At the Tribunal hearing, Mr Rice-Birchall produced an internal Grattan plc "Deskpad" email dated May 10^th 2001. The message was

"Attached to the main whiteboard is a hardcopy version of the new amended ‘stop and search’ policy. Please read this as it covers all Electinfo staff regardless of background."

The message was addressed to my department, ISDS.

Mr Rice-Birchall presented that email to the Tribunal at the start of the hearing, in a surprise move about which I afterwards made a formal complaint. Although I had never denied that I was aware of the policy before its implementation, he used the email to prove that ISDS, and therefore I, was informed about the policy on May 10^th 2001. Later, Grattan seemed to forget that they were the ones who had actually introduced that evidence. In item 3 of my original chronology for the EAT, I wrote

"10/05/01

Grattan, apparently, no longer liked the bit about ISDS having been informed on May 10^th 2001. When they amended the chronology, they made the following change: -

"23/04/01

Briefing process started for the introduction of the Stop and Search policy. I was sent an internal email on 10 May 2001 informing me about the Stop and Search policy that would be implemented at an unspecified date."

Grattan also removed the word "amended", but that is another story.

In the bundle of documents used at the Tribunal hearing, Grattan had included a memorandum about the policy, dated April 23^rd 2001. It was addressed to "Circulation List II". I do not know who was on that list.

Grattan also replaced

"28/05/01

Eighteen days after my department had been informed about the policy, it was implemented."

with

"28/05/01

Eighteen days after I had been informed about the policy, it was implemented."

If I was right about the breach of contract, even employees on "Circulation List II" (who were informed on April 23^rd), had not been given sufficient notice if they were at management level. Staff employees, if employed by Grattan for more than 4 weeks, were entitled to periods of notice varying from one month to 12 weeks. According to item 9 of my contract, I was entitled, as a management level employee, to a minimum of three months notice.

(Incidentally, I cross-examined Sue Wilkinson on the subject of notice, and my closing statement accused Grattan plc of

"Breaking my contract without the 3 months notice required".

However, in their original decision, the Tribunal did not even mention the subject of proper notice. In paragraph 5, they actually praised Grattan plc: -

"The Respondents took care not to foist the new procedures on the workforce without first devising a plan to explain the system and to disseminate information to members of the staff".

When I complained about that, the Tribunal explained in paragraph 12 of their "DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW" that

"The fact that there was a failure to give notice could not have had a material impact or played any part in Mr Trotter’s decision to resign".

That may be true, but it does not explain the praise that they heaped on Grattan plc for taking such care in informing employees.)