to have said is that you were in such a mood at the time that you never even considered the provisions of the Agreement. Is that correct?’