A Labour councillor who has been suspended by the local party was previously sacked for fraud, it has emerged.
Councillor Bharti Gajjar took her former employers British Gas to an employment tribunal claiming she had been sacked because of her disabilities.
But the judge struck out her claim, ruling that she was sacked for moonlighting at the University of Warwick while receiving carers’ allowance.
He also found that after she was due back at work, she had made up a road traffic accident in order to carry on working at the university.
Gajjar had worked as a customer service advisor for British Gas in Leicester for 17 years when she was dismissed for gross misconduct.
When her son was involved in an accident at school, British Gas granted her paid carers leave while he recovered at home, in what the ruling said “appears to have been an untypical situation”.
The ruling, made by Employment Judge Ahmed in August 2018, said: In the early hours of 8 April 2017, the claimant’s manager received a message on her mobile phone purportedly from the Leicestershire Police to say that the claimant had been involved in a road accident and that she would not be in at work on Monday.
“The manager thought it rather odd that the police should contact an employer directly about absence from work.
“Enquiries were made of Leicestershire Police who said that they had no record of any such call.
“The respondent decided to make further enquiries. They interviewed the claimant who initially said that the accident occurred on a return journey from her aunt’s house.
“However, that was not true and Ms Gajjar later admitted that she was actually returning from a second job she had recently started at The University of Warwick.
“Further enquiries revealed that the Claimant had been in paid employment on at least some of the occasions when she in receipt of payment by way of carers leave.
“There was then a fairly detailed investigation which culminated in the claimant being called to a disciplinary hearing on 21 September 2017.
“Following the disciplinary hearing the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in falsifying a claim for carers leave which necessarily implies that the claimant is not able to work.”
Judge Ahmed said that at the hearing, Gajjar said British Gas knew she was working at the unversity, but was unable to offer any evidence that was the case.
She was also unable to offer any evidence she had been discriminated against because of any disability.
He said: “I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the disability discrimination complaint getting off the ground.
“The claimant’s narrative as to what she is complaining about tends to shift from one moment to the next. Her written case is in stark contrast to what she says today.
“There are differences in her own accounts of discussions with her manager about taking breaks. She does not raise any potential facts which could give rise to an inference of direct discrimination.”
Earlier today, Brighton and Hove Labour announced Cllr Gajjar and Cllr Chandni Mistry, who Brighton and Hove News understands is related to Cllr Gajjar, were both the subject of an investigation.
Brighton and Hove Labour chief whip, Cllr Amanda Grimshaw, said: “Pending the outcome of an investigation by the Labour Party, Cllr Gajjar and Cllr Mistry have been removed from their positions on outside bodies, committees and lead member roles until the investigation is complete.
“They are also currently not permitted to attend Labour Group meetings.”
Cllr Gajjar is ward councillor for Kemptown and Cllr Mistry is councillor for Queen’s Park.
It does not stop the elected Cllr carrying on their other duties as a Cllr does it? Indeed it releases them from party meetings ect… did one of them get an award recently?
Do you want fraudsters in the council? I don’t.
She does nothing but take the money!
I am used to Brighton Labour loosing one Councillor a year, for a variety of reasons; expulsion, moving to the Tories or just giving up. So far this administration seems to have lost three in six months, which does not bode well. An organization so distracted by infighting and quarrelling can not be focused on running the city.
Labour knew already, all the checks are made before council employment. Nepotism at large.
Councillors aren’t employees. The due dil is supposed to be done by the party (and by the electors who put a cross in their box).
one assumes both cllrs can still undertake their other duties as cllrs …. and get their money …
Cllr Gajjar has done nothing for Kemptown ward. She was on a six week holiday after the election and hopeless ever since.
petty – honestly?
2 more proud GMB members caught up on the City Clean witch hunt?
Thank you very much, Jo, for doing Kemptown residents in particular (and the wider electorate more generally) a service. The local party’s initial vetting procedure for candidates seems to be inadequate and they might like to reflect on that. However, it is encouraging that Cllr Grimshaw has moved on this. Not that we, the public, are allowed to know what these allegations are yet, but hopefully a fair and transparent investigation and report to the public will follow swiftly.
I have some experience on this – DBS checks aren’t available to the parties, it’s not employment and it isn’t an appropriate use of the system.
The Conservative Party (and I suspect the Labour Party too) just had a tick box stating “is there anything in your past that will embarrass you or the party”. Clearly this Councillor didn’t think to tick “yes”.
