A SENIOR social worker sacked in the wake of the ''pindown'' childcare
scandal has won his case for unfair dismissal after claiming he was used
as a scapegoat by his superiors.
Mr Jaime Rodriguez, senior assistant with Staffordshire County
Council's social services department, was fired in 1992 after
implementing the controversial system.
Mr Rodriguez was the social worker in charge of one of the county's
four children's homes.
After his dismissal, he took his case to an industrial tribunal,
claiming he was sacked to save the reputations of his chiefs following
harsh criticism of the ''pindown regime'' which involved isolating
youngsters, confining them, and denying them their usual clothes.
A two-day tribunal hearing in Birmingham yesterday agreed with Mr
Rodriguez, and said: ''We find it inconceivable that the reputation of
the respondents was not in the minds of the (disciplinary) committee and
appeal committee when they made their respective decisions.''
The tribunal panel added: ''We are satisfied that the respondents
acted outside the range of response of a reasonable employer in that
they did not have reasonable grounds for concluding they could no longer
have confidence in his (Mr Rodriguez's) judgment . . .''
Mr Rodriguez had told the tribunal that his case was not properly
looked at when he was sacked.
The panel had heard how he had illegally implemented ''pindown'' in
1987 at the Birches Family Centre, where he was in charge. He was
dismissed in July 1992.
Mr Rodriguez, of Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, said 20 children under his
charge were subjected to ''pindown'', but added that this was in
response to a situation where poor resources meant children ran a
''reign of terror'' at the centre.
He admitted he had doubts about the system, but said his employers did
not tell him what he was doing was wrong.
Mr David Wright, a local government solicitor and deputy clerk for
Staffordshire County Council, had said that a senior social worker like
Mr Rodriguez should have known that the ''pindown'' system was improper.
The two sides are now preparing to discuss a settlement.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article