Post by ADP Elite Link Ltd

The Contradiction That Remains The CEO Remains Wilfully Blind. On 22 September 2016, an internal email circulated between senior management and HR asserted: "So we're currently £278k over our original budgets, which I firmly believe is primarily attributable to the Construction Manager's involvement." This puts any Employee #Tribunal and #legal fees into perspective and is the reason, in my opinion, we cannot delay taking action against KJ any longer.” Kind regards, PM, #Eight2O Joint Venture / Alliance The following day, the Construction Manager was dismissed. However, elsewhere within the evidential material, contemporaneous project records recorded substantially different cost positions for the same projects. The existence of competing financial narratives raises an obvious question: If the financial allegations were significant enough to justify urgent disciplinary action in 2016, how can those same financial allegations later be described as "irrelevant" to the dismissal decision? Both propositions cannot comfortably exist together without explanation. The #CEO's Position in 2025 In 2025, the #ChiefExecutive stated: "The cost position on the two projects mentioned in your emails was not the cause of Mr [Victim]'s dismissal." That statement creates a further governance question. If the costs were not relevant to the dismissal, why were they repeatedly referenced during the disciplinary process, appeal process, witness evidence, and subsequent proceedings? And if they were relevant, why do contradictory financial histories remain unreconciled? The Human Consequence This is not simply an accounting issue. It concerns the reputation of an individual with more than forty years in the construction industry and nine years of service with the employer. Professional reputations are not built overnight. Nor should they be lost on the basis of allegations that remain disputed, contradictory, or unexplained. The central issue remains unchanged: Before a reputation is destroyed, the evidence should be capable of standing on its own. If contradictory records exist, they should be reconciled. If serious allegations are made, they should be supported by transparent and auditable evidence. And where substantial questions remain unanswered, accountability requires those questions to be addressed rather than ignored https://lnkd.in/e-GjAtNi