It sounds like she would not at all be out of place as a member of the council with which we are now lumbered.
The national party did the vetting on this, they took the power away from the local party and imposed these candidates. At each turn the national party rejected the concerns of local members, at last action is taking place. Only when the evidence mounted of dodgy addresses, tribunals and their council declarations did national party agree local party could take action.
To be fair, Kemptown CLP is pretty dodgy. I saw several internal elections get blatantly rigged a few years ago (one with the full collusion of the national party). Not people you want running anything!
Next time vote Independent! Local councillors for local issues! Delink national politics from running a city for the benefit of its citizens (customers)
If they are expelled from the Labour Party, they will become independent.
Gajjar never shows up to anything anyway. She is invisible. She is a councillor for the cash only. We should just pay her off and let someone who does some work take over.
‘Pay her off’? What for? Just get rid of her. The order of the boot costs nothing.
If these councillors had been independent then there would be no party to discipline them. And are you in the habit of buying tins of stuff from the supermarket with no label on them?!
‘Twas ever thus. There could a television series: “I’m a Councillor – Get Me Outta Here!”
She was parachuted in to make up a Labour majority for the May election. Of course Labour knew already.
Funny how a certain Green man and wife Councillor team were allowed to keep all their privileges having been caught fidding their actual council expenses though, not to mention awarding council contracts to his own company.
Or maybe there’s a game plan to getting this councillor out.
Isn’t Chandni Mistry the councillor who was mysteriously nominated for a national award as Young Councillor of the Year after only five months in the job and apparently having never yet spoken at a council meeting?
Shock horror! A Labour councillor in trouble for fraud! It goes a long way to explaining some of the sleazy and secretive contracts they are covering up….
good to see the link with the ET preliminary hearing judgment but we need to see the final judgment on the unfair dismissal itself to get the full flavour of the apparent fraud ect and the link between the other cllr. Neither of this seems to be so heinous to warrant being kicked out to the Labour Party or indeed the Council. After all, it is not as if a Cllr. has to be as eternally 100% pure like a vicar …..
Hi bunter, that’s a good point – here’s the full judgement:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d5d357040f0b670654d8cce/Ms_B_Gajjar_v_Bristish_Gas_Services_Limited_2600449_2018_reasons.pdf
It does find the dismissal was unfair because of a technicality, but awards no compensation on the basis her actions were “dishonest” and “grossly blameworthy conduct”
re: ET JUDGMENT on the unfair dismissal april 2019
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d5d357040f0b670654d8cce/Ms_B_Gajjar_v_Bristish_Gas_Services_Limited_2600449_2018_reasons.pdf
the Judge, sitting alone, said the conduct was “so serious that it would be just and equitable to award nil” compensation. It does not quantify the “significant pecuniary … benefits”. If the tribunal had been composed by 3 members (which it would have been if it considered the disabililty matter as well), the outcome might have been different e.g. Polkey 75% fault only. And of course the events were over 5 years ago.
P. S. i posted the ET docs. around the same time that you did so; so you can delete that as i cannot seem to be able to do so .
Let’s just get one thing straight. A newspaper, or any other media outlet, is perfectly entitled to include links to matters of public record about persons of local interest/importance, such as B&H News has above re tribunals. Arguing the toss about whether things would have been different if this, that and the other had happened at the tribunals gets nobody anywhere. What happened happened. The tribunals may or may not be relevant to whatever is going on with the investigation, but B&H News is entitled to mention them and has a public interest duty to do so.
The basic issue now appears to be whether or not these councillors fulfilled the criteria, such as residence, for standing in the first place – see Felice Southwell’s latest article. The conditions are not that onerous – see the council website for details. There may be other factors, who knows, but the investigation should be allowed to proceed properly until there is clarity about what the allegations actually are and all parties directly concerned have had a fair opportunity to state their case. Hopefully, this will happen fairly quickly, because constituents are obviously speculating and a few are going off half-cocked with what-ifs and maybes. It’s in everyone’s interests in B&H – and particularly in the Kemptown and Queen’s Park Wards – to have this resolved fairly and openly as soon as possible.
Makes a mockery of their selection process.
They need to ‘come clean’ about any concerns.
Then they should resign and ask the electorate to endorse them if they believe they’re right for the job.
The Labour councillor for Whitehawk ( who lives in Hove of course ) was complaining he’d got the bum end constituency and hoped to move on soon . Maybe he can move into posh Kemptown now ?