By Gabriel Princewill And Tony O’Reilly-
Acas and its press officer, Chris Banks, (pictured) is under scrutiny, after shamefully evading a press inquiry relating to whether an Early Conciliation process designed to mediate between the complainants and their employs followed the correct procedure.
The alarming unprofessionalism exhibited by Mr Banks, who after incompetently trying to use confidentiality to evade a press enquiry, stooped lower by calling the complainant directly to address a formal complaint he made against Acas, despite knowing that he himself had come under our direct scrutiny.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The question for Acas now is whether a publicly funded body, charged with promoting fairness in workplace disputes, is itself meeting the standards of transparency, accountability and procedural integrity that the public is entitled to expect. It sure does not appear to be doing so.
At the centre of the controversy is not the merits of an Employment Tribunal claim, but the conduct of Acas itself in relation to an aggrieved former team leader, Emmanuel Boateng. Specifically, questions remain unanswered over why an Early Conciliation certificate was issued before the claimant’s authorised representative had been contacted and, if so, whether such a course of action was consistent with Acas’s own operational procedures.
Despite repeated requests from The Eye of Media seeking clarification on that narrow procedural point, Mr Banks on behalf of Acas, has declined to provide a direct answer, exposing an unprofessional and biased attitude, on top of abdicating his responsibility to the freedom of the press to report stories in the public interest.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
That refusal has shifted scrutiny away from the original employment dispute, and towards Acas’s own administrative practices, its approach to accountability, and the role of its press office in responding to legitimate public interest enquiries. The complainant, Mr Boateng, alleges that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment at Eastern Care Home, and is pursuing legal action against his former employer.
According to the aggrieved man’s account, he had previously worked as a secondary school teacher in Ghana before relocating to the United Kingdom approximately ten years ago. After entering the care sector, he spent four years working as a team leader , before his dismissal following allegations that he had been sleeping during a work break.
Mr Boateng disputes that allegation, and maintains there was no contractual prohibition on sleeping during a break in any event. He also disputes the factual basis of the allegation and says there was no independent witness to substantiate the claim, despite the manger’s son officially stating he saw him asleep in the office.
Separately, Mr Boateng alleges that he has been subjected to discrimination, based on his race. According to him, there is no other explanation for his dismissal. Those allegations form part of his wider complaints and legal proceedings he has lodged with the Employment tribunal. As with all such allegations, it will ultimately be for the appropriate legal process to determine whether they are established.
Aggrieved employer dismissed: Emmanuel Boeteng Image: Supplied
The straightforward question this publication presented to Acas was whether if an Early Conciliation certificate was issued before the claimant’s authorised representative had been contacted, such a scenario would be consistent with Acas’s own procedures?
This was a question about institutional process ,rather than confidential case material. Rather than answering that procedural question, Acas Press Officer Chris Banks , (pictured) unwisely relied upon confidentiality as the basis for declining to comment.In reality, he is suspected of covering up for the organisation who hired him to responsibly handle press enquiries.
In correspondence with The Eye of Media, Mr Banks stated that although Mr Boateng had indicated he was content for himself and Acas to be quoted, the employer had provided no such consent and, consequently, the press office could not comment on the case.
That explanation appeared to address his own position on confidentiality, but did not answer the procedural issue that had been raised. The distinction matters. because public authorities are justified in refusing to disclose confidential information, but there was nothing confidential about a matter already going to court, and in which one party is freely talking to the media. Mr Banls therefore either displayed ignorance about what confidentiality truly means, or was just plainly, and exposing that bias to a news publication. He was not to know that our inquiry could turn on him, as can occur with any investigation.
Acas press officer: Chris Banks Image: Linkedin
Confidentiality in any given matter does not arise where one party to the story has consented to publicity. Organisations are expected to explain how their published procedures operate, without revealing confidential facts or compromising the rights of any party. Indeed, transparency concerning institutional procedures is an important element of public accountability. Critics argue that Acas’s response conflated two separate issues.
Protecting confidential case information on the one hand , and explaining administrative procedure on the other.Indeed, transparency concerning institutional procedures is an important element of public accountability.
In refusing to explain its already established administrative procedure, the press officer appears to have been covering up the unacceptable conduct of their employee, thereby hampering a free press. Mr Banks exposed a fundamental level of unprofessionalism, thereby damaging the credibility of Acas as a whole. That omission has inevitably generated further questions.
The role of a public sector press office is not simply to shield an organisation from scrutiny. It exists to facilitate accurate reporting, assist journalists in understanding complex procedures and, where possible, explain how public bodies discharge their statutory responsibilities.
When legitimate questions concerning administrative processes receive no substantive response, the absence of an explanation can become a story in itself. Accountability for publicly funded organisations exercising statutory powers, extends beyond Accountability for decision-making. It also includes explaining those decisions when legitimate public interest questions arise. This case illustrates that principle.
Unique
Acas occupies a unique position within the employment justice system. Its decisions during Early Conciliation can significantly affect the route by which disputes proceed to an Employment Tribunal. While conciliators must operate independently and confidentially, confidence in the wider institution depends upon the public understanding that procedures are applied consistently and fairly.
Analysts insist that transparency and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive principles. They serve different purposes. Confidentiality protects negotiations between parties. Transparency protects public confidence in the institutions administering those processes. Where the boundary between those principles becomes blurred, questions inevitably arise.
The controversy has widened further following confirmation that Mr Boateng has lodged an official complaint with Acas concerning the handling of his case. Across the public sector, accepted principles of good administrative practice generally require complaints concerning an individual’s conduct to be considered independently wherever possible, particularly where issues of impartiality or perceived conflicts of interest may arise.
Independent review helps protect both complainants and staff members by ensuring confidence in the fairness of the process. The allegations warrant careful and impartial consideration through the appropriate internal procedures.
The existence of such allegations does not establish that discrimination occurred, but it does increase the importance of ensuring that complaints are handled independently, fairly and transparently. Discrimination often needs a comparator to demonstrate that a protected characteristic was treated differently to someone belonging to a different category, on a similar or comparable. But it can also sometimes be objectively inferred where a treatment against a protected characteristic is so manifestly poor and indefensible, that no other plausible explanation can be provided for the deplorable conduct in question.
”Questions surrounding governance are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, authour and professor of law, Dr Gregory Aloke said. The unanswered procedural question, the reliance upon confidentiality, and the handling of subsequent complaints collectively create an appearance that Acas has been reluctant to engage with legitimate scrutiny.
Whether that perception is justified is something only Acas itself can ultimately address through greater openness. The broader implications extend well beyond one claimant.
If journalists cannot obtain straightforward explanations about published procedures from organisations exercising statutory functions, meaningful public scrutiny becomes considerably more difficult. Accountability depends not only upon formal oversight mechanisms, but also upon the willingness of public authorities to answer legitimate questions from the press acting on behalf of the wider public.
Refusing to engage with procedural questions does not necessarily avoid controversy. In many cases, it simply changes the focus of that controversy. That appears to be what has happened here.Instead of discussing the underlying employment dispute, attention has increasingly turned towards Acas’s own governance, communications and approach to public accountability.
Those questions are unlikely to disappear until clear answers are provided.Public trust is one of the most paramount requirements of a publicly funded body whose mission is to promote fairness, impartiality and confidence in workplace dispute resolution.
Next up will be head of Acas Baroness Maggie Jones and operational head and chief executive officer, Neil Mackenzie, who will be tracked down to raise accountability issues under their jurisdiction.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar