C.D’SILVA vs UCU (formerly NATFHE) & Others
Case No’s: 2402482/2005/ 2202869/2005
On the 26th June –6th July 2006 the Buckley tribunal sat to hear the case of C.D’Silva vs NATFHE & others at the London Kingsway Tribunal. The key points of the caseof Racial discrimination against NATFHE were as follows and highlighted in the complaint document sent to Sally Hunt and Mr Paul Mackney. The complaint was not investigated by the UCU or the Law Society who used the clause it was beyond the six month time period for consideration of complaints.
A. Michael Scott, the Union’s Senior solicitor breached the conflict of interest rules of the Law Society which were rendered statutory by the Law Society in 2006 . He revealed in the London Tribunal in 2006 that he was NATFHE’s budget holder and ultimate decision maker in regard to the provision of legal services and so there was a conflict of interest in M.Scott assessing the merits of Dr D’Silva’s racial discrimination claim against his employer MMU, which he claimed had no merit [230-235]. M. Scott in the London tribunal could not explain why he had removed Dr. Waquar Ahmed an ethnic minority comparator who was also being discriminated by Professor John Leach from his race relations questionnaires [254-259; pg 259] except one infers to undermine his claims, to show that the difference in treatment was based on race . M.Scott to justify his perverse decision on the 13th March 2003 [pgs 264-265] cited Cornelius and the Khan case  and again on the 22 July 2003 [288-289] knowing that the Race Amendment Act 2000 rendered these cases obsolete as one could not preserve one’s position by denying the applicant a grievance. He also did not afford the applicant advice to progress his issues that having claimed racial discrimination his employer had not addressed his complaint which was a breach of the race relations act. This was a breach of his professional service and conduct to safeguard the clients interests.
B. M.Scott again on 15th Sept 2003, part way through Dr D’Silva tribunal case when he requested legal assistance  undermined the applicant’s request. He claimed he had given the correct advice  in his request for legal assistance even after being reminded of the Race Amendment Act 2000. This case law used to deny him merits as stated were rendered obsolete by the Race Amendment Act 2000 and acknowledged as such by the findings in his favour in the Manchester Tribunal, 2006 [pg 21 (3021); 3001-3029; ] There was a conflict of interest in M.Scott giving advice being the fund holder for legal aid which resulted in his advice, being legally flawed. M.Scott was also hostile to the claimant for not going down the ADR route rather than the legal route but could not justify his advice when questioned. M.Scott informed the Tribunal he had been on courses updating him on changes in the law so knew what he was doing.
C. M.Scott knew NATHFE’s procedures for the processing of legal aid applications by the local branch that documents would not be sent by the local branch to Head office unless they were complete[695, 697, 697A-D]. He claimed he was copied documents from the local office including his letter of the 21st Jan 2004 which was the remainder of his complete legal application form [699-700] but however decided to undermine the applicants legal aid application and his position with other NEC officials by claiming that the applicant had not complied with its procedures and that he had not received a signed legal aid form to deny him legal services [707,708-709, 710-711, 754]. It was NATFHE’s local office’s duty to send the signed legal aid form to M.Scott office any losses of the form in transit to NATFHE’s head office was the local offices responsibility not the applicants. It was NATFHE’s Head office and its local branch’s responsibility to process Dr D’Silva’s legal aid application form in a professional manner. He failed to enquire why the local branch had not sent the form or whether the legal office had lost the form despite receiving the accompanying documents or immediately send him a new form. The local branch confirmed in the Tribunal that they had received the form [695, 697-697A-D] and duly processed it according to their procedures. Neitherless he failed to provide Dr D’Silva a professional service and waited until the 8th July 2004  almost six months latter to send him a new legal services form knowing that only the local and Head office could provide him the forms which was a breach of his duty of care. He also did not take on board the applicants statements in regard to there being a conflict of interest which there was [736-737].
D. M.Scott realising that Dr D’Silva had determined that he was undermining his request for legal services having contacted the CRE about his conduct then used the pretext of the late delivery of documents to deny him legal services. On the 5th Aug 2004 he requested the applicant provide the agreed trial bundle by next week or on his return from holiday [866-867] taken on the 16th August 2004. Five days latter quicker than Royal mail parcel post in a letter dated the 10th Aug 2004 he denied the claimant legal services stating he was in breach of clause 6.2 . He again failed to provide an adequate professional service and it took the threat of a race discrimination claim  and a meeting with NEC officers at the claimant’s own expense to re-instate legal services . He again failed to provide him an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.
E. M.Scott in his instruction to Nick Toms failed to obtain a fee note for his services but he also had not agreed a fee which he informed those present in the employment tribunal. He denied Dr D’Silva Counsel of the applicant’s choice claiming they were too expensive whilst he paid over £3000 in fees for a Counsel he wanted to provide the applicant with the merits that he wanted him to have which was in breach of the Union’s legal scheme. The claimant’s own counsel informed him he would win his claims in regard to promotion and the events in the Tribunal resulted in him winning the remainder. He again failed to provide me an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society. This was a breach of professional conduct.
F. M.Scott gave incorrect legal advice when he again sited the Khan case in conference with Nick Toms in 2004 knowing such advice was rendered obsolete as a result of the race amendment act and so undermined the merits of Dr D’Silva’s case and denied him legal representation at his case management hearing [1394, 1397-1398, 1399-1400, 1414-1415]. M.Scott denied the applicant the written merits of his case from counsel [1397-1398]. It again took the intervention of the CRE [1403-1404, 1410-1411, 1413] to get M.Scott to instruct N.Toms to provide the merits of his claim[1419-1420]. This was unprofessional and a breach of confidence and trust and he again failed to recluse himself from the applicant’s case as their had been hostility and continued hostility against the claimant for pursuing his case and not pursuing the ADR route..
G. M.Scott when informed that there was a breach in confidence and trust [1478-1479] on showing him that his legal advice was flawed and was aimed at undermining the applicants claims, but did not recluse himself from the decision process regarding legal services and further undermined the applicant’s claim and denied him legal services in 2005[1485, 1486, 1489-1490]. He again failed to provide him adequate and an impartial professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.
H. On the 31 March 2005 the claimant requested a review of his NATFHE’s decision (M.Scott’s decision) to deny him legal services [1501A]. On the 8th April 2005 Paul Mackney provided his reply [1516-1517]. The reply was written by M.Scott[1513-1514] and this was in breach of the conflict of interest rules of the law society. He again failed to provide the claimant an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.
I. M.Scott knew that their was a conflict of interest in his handling of the applicant’s legal services and as a result on the 6th July 2006 the last day of the applicant’s tribunal case against NATFHE informed him of his
solicitor’s department perverse interpretation of the Law societies conflict of interest rule by providing its new legal scheme and the inclusion of clause 5.6 to deny members who questioned his perverse advice by claiming they were now in conflict with the Union and in breach of legal services . The failure to disclose the change in the Union legal Scheme in regard to the conflict of interest during the Tribunal case in July 2006 was unprofessional and a further attempt to add injury to feeling and cause the applicant detriment. He again failed to provide the claimant an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.