You are not currently logged in.
Friday, May 25 2012

School caretaker 'made scapegoat for asbestos’

Woodlands Primary

by Dan Bloom

EXCLUSIVE

A school caretaker who was suspended over an asbestos scare says Medway Council made him a scapegoat.

Tony Riddington, 52, former caretaker at Woodlands Primary School, Gillingham, accused officers of ignoring asbestos problems since a 2002 fire, and trying to pin the full blame for a 2009 scare on him.

Tony RiddingtonHe was suspended over the incident, which he claimed left him no choice but to resign.

Mr Riddington, pictured left, said: "I don't think the council ever considered whether they were treating me fairly. It always seemed to be about saving their jobs and they didn't care who had to go on the way."

Mr Riddington, of Barnsole Road, brought a constructive dismissal claim against his former bosses and appeared at an employment tribunal this week.

The trouble began when Woodlands head Nic Fiddaman offered the caretaker's private firm £750,000 to build a school extension, breaching competition laws.

Estimates later rose to £2.7 million, and when the council investigated it emerged seven workers, including Mr Riddington, had been exposed to asbestos.

His firm was stripped of the work and he was suspended while a probe was carried out.

He returned as caretaker within two weeks, but said from then on: "There was always a person from the council picking holes in what I was doing. There was gossip and rumour."

At the end of the year he resigned, saying the job had become "intolerable".

He told the tribunal: "I believe they made a point of asbestos in order that the paperwork trail stopped with me.

"When all of us have retired the new people at Medway Council will see it as my fault. I believe they are trying to prevent potential future litigation regarding asbestos."

The council's principal auditor Graham Matthews admitted the fiasco had caused "considerable embarrassment" and the council's handing had been "inadequate".

The tribunal heard the council had pressurised governing body chair Elena Mutter-Child into suspending the caretaker, while Mr Fiddaman, who was not given a say, called the decision "outrageous".

Medway Council HR head Ralph Edwards said: "It was felt he should be suspended, not because he had done something personally. It just wasn't known at the time."

Mr Edwards was criticised for visiting the caretaker's home to suspend him, when rules said the head teacher or governing body should have been present.

After the hearing, Mr Riddington said: "As a caretaker I didn't wake up one morning and decide I was going to spend £2.5million of the council's money. They decided to turn the school into a two-form entry and they asked me to do it. It's as simple as that. I did as I was told."

The tribunal reserved judgement until a later date.

Friday, August 05 2011

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (3)

Post a Comment

  • Elena wrote:

    I would love to know which buildings owned by Medway Council contain asbestos and what is being done to monitor them...

    05 Aug 2011 7:54 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Michael wrote:

    I am a caretaker of three large sites and I have a budget of just £5000 per year. I would doubt very much if this gentlemen was allowed to have a say in spending £2.5million. Why do tribunal,s waste time in reserving judgement to a later date ????

    05 Aug 2011 1:04 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Mac wrote:

    It all depends on what was in his job description, and I believe "caretakers" are called "site managers" these days. The law on asbestos is that the building owner is responsible for its safe management (that's the council) and the building owner would then appoint someone to manage it safely. I'd imagine that could well be the site manager, it could be someone else. If he wasn't doing it, then his manager needs to be asked why his supervision didn't highlight it. Its not good for any business to say "well, we made so and so responsible" - ultimately corporate failures of this scale are the responsibility of someone up the chain of command.

    Secondly, if his building firm was involved in the management of asbestos as part of a building site, then he is responsible for the safety of his workers in ensuring that they are not exposed to unneccessary risk, so the finger points firmly in his direction.

    And you have to ask yourself "its not like I woke up one morning and decided I was going to spend £2.5million of the council's money". No, you probably didn't, but I can't believe the police aren't investigating this - an original £750k contract that wasn't competetivly tendered rockets to £2.5m??? I assume Mr Riddington's firm went bankrupt as a result of his altruistic attempts to help the school, and he didn't make any profit out of that £2.5 million of tax payers money???

    Medway Council has to tell the truth on this, and anyone involved in it must be subject to a throrough criminal investigation. And heads must roll at Cabinet level, but you'll never get Cllr Les Wicks who is in charge of schools to ever take responsibility for anything that happens on his watch.

    05 Aug 2011 10:23 AM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.