Claire Perry reveals how she had to sack “incapable” best friend from constituency post

Claire Perry, Marlborough’s Tory MP, has revealed that she sacked her best friend Penelope Nurick from her constituency office job in Devizes because she was “incapable” of carrying out her role.

Mrs Perry, who has faithfully  supported the government’s austerity cuts, had her own one by sacking Mrs Nurick in a  “substantial staff reshuffle”.

Mrs Nurick, who lives in Devizes, was one of Mrs Perry’s seconders when she stood as the Conservative Party candidate in 2010 after sitting MP Michael Ancram stood down, and had worked in her office for two years.

She was formally sacked from her administrative role on February 23 when 48-year-old Mrs Perry replaced her with another employee in the constituency office.

Mrs Nurick launched legal proceedings against Mrs Perry following the decision, claiming she had been “unfairly dismissed” by the outspoken former banker MP.

Mrs Perry told a Employment Tribunal in Bristol yesterday (Monday) that she was forced to fire her friend after senior advisor Christopher Jones left his job in November 2011, reports the Western Daily Press and Daily Mail online.

She said she was unable to replace Mr Jones and so decided to split his extensive job role between her London and Devizes offices.

She hired Tamara Reay, who was able to cover both policy and “surgery only” roles, in her Devizes office at the expense of Mrs Nurick.

“It was clear from our early experiences that she [Mrs Nurick] would struggle with more responsibility,” Mrs Perry told the hearing. The claimant required a lot of managing and support, particularly in the IT area, and all of this lead me to believed that this would not be something she would not be able to do, she would be incapable.

“I could not afford to keep Mrs Nurick on doing a surgery only job and employ someone to do a local policy job. I found someone who could do both.”

 Mrs Perry said budgetary constraints from Westminster meant that she could only employ a limited number of staff members for her constituency.

“What I had realised was that I needed to have more local policy placement,” she added. “With Mr Jones leaving there was a vacuum at the top of my team and I had decided that there was a restructuring that needed to happen.”

“Everybody’s job has changed in London and the local office, there was a very substantial reshuffle.  As a result of all of those changes I realised I couldn’t keep Mrs Nurick on in her role.”

“I can only employ three and a half staff per 100,000 constituents.  Everybody’s job has changed in London and the local office, there was a very substantial reshuffle.”

Giving evidence, Mrs Nurick told the tribunal she would have taken a pay cut to stay working for her friend.  However, she accepted she would not have been able to carry out the new role created by the MP in the staff reshuffle and would have turned it down had it been offered to her.”

Mrs Nurick said she was unable to undertake employment for more than two days a week at the Devizes office, adding: “I wouldn’t have been able to argue with her that she needed to make the change to someone who books in surgery appointments and has a local policy role too.”

“But I wouldn’t have been interested in a four-day-week role it would have been difficult.  I couldn’t have done it for other work commitments.”

Mrs Nurick pointed out that had the four-day-a-week job been offered under a job share policy she may have been prepared to undergo a pay-cut to keep her job.

“Had I had the opportunity to talk with her I would have asked her to think about the structure of the job,” she said.  “She could have continued to employ Tamara Reay in a local policy capacity, which is what she wanted, and I could have done the surgery booking.”

“If I had been consulted I would have said I would have preferred to reduce my salary and that may have helped the figures.”

She refused to reveal exactly by how much but stated outright she would not have volunteered or worked for “significantly less” than she had before.

She said: “I have not thought about volunteering, in the circumstances it would be a smack in the face to volunteer in the office with Ms Reay there and being paid to do what I did.”

Mrs Nurick, who worked for Mrs Perry’s predecessor Michael Ancram for eight years before joining Mrs Perry’s office, said she had looked for other jobs but had restricted her search to local, part time jobs and was not prepared to give up her time or money to drive somewhere else.

She is claiming compensation from Mrs Perry for loss of earnings until the next parliamentary election in three years’ time.

Although the Mrs Perry has conceded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, she still maintains there was a valid reason for it.

Tribunal chairman Mrs J Mulvaney reserved her judgement.