( nI2de Mr David Beck 8 Heritage Court Haden Young Mold 44 Clarendon Road Flintshire Watford CH7 16N WD17 1DR 9 January 2006 Dear David ‘Thank you for your letters of 6" and 13" December 2005. It does appear that our correspondence of 6" and 7" did cross over and your correspondence of 13 December arrived after I'd left for a holiday. You've obviously had your Christmas holiday break since. You state in your letter of 6 December 2005 that my grievances appear to be my belief that Peter Barnes conducted my grievance meeting and subsequent investigation unfairly. My grievances were clearly set out in my ‘correspondence to Prue Jackson on 17 July 2005. In your letter of 6 December 2005 you state twice that | declined to elaborate ‘on my grievance beyond what | had given in writing. In your letter of 13 December 2005, you state that | elected by my own violation not to present my grievance but to rely on the written documentation previously presented to the company. In your letter dated 6 December 2005 you also state that | had asked you to respond to my letter dated 20 October 2005 to Prue Jackson. These three statements are inaccurate. If you recall, the company had placed an embargo on me and had refused to hold the Stage 3 meeting unless | agreed to refrain from making any comments about the fraud at the Exeter Schools project. You did refuse to answer my opening question in the Stage 3 meeting on 15 November 2005 about how long you had known and worked with Alex Currie and did respond with a barrage of questions in an aggressive and intimidating manner. [twas on this basis that | asked for a brief adjournment. On convening the Stage 3 meeting, | also did not decline to elaborate on my grievances or elect by my own violation not to present my grievance as stated in your correspondence. Both Mick Tuff from the Amicus union and myself simply explained that I had written to Personnel Director, Prue Jackson on 20Gus October 2005 including a fifteen page commentary on Peter Bames report on 20 October, which contained the additional matters | wanted to raise. | went onto explain that the two main issues i.e. the denial and rejection of my allegations of fraud and subsequent cover up by Alex Currie and Prue Jackson in the face of conclusive proof; and the way | was treated by Dave Brindley and Alex Currie after learning that | had reported the matter to Prue Jackson were intrinsically linked and that the embargo the company had placed on me made it very difficult to present the latter without referring to the former. Mick Tuff also suggested to you that we could go on for hours because of this and not get anywhere. had also taken your previous manner in account. We therefore suggested that you use my letter to Prue Jackson dated 20 October 2005 and accompanying fifteen-page commentary on Peter Bares’ report as the basis for your response. You acknowledged being in receipt of both, pondered over this for a moment and then agreed to this. In this fifteen-page document | went into specific detail about where Peter Bares had either: - a). _ Misinterpreted or misunderstood the information provided. b), Been mislead in some of the interviews. ©). Trivialised certain aspects of my grievances. d). Acknowledged what had happened where it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. e). Always provided the benefit of doubt to the recipient of the allegation. f). Ignored or given little consideration to vital/key information provided by me that corroborates my allegations. The items were numbered for ease of reference, which should have made it easy to respond. It does appear however that you have totally disregarded this document and avoided making any reference to the key/vital information contained in it. Notwithstanding all of the other points raised in the fifteen-page document, | refer in particular to the vital/key information in respect of the more serious issues of previous treatment of members of my team. Namely Roger Hughes, Dawn Pear and Neil Cappell, which proves that both Alex Currie and Dave Brindley's behaviour toward me was indicative of the way they had behaved toward others in the business. You have also totally disregarded my serious concerns about the company's procedure for blacklisting operatives and staff. This after | had provided conclusive proof to Peter that this takes place within the business.6Ue | also pointed out to Peter in the Stage 2 meeting on 25 August 2006, that | was in possession of correspondence that proved that the black listing policy was not confined to the Haden Young and took place in another Balfour Beatty subsidiary, Balfour Kilpatrick. This included names of electrical operatives that were blacklisted because of their involvement in industrial action on high profile projects such as the Royal Opera House, Pfizer and the Jubilee Line Extension. It is also important to point out the following statement from the second paragraph of your letter dated 6 December 2005. ‘You asked me to respond to your letter dated 20 October 2005 to Prue Jackson’. | must point out that it was understood by all present at the meeting that you agreed to respond to the letter and fifteen-page commentary document and not the letter in isolation, You mention in your letter of 13 December 2005 that your Whistleblowing Procedure protects me from any detrimental action being taken against me as a result of me making a good faith disclosure. This clearly did not happen and although you mention that | was given the option to either stay or leave Regional Director, Alex Currie’s meeting of 15 April 2005, | was advised by Prue Jackson that morning to attend. | had also not been made aware at this point that Finance Director, Lawson Elliott had cleared Regional Director, Alex Currie of trying to cover up the fraud to prevent a head office audit. Please try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment. How would it have been perceived if | had refused to take part in a meeting called by my Regional Director, Alex Currie? The Haden Young Whistleblowing policy also states the following: - 1. That part of the Disclosure Officer's role by law is to satisfy himself that you are reporting facts in good faith and without any ulterior motive. 2. That if you make a disclosure, the Company will preserve your anonymity to the greatest practicable extent. 3. The Disclosure Officer will decide in his absolute discretion, whether to conduct the entire investigation himself. He can involve someone else if necessary but will always bear in mind who has made the disclosure and the issue df confidentiality. 4. If you make a disclosure, you will be kept informed of the progress of the investigation. In respect of the above item 1, the investigation was not undertaken by the Disclosure Officer, Peter Bares, but referred to the Finance Director, Lawson