Payoff for Brighton and Hove City Council's £85k a year HR boss

Payoff for Brighton and Hove City Council's £85k a year HR boss

Payoff for Brighton and Hove City Council's £85k a year HR boss

First published in News by

A town hall council chief will receive a payoff worth thousands of pounds to leave her role.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s head of human resources, Charlotte Thomas, receives a salary of up to £85,000 a year.

However, the local authority has paid her an unspecified sum to get her to leave the role.

An announcement was made on the local authority’s internal website this week.

A council spokesman declined to make any further comment adding it did not comment on personnel matters.

Mark Turner, of the GMB union, said: “It’s a sign of the uncertainty there is at senior management level and in the human resources (HR) department.

“It’s not the first time the HR director has been paid off and left the council.

“They’re making this payment when they are cutting frontline staff and frontline staff’s income.

“They should be saving that money and protecting their pay.”

Ms Thomas joined the council in 2009 from Cornwall County Council.

She is the fifth senior member of staff to leave the local authority in recent months after chief executive John Barradell and three strategic directors – David Murray, Charlie Stewart and Terry Parkin – all went.

An announcement on the council’s internal website confirmed Ms Thomas will leave the local authority on October 19 after overseeing the process of recruiting a new chief executive.

Denise D’Souza, the council’s director of adult social care, who will be temporarily responsible for HR, said: “We wish Charlotte all the best for the future and thank her for the drive and enthusiasm that she has brought to the job over the past three years.”

The amount being paid to Ms Thomas is not available as it is deemed “commercially sensitive”.

It comes in the wake of The Argus revealing private experts have been brought in to investigate claims of racial discrimination at the council.

The local authority is paying consultants to look into allegations of unfair treatment of its black and minority ethnic (BME) staff after it received a number of complaints.

In April The Argus also revealed independent experts had ruled the council’s payroll systems for more than 10,000 of its workers were open to a “high level of fraud and error”.

But despite auditors demanding urgent action more than a year later the local authority had still not implemented some of the recommendations.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:10pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

If a member of staff is made redundant the payout is acceptable.
However, I have serious concerns about this council which seems to 'pay off' anyone it no longer wishes working in the authority, although we are never told the reason despite public money being used to pay staff off.
If a member of staff is failing to perform then performance manage them out of their role.
If the councillors don't like the individual, then the tax payers need to know why our money is being used in this way.
I find the increasing number of pay offs by this council very worrying.
Who is accountable?
If a member of staff is made redundant the payout is acceptable. However, I have serious concerns about this council which seems to 'pay off' anyone it no longer wishes working in the authority, although we are never told the reason despite public money being used to pay staff off. If a member of staff is failing to perform then performance manage them out of their role. If the councillors don't like the individual, then the tax payers need to know why our money is being used in this way. I find the increasing number of pay offs by this council very worrying. Who is accountable? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Sun 7 Oct 12

rolivan says...

An announcement on the council’s internal website confirmed Ms Thomas will leave the local authority on October 19 after overseeing the process of recruiting a new chief executive.
I thought they paid an outside Agency £30,000 To recruit a new CEO.More smoke and mirrors.
An announcement on the council’s internal website confirmed Ms Thomas will leave the local authority on October 19 after overseeing the process of recruiting a new chief executive. I thought they paid an outside Agency £30,000 To recruit a new CEO.More smoke and mirrors. rolivan
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Sun 7 Oct 12

gandalfthebiege says...

who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid?
who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid? gandalfthebiege
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Sun 7 Oct 12

gandalfthebiege says...

who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid?
who the hell is worth 85k a year in HR? what are the people hired by the 85k HR boss getting paid? gandalfthebiege
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Sun 7 Oct 12

vogon1 says...

wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job
wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job vogon1
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Martha Gunn says...

Here we go again!
The acolytes of the Lucas and Kitcat cult can indulge in pay-offs like this, find the the money to plant solar palm trees but you'll be lucky to get your gritting bin refilled this winter.
Strange priorities - weird Council.
Here we go again! The acolytes of the Lucas and Kitcat cult can indulge in pay-offs like this, find the the money to plant solar palm trees but you'll be lucky to get your gritting bin refilled this winter. Strange priorities - weird Council. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Sun 7 Oct 12

On_the_Level says...

"This council does not comment on personnel matters"; EXCUSE ME - SINCE WHEN IS PUBLIC FUNDS A PERSONAL MATTER?
"This council does not comment on personnel matters"; EXCUSE ME - SINCE WHEN IS PUBLIC FUNDS A PERSONAL MATTER? On_the_Level
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Morpheus says...

vogon1 wrote:
wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job
Not to mention the big fat salary she was getting when throwing it around.
[quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] wrote: wow. I wish I could get a big fat payoff for being **** at my job[/p][/quote]Not to mention the big fat salary she was getting when throwing it around. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

7:48am Mon 8 Oct 12

Plantpot says...

