Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Pin-down care worker 'a scapegoat'

Monday 28 June 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A SENIOR social worker sacked in the wake of the 'pin-down' childcare scandal has won his case for unfair dismissal after claiming that he was used as a scapegoat by his superiors.

Jaime Rodriguez, senior assistant with Staffordshire County Council's social services department, was dismissed last year after implementing the controversial method of controlling youngsters. At the time, Mr Rodriguez was the social worker in charge of 20 children at the Birches Family Centre, one of the county's four children's homes.

He claimed that he was sacked to save the reputations of his chiefs, following harsh criticism of the 'pin- down regime', which involved isolating youngsters, confining them and denying them their usual clothes.

A two-day tribunal hearing in Birmingham yesterday agreed with Mr Rodriguez: 'We find it inconceivable that the reputation of the respondents was not in the minds of the (disciplinary) committee and appeal committee when they made their respective decisions.' The panel added: 'We are satisfied the respondents . . . did not have reasonable grounds for concluding they could no longer have confidence in his judgement.'

The two sides are preparing to discuss a settlement involving either reinstatement or compensation.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in