Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into union and employer excesses, by Jim Lynchehaun, XXXXXXXX Address Supplied XXXXXXXX.

I worked for ConvaTec Deeside between 1989 and 2000. I had complained to senior members of the ConvaTec management team and in 2000 to the Corporate Ombudsman at Bristol-Myers Squibb, the division’s parent company, about a number of serious issues, including unrecorded health and safety lapses and the fraudulent use of company assets. I left employment at the time of a restructuring. My post was filled within 2 months by contract labour.

For the sake of clarity I should expand upon my claim that there was fraudulent use of company assets. ConvaTec had a supplier that occupied an adjacent site. It was clear to all, or should I say, it should have been clear to all that there was an inappropriate relationship between ConvaTec and the supplier. ConvaTec was continually supplied with out of spec materials that had a huge negative impact on production. These sub-standard and out of spec materials were never returned to the supplier but were scrapped or, with great difficulty, used in the manufacturing process. As far as I could ascertain no credit was raised against these out of spec supplies. This to me was poor management, but was also indicative of a bigger problem as ConvaTec paid for some of the supplier’s operational costs. For instance, the ConvaTec gatehouse monitored the security for the supplier, through ADT. ConvaTec also lent labour to the supplier on an Ad Hoc basis. It was quite clear the relationship with our supplier was totally unprofessional and left ConvaTec open to my claim that there was fraudulent use of company assets. I would later be forced to sign an undertaking not to disclose this and other information. I accept that I am now in breach of that undertaking. Who approved the undertaking and who at a later date refused to lift the undertaking will say much about ConvaTec’s relationship with the supplier. I believe ConvaTec could have saved millions of pounds by addressing this problem; instead they had a cost cutting restructuring, at which point I left the company. ConvaTec is now privately owned, but when I raised the issue in 2000 it was a division of a listed company, Bristol-Myers Squibb. I was a Bristol-Myers Squibb shareholder.

Back to the story. The day I left ConvaTec I received an email from a barrister named Leon de Costa asking if £100.00 would buy legalrights.co.uk, a domain name I owned. He did not say whether or not he represented anyone other than himself. As a result of this contact I followed various links until I came upon a website, esettle.co.uk, which was run by Mr de Costa. I used his site to make a claim for constructive dismissal against my employer; in doing so I provided ConvaTec with information that was critical to my case. At a later date, using emails and web traffic data, I uncovered what I believed was a working relationship between Leon de Costa and FBI deputy director, Thomas J Pickard. Pickard was second in command to Louis J Freeh, director of the FBI. Pickard’s duties at the time of leaving the FBI in 2001 were investigation into the East Coast Anthrax mailings and the 911 attacks. His resume fails to mention he was also investigating me. Pickard joined Bristol-Myers Squibb in January 2002, reporting to John L McGoldrick. John L McGoldrick was head of the group of which ConvaTec was part; he was also general counsel for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Pickard would later be joined by his boss, Louis J Freeh who also went to work for Bristol-Myers Squibb but as a board member. As far as I know, no statement has ever been made by the FBI, or Bristol-Myers Squibb, regarding the investigation.

So, why would the FBI have been investigating me? I make no bones about the fact I joked about blowing up a packaging machine that I thought was a load of junk. On reflection, it wasn’t the most sensible thing to joke about. That may be the reason the FBI will give for their involvement, if ever they’re called to account. I’m convinced the real reason is somewhat more sinister. I believe I suffered retaliation for whistle-blowing to the Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporate Ombudsman  when I reported fraudulent use of company assets and I unintentionally raised the spectre of a Mesothelioma-like claim against Bristol-Myers Squibb, by insisting ConvaTec record extremely high exposure levels to solvents in a maintenance operation conducted on the “hot melt” process.

Well, what of the history of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Ombudsman in relation to ConvaTec employees? A number of employees at ConvaTec had found it necessary to contact the ombudsman. One called Dennis had fallen out with the HR manager. He phoned the ombudsman. The ombudsman told him to resolve his problems by taking his case to the HR manager – the man he’d complained about. A second individual also found it necessary to write to the ombudsman anonymously. The ombudsman returned his letter to the factory manager, who called a meeting of the department he thought the letter had come from. He threatened that if he found out who had sent the letter, the culprit’s life wouldn’t be worth living. Then there was me. I put a letter in the internal post to the ombudsman. I was phoned at home, told my letter had been taken out of the post, and threatened with the sack by a manager who I didn’t even report to. He’d been given the information by the HR manager. So, that’s what we’re looking at when we’re looking at the Bristol-Myers Squibb ombudsman.

Back to the story again. After I left the division, I approached ACAS with a view to them mediating between ConvaTec and myself. Their man admitted to discussing the matter with ConvaTec but told me he was unable to assist and refused to meet me.

In the meantime, following the email from esettle in which I claimed constructive dismissal, the ConvaTec HR director asked my permission- which I gave – to have my case referred to the ConvaTec board of directors for their consideration. In a submission I asked the board if they could facilitate my transfer to another Bristol-Myers Squibb plant. The request was refused.

I went to Eversheds solicitors Manchester to get advice on taking ConvaTec to an employment tribunal. Peter Norbury was head of the Human Resources department at Eversheds. Eversheds advised me that I didn’t have a case, so I decided to go it alone.

During the period running up to the tribunal hearing I received a call on my mobile that I failed to answer. On calling the missed number, I was informed I was talking to Shrewsbury Employment Tribunal. That was worrying as that was the tribunal that was hearing my case and I had not provided them with my mobile number. I asked my MP, Angela Eagle, to investigate. She wrote to the tribunