As at 31 December 2012 CABA had just under £2 million pounds in income but had unrestricted reserves of £86.1m.
CABA has 27 employees
1 employee earned £100,000 – £110,000
1 employee earned £70,000 – £80,000
Pension contributions relating to these two employees during the year were £9,000 and £6,000 respectively.
WHAT DO CABA DO?
CABA helps current and former ICAEW members facing a wide range of life-issues. However, despite sitting on £86 million pounds in reserves accounts show that in 2012 Direct Aid expenditure fell by £66,000 and Expenditure on longer term grants fell by £129,000.
HOW DO CABA TREAT THEIR EMPLOYEES
CABA Statement on Employees:
The quality and commitment of our staff has played a major role in our success. Employees’ performance is aligned to Charity goals and individual objectives. We train our staff in order to ensure that they are supported in achieving their objectives.
CABA & Treatment of Employees
Charity Watch UK has received reports that CABA do not support their staff as they claim and that there is a culture of bullying and a highly authoritarian approach to management.
One case in particular has recently been completed, in the employees favour, at an employment tribunal.
Samantha Reddy had been employed by CABA for more than four years. Following difficulties at work she resigned in July 2013 and made a claim for constructive dismissal to the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal hearing was held in Birmingham in late January 2014. It was found that she had been unfairly dismissed and the Judgment was published on 17 February 2014. The Employment Tribunal found CABA to have “fallen well short of the standards reasonably required of an employer”.
The full story has been well documented here: Third Sector News article.
Some highlights of the tribunal findings make interesting reading.
CABA have a highly authoritarian approach to management.
The tribunal’s judgment says that Reddy’s managers (Natalie Worth and Kelly Feehan) called her into a series of meetings in which issues were raised about her behaviour, attitude and standard of dress. Reddy’s managers claimed the meetings were informal but the tribunal found that they were disciplinary in nature.
In June, Reddy wrote to Feehan asking for a more detailed explanation in writing of the accusations made against her by her managers, but Feehan refused to provide one.
The tribunal noted that this placed Reddy “in the Kafkaesque dilemma of being told that she must behave better in future without ever having been told when or how she had done wrong in the past”.
In a final meeting on 12 July last year between Reddy and Caba’s HR manager, Tracey Birch, Birch accused Reddy of being paranoid and stormed out. The tribunal describes Birch’s behaviour as “unprofessional and inappropriate” and Worth’s management style in general as “autocratic and old-fashioned”.
CABA used the old trick of employing an “independent person” (who was anything but) to deal with Ms Reddy’s grievance. He had worked previously with CABA’s employment advisers – He also sent his report to the managers at CABA but not to Ms Reddy. Because the grievance procedure took five months to complete the tribunal awarded an extra 25% , to Ms Reddy, in compensation.
An unknown spokesperson for CABA said:
“As befits a charity in our position, we strive to be transparent and fair in our handling of all staffing matters. However, like any organisation, we sometimes make errors and the employment tribunal finding showed that improvements could be made in some areas of our procedures. We are therefore currently reviewing the relevant HR procedures in order to ensure that a similar issue is very unlikely to arise in the future.”
Caba claims that its trustees take their legal and ethical responsibilities towards staff seriously and have faith in the charity’s leadership team.
Ms Reddy disagreed:
“A very large number of employees have left or been forced to leave, some of them in circumstances perhaps not dissimilar to the situation I found myself in. This reflects very badly on the how the charity is managed. Many have received a pay-off and or have had to sign confidentiality clauses.”
Others have also written to Charity Watch UK and disagreed:
“I know of 7 people, not including myself, who’s grievances were silenced in effect by compromise agreements or tribunal hearings. My concern is that a charity that promotes health and wellbeing has been so damaging to so many lives.”
“CABA is an organisation that creates work for its own purpose, to justify extortionate pay at senior level and in effect make profit that is not directly put to the use of its members seeking help is immoral. I feel ashamed to have worked in such an environment.”
And perhaps the answer to what are CABA for?
“The pay of the managers and the chief executive equated to more than the combined charitable donations it made to 200 clients during the time I was there.”
Given the large reserves (£86 million) CABA look like a charity that exists to satisfy the management, with little being spent on their clients.
Charity Watch asks:
How much of the charity’s money has been spent on settling claims with disgruntled employee’s?
Has the charity disciplined any of the managers who are causing the conflict?