There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

7:54am Mon 8 Oct 12

Dealing with idiots says...

How much would kitcat take to b****r off? Definately the cheaper option as he and his minions waste our money on pet projects like the Kitcat vanity memorial erection, sorry the i360. Shame on the other parties for voting for this monstrosity.
How much would kitcat take to b****r off? Definately the cheaper option as he and his minions waste our money on pet projects like the Kitcat vanity memorial erection, sorry the i360. Shame on the other parties for voting for this monstrosity. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

7:58am Mon 8 Oct 12

F in L says...

Nice work f you can get it
Nice work f you can get it F in L
  • Score: 0

8:02am Mon 8 Oct 12

Fight_Back says...

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

8:05am Mon 8 Oct 12

Plantpot says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.
You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.[/p][/quote]You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members? Plantpot
  • Score: 0

8:24am Mon 8 Oct 12

Fight_Back says...

Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.
You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.[/p][/quote]You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

9:05am Mon 8 Oct 12

Take it Personally says...

"A council spokesman declined to make any further comment adding it did not comment on personnel matters" -ermmm it's public money???
Notice how council "spokespeople" never give their name? -so much for transparency
"A council spokesman declined to make any further comment adding it did not comment on personnel matters" -ermmm it's public money??? Notice how council "spokespeople" never give their name? -so much for transparency Take it Personally
  • Score: 0

10:03am Mon 8 Oct 12

Skidrow says...

I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge.
I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge. Skidrow
  • Score: 0

11:41am Mon 8 Oct 12

Plantpot says...

I assume the lack of disclosure is to protect the individual to whom the payment has been given. Disclosure might give the opportunity for the individual to be smeared, even inadvertently.
I assume the lack of disclosure is to protect the individual to whom the payment has been given. Disclosure might give the opportunity for the individual to be smeared, even inadvertently. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Mon 8 Oct 12

vogon1 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.
This.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.[/p][/quote]This. vogon1
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ourcoalition says...

Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
For the record, only one Union is bothered! Not my one!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]For the record, only one Union is bothered! Not my one! ourcoalition
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ourcoalition says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law.

I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.
No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.
You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required.
I'd love to agree with this, and it may be true in that case - but, the vast majority of UNISON members in BHCC, would, I am sure, agree, that we do the "business" for them. Which is why in comparative terms we have the second largest Branch in our main employer, in the whole of the UK.
A bit of trumpet blowing, but it shows what can be achieved when members act collectively.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There appears to be a lack of understanding about employment law. I am amused that the unions should be up in arms about this payment when it is clearly given to protect the individual worker, something they should applaud.[/p][/quote]No, it's the council paying hush money. Instead of risking having their dodgy practices exposed at an employment tribunal they are buying the employee off in return for keeping their mouth shut. It's good for the council and good for THIS individual employee but it allows the council to continue to bully employees it doesn't like out of their employment.[/p][/quote]You might be right. But the payment is there both to deter and to protect. I am sure the unions will protect their members from such practices, after all, what else do they exist for but to maximise working conditions for their members?[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - a rhetorical question I'm sure. Well when my partners employer starting playing games like that her Union, Unite, were useless. Barely wanted to know, rarely responded in a timely manner and when they did deem to turn up to meetings were next to pointless. In my partner hired an employment solicitor who managed to get thousands of pounds for her amongst other things. Personally I'd recommend people save their union fees and pay for a solicitor as and when required.[/p][/quote]I'd love to agree with this, and it may be true in that case - but, the vast majority of UNISON members in BHCC, would, I am sure, agree, that we do the "business" for them. Which is why in comparative terms we have the second largest Branch in our main employer, in the whole of the UK. A bit of trumpet blowing, but it shows what can be achieved when members act collectively. ourcoalition
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ourcoalition says...

Skidrow wrote:
I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge.
God knows why they used that phrase - what they should have said is that a confidentiality clause applies - neither party can reveal the content of a "Compromise Agreement".
[quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: I do wonder how the amount paid can be deemed commercially sensitive when the payer is a public authority. Its not as if they are in competition with anyone. Perhaps its just the exemption they hide behind when responding to a Freedom of Information request. I'm sure an appeal to the Info Commissioner will result in an order to divulge.[/p][/quote]God knows why they used that phrase - what they should have said is that a confidentiality clause applies - neither party can reveal the content of a "Compromise Agreement". ourcoalition
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Out There says...

Consultants, consultants and more consultants who are paid huge sums of money to hire people , to put right the damage when things go wrong , paid more to hire a replacement - surely someone should be investigating the efficacy of the so called consultants - especially looking at their track record of placing then re-placing key personnel.
Consultants, consultants and more consultants who are paid huge sums of money to hire people , to put right the damage when things go wrong , paid more to hire a replacement - surely someone should be investigating the efficacy of the so called consultants - especially looking at their track record of placing then re-placing key personnel. Out There
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree