Brighton Cityclean depot was ‘like Animal Farm’

The KC spoke to more than 70 witnesses from all levels and jobs within Cityclean and released her report today after a three-month investigation.

Here is a stripped-down version of the full report including some of the most alarming issues to be raised about the Cityclean bin depot at Hollingbury in Brighton

Accounts

I heard numerous accounts of appalling behaviour faced by staff and managers at Cityclean including accounts of individuals:

Shouting and/or swearing at and/or threatening staff; acting in a physically aggressive way, making implicit and explicit threats to use physical violence and in fact using such violence; referring to managers as “c***s, w*****s, a f*****g b***h pulling the strings”; racially harassing members of staff including by racist name calling and graffiti; sexually harassing women staff and managers; harassing gay staff including by “catfishing” them.

GMB Union

Many of the individuals accused of these and other inappropriate behaviours are either GMB reps within the council, or are among a group of around ten white men who were described to me by witnesses as having been particularly protected by the GMB reps within the council.

I found no evidence that any of the managers I spoke to were hostile to trade unions. Many, perhaps a majority, identified themselves to me as trade union members.

Investigation

During the course of my investigations, which took place over eight weeks, I spoke to over 70 witnesses who provided their evidence to me on the basis that it would not be attributed to them in any report and that it would not be passed on to the council without express written permission. I spoke to the vast majority of these people face-to-face or on Teams. Face-to-face interviews were conducted under conditions of secrecy because of the level of fear expressed by some potential witnesses about potential retaliation. In view of the matters discussed in this report I regarded that fear as well founded.

Given the nature of my investigation it is inevitable that much of the discussion in this report is of the alleged behaviour of individuals. Many of these individuals are either GMB reps within the council, or are among a group of around ten white men who were described to me by witnesses as having been particularly protected by GMB reps within the council. I make no findings in my report of any failure on the part of the GMB regionally or nationally to investigate alleged wrongdoing, and references to GMB reps and/or to individuals described to me as being particularly protected by the GMB reps within the council should not be taken to imply that national or regional GMB condoned the actions of such individuals.

Aware

I am satisfied, however, that GMB Southern Region was aware of allegations of misconduct by the GMB rep discussed at paragraph 17 below. It was also aware of the allegations of misconduct discussed in the Doherty report referred to below.

Brighton and Hove

The city has high numbers of multiple occupancy premises with shared bins in basements and similar, which can quickly become fire hazards. It is also highly dependent on visitors who create additional waste and impose additional expectations. The result is that interruptions in waste collection can very quickly create very significant difficulties for residents, visitors and the council. This means that the threat of industrial action by waste/recycling staff carries enormous weight. Also important by way of background is the political context; Brighton and Hove City Council was created in 1997. After a period of six years in which the Labour Party was in control of the council there was a 20-year period of no overall political control, the council moving between Labour, Conservative and Green minority leaderships between 2003 and 2023 (when a majority Labour administration was elected). Further, the council operated a committee system from 2012 to 2023, which meant that council leaders of minority administration had limited powers. Many of those I spoke to told me that this factor made administrations particularly vulnerable to the threat of industrial action, particularly when the threat occurred just prior to elections. Many staff at Cityclean are unionised, with the vast majority being members of the GMB. The council recognises the GMB and Unison for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Unison

Unison has for a short time had a union rep at Cityclean but this person is at present absent from the depot for reasons discussed below. GMB reps participate in CCG (Cityclean Consultative Group meetings) meetings every six weeks with management at Cityclean. I have been told that Unison has been excluded from those meetings at the insistence of GMB reps within the council.

Bullying, criminality, intimidation and harrassment

I have been provided with evidence which suggests that, by 2017, bullying behaviours had become normalised at Cityclean. This included bullying by GMB reps within the council. There was a change of management at Cityclean in 2017 and a transformation programme was initiated to address performance, regulatory compliance and cultural issues at the depot. Concerns about criminality, intimidation, bullying and harassment were raised with senior management. Many of the concerns related to the alleged behaviour of a GMB rep. The investigations which were initiated in response resulted in escalating tensions between the GMB and the council and to allegations by the GMB that management at Cityclean were anti-union. This resulted in threats of industrial action in 2019. ACAS became involved and an external investigation was commissioned from Gerry Doherty, a former TSSA General Secretary. Mr Doherty’s death was reported at the time of drafting. According to his report, Mr Doherty was a long-standing and currently retired member of the GMB union. Mr Doherty reported in August 2019 that he had not been provided with “definitive evidence” of “anti-trade union behaviour from management”, though he could “fully understand how the GMB union came to the conclusion that management actions in [dealing with allegations that the GMB rep referred to above had physically assaulted a staff member] lead [sic] them to conclude that that there was inherent anti-trade union bias in the paid services hierarchy of the council”. I am satisfied on the evidence which I have seen that the matters investigated by Mr Doherty did not involve anti-trade union behaviour from management, further that allegations he investigated of witness intimidation by a Cityclean manager were without foundation.

Panic attacks, depression and suicidal thoughts

Unison filed a collective dispute in 2019 about alleged bullying and harassment of its members at Cityclean by GMB members. Allegations included long term agency staff being told that “they would never get a permanent job at the depot unless they supported all GMB actions, including unofficial strikes”, threats of violence by one GMB rep and statements by another that “If you f**k with me, I will make sure you never f*****g work again”. Individuals impacted by the behaviour reported panic attacks, depression and suicidal thoughts

The council’s personnel appeals panel accepted in October 2019 that impacted individuals had been “feeling under threat or unsafe, suffering from stress, anxiety and upset because of action that had been taken by GMB representatives or because of action that it was feared would be taken” and that this was ongoing. I was told that no meaningful action was taken on the panel’s decision.

Industrial action

In 2020 Labour lost control to the Greens who formed a minority administration. The GMB took industrial action in 2021. A number of witnesses told me that this was triggered by attempts by Cityclean management to performance manage a driver who was perceived as being strongly protected by GMB reps within the council. Witnesses also told me that false claims were made that the driver involved had had a heart attack. The GMB Southern Region has advised that the formal notification relating to the dispute “did not relate to the (attempted or actual) performance management of one driver”.

Like Animal Farm

One witness described Cityclean as being like Animal Farm. Others described the environment as toxic. I was told, and I accept, that there are many issues with working arrangements at Cityclean that impact the level of service to residents. One manager told me that he came into work every day with a bad taste in his mouth because he knew that he would be shouted, pointed and yelled at and people would be storming off and slamming doors. What should be straightforward managerial decisions on the utilisation of staff when, for example, people are off sick escalate into morning-long events with members of staff storming off and crews going out hours late. This witness told me that managers have to run everything through the GMB reps to avert threats of strike, that GMB reps referred to alleged agreements between the union and the council but failed to produce evidence of such, and that the addition even of a single property to a round required a consultation process with the GMB reps lasting weeks.

Fear of violence and daily abuse

One manager talked about the fear of physical violence and of not being backed up. I was told that senior managers have not been able to assure those for whom they are responsible that they will be protected from retaliation in the event that they complain about the behaviour of GMB reps within the council or individuals perceived as being particularly protected by those reps, because those senior managers had no confidence that they would be supported by more senior managers, who in turn had no confidence that they would be supported by the politicians. I was told that managers at the depot were subject to daily abuse from drivers whose behaviour was modelled on that of some GMB reps, and that managers were routinely sworn at and (publicly) about. Another aspect of the culture at Cityclean is the tendency of staff to characterise as bullying and/or harassment managerial conduct which is entirely appropriate and reasonable. I was provided with one example of a GMB rep going off sick with stress when challenged about demanding of a manager who was a few minutes late for work “What f******g time do you call this?”. Efforts by managers to require drivers to use tachograph cards to ensure compliance with rules about breaks etc were characterised as bullying. Operatives who were challenged for dropping work on their rounds complained that they were being treated less favourably than other crews. Attempts to discipline individuals described to me as being particularly protected by GMB reps within the council regularly result in threats of industrial action. There have been also cases in which disciplinary dismissals have been overturned on appeal to panels of councillors.

One manager told me that, until recently, Cityclean management expected their decisions to be overturned, to be punished by the GMB reps for having made these decisions, and for the council to fail to protect them from the punishment. The same was true, the manager suggested, for anyone who came forward to raise a concern or provide evidence as a witness.

Racist/sexist/other discriminatory abuse – depot was almost like a zoo

A number of witnesses expressed concern about racism at the depot. I heard that black staff had to put up with name calling because they wanted to get accepted by GMB members who were in positions of power, so they could get jobs and preferred shifts.I was told that a number of Cityclean staff had been subject to racist name calling by their colleagues and that a truck had been regularly defaced with racist graffiti while parked in the depot. A number of witnesses referred to misogyny and sexism at the depot. I heard that the word “c**t” was regularly used to and about managers. One operative told me that she had been subject to overwhelming sexual “banter” daily by men in the smoking area of the yard. Another spoke about the very misogynistic culture at the depot which she told me she had to put up with most of the time because of the potential risks of challenging it. A number of witnesses said that much of the criticism aimed at women in senior management was related to the fact that they were women. One manager described very personal comments having been made about her appearance. Another, who referred to the depot as being almost like a zoo, described being called names like darling, honey, and doll despite making it clear that she did not like this terminology. A third told me about low levels of misogyny across the whole depot. She got winked at constantly by men of a “certain generation”, and called “love” and “dear”. One witness spoke of a culture of racism, homophobia and sexism and told me that a group of loaders “catfished” gay staff on Grindr. One witness, who told me that he was gay, found himself the subject of homophobic “banter”while another said that a lot of people on refuse had refused to work with him because he was gay.

‘Agreements’

A number of witnesses referred to difficulties caused by various agreements which had been made, or which were claimed to have been made, between the council and the GMB. One witness referred to restrictive working practices within Cityclean which had been agreed to under threat of strike and which make it impossible for managers to performance manage or deliver the service. For example … they cannot require staff to pick up work that has been dropped; they cannot require a member of staff to cover another round for operational reasons. The GMB Southern Region advised me that the GMB had not received any reports of racism in the depot since approximately 2005, when an incident of racist graffiti led to disciplinary action, and that the GMB “do not condone, hide or excuse racism”.

When the existence of other agreements is questioned, a number of witnesses told me that the stock response is that “if you haven’t got them that’s your problem. You should have kept them”, or words to that effect, and a refusal to share them. One witness told me that when people have persisted, having formed the opinion that there was no agreement, “all hell breaks loose” and there will be a threat of industrial action.

Managers

Many staff to whom I spoke were highly critical of managers (a term I use here to include senior supervisors).

Some suggested that they did not have appropriate experience and failed to listen to staff who did have experience. A number of people told me that communication at Cityclean was poor and that operatives would be given different instructions by different managers.

Another told me that staff at Cityclean were not happy because they feel they are not being heard by managers. Some frontline workers told me that staff were overworked. One driver said that the job of loading is particularly physically difficult, with loaders walking ten miles a day. A number of operatives complained about the state of repair and reliability of lorries. Others told me that the problem was with drivers who drove too fast, failed to clean or otherwise look after their vehicles and failed to carry out vehicle checks. I heard specific complaints about the alleged behaviour of a small number of managers including allegations of inappropriate collusion between such staff and GMB reps within the council, and isolated complaints of sexualised “banter”, sexual and racist harassment, bullying and related behaviour. A number of witnesses alleged unfair processes relating to recruitment and to the deployment of agency staff. I have made some recommendations in relation to these matters including in respect of disciplinary action taken against an individual who raised concerns about bullying with me.

Aggression, drug use and drunkenness

A significant number of witnesses reported serious concerns about the behaviour of a former manager about whom I heard allegations of violent aggression, drug use and drunkenness at work. I was also told that the individual would talk publicly all the time about their sexual behaviour.

One witness told me that there were “particular individuals that the GMB will protect to the hilt but this doesn’t get extended out to other groups of members of theirs, large groups of female workers elsewhere in the council”. A second referred to people at the “top table”, GMB members at the depot who had been drivers for a long time and were all older white men.

Allegations of misconduct by GMB reps

I heard many accounts of bullying and intimidation by a number of GMB reps within the council and other individuals described as being particularly protected by them. One rep described as becoming angry, shouting and banging his fist at meetings. A witness described the rep’s behaviour as hectoring, sarcastic, patronising and misogynistic.

Another witness stated that the rep was “very, very aggressive” and would talk at length at meetings and, when anyone attempted to intervene, would start shouting about being interrupted. I was told that managers felt powerless to deal with this behaviour because of the threat of industrial action.

I have heard accounts of GMB reps within the council: Shouting and/or swearing at and/or threatening staff, including by telling them that if they acted, or failed to act, in a particular way they were “f******g finished”. An example of behaviour said to be typical from one GMB rep consisted in the following (said to manager): “You’re a f*****g shambles. This is disgusting …”

Some GMB reps were said to engage in “effing and blinding on a daily basis” in the City Clean operations room;

Acting in a physically aggressive way including by approaching and pointing in managers’ faces while shouting, making implicit and explicit threats to use physical violence and in fact using such violence; threatening to stab people; bringing weapons into the depot and showing them to staff; ordering individuals out of meetings: “you two get out or I’m leaving. Get out, get out. Go on, get out or I’m going”; reacting to being challenged by the chair of a meeting for bullying a witness by immediately stopping the meeting, refusing to continue, and accusing the manager of bullying the GMB rep; being extremely rude to women managers in meetings, including by saying to a male manager “if you can’t keep her quiet, I’m going to leave” and by accusing another woman manager, without any evidence, of lying; making inappropriate sexual comments to and about women, including stating “who would wanna f**k that?” as one woman walked past; publicly saying that women managers “don’t have a f*****g clue. They’re female. They don’t know what they’re doing”; orchestrating the ostracisation of a senior woman manager by GMB members; behaving with extreme aggression when challenged about using offensive language to refer to a black member of staff.

The behaviour of one GMB rep is such that, I was told by witnesses, managers routinely have to adjourn meetings with the rep so that they could go and calm down.

The situation has been exacerbated by the fact that there is a GMB office at Cityclean in which staff regularly congregate and which provides a focal point for resistance to management.

I was provided with evidence of obstructive conduct by various GMB reps in relation to disciplinary/grievance meetings. I was provided with evidence of five-month delays between the initiation of one disciplinary process and the first meeting, and a similar delay between the initiation of another process and the decision that there was a case to answer.

Not all of the delay was attributable to the behaviour of the GMB rep in these cases but a substantial amount of it was.

I was also provided with evidence suggestive of a dismissive attitude to sexual harassment by a GMB rep who referred to a complaint by a member of the public about alleged sexual harassment by a member of staff as ‘spurious’ prior to the complaint having been investigated. The same GMB rep sought to ensure that another sexual harassment complaint was dealt with by an exclusively male panel.

Suicide

I heard a very disturbing account of pressure said to have been imposed by a GMB rep on a vulnerable member of staff to withdraw a complaint about bullying by two staff members who were described to me as being ‘very close to the GMB’. The vulnerable individual, who later committed suicide, proceeded with the complaint. When they later expressed a wish to return to City Clean after a period of sickness leave and a temporary secondment, I was informed that another GMB rep made it clear that such return would not be tolerated. The evidence suggests that GMB reps insist on being present at, and/or consulted about, meetings between managers and GMB members irrespective of whether the Council’sprocedures allow for representation or accompaniment in the particular circumstances. There is, I am satisfied, a practice on the part of GMB reps of routinely escalating matters upwards through the Council including (at least historically) to politicians who had no proper role in the relevant matters. I heard from a number of people about the death of a driver who tragically suffered a heart attack after returning home from a disciplinary meeting. I am satisfied that the approach taken by the Council to the driver had been fair and reasonable and that those in attendance at the meeting after which he died had, with the exception of the GMB rep, been calm. I heard from a number of witnesses who nevertheless attributed this unfortunate death to the driver’s having been hounded by managers. I am satisfied that this impression was created by some of the GMB reps, one of whom called a senior manager at 7am the day after the death to accuse the manager of killing the driver. Despite this allegation having, I understand, been withdrawn,I heard evidence of subsequent such allegations against managers, including from another GMB rep. The evidence suggests that one GMB rep, in particular, sought to weaponise the driver’s death against City Clean management.

I am satisfied that the working environment at City Clean can fairly be described as toxic. I am satisfied that some GMB reps within the Council operate to protect some GMB members at City Clean (drivers, the majority of them white men, and operatives on refuse and recycling) while displaying significantly less interest in other members. I have been provided with credible evidence that the nature of that protection appears to extend well beyond the normal stuff of trade unions to include:

Providing effective immunity from sanction for individuals protected by GMB reps within the Council;

Routine sabotage of investigatory and disciplinary processes by some GMB reps by delaying tactics, use of strategic counter-allegations and unacceptable behaviour by reps in correspondence and interviews;

Retaliatory action against managers who are involved in disciplinary action against individuals protected by GMB reps within the Council;

The use of intimidation to encourage GMB membership and participation in GMB industrial action.

I am satisfied that some GMB reps have encouraged staff to regard entirely reasonable management orders as tantamount to harassment or bullying, and/or as breaching agreements which do not exist. This has had the effect of making City Clean exceptionally difficult

I make no finding that the many difficulties currently experienced at City Clean or, in particular, the failures over time to enforce appropriate standards of behaviour or to require staff to comply with their contractual obligations, can fairly be attributed to City Clean managers.

I found no evidence that any of the managers I spoke to were hostile to trade unions. Many, perhaps a majority, identified themselves to me as trade union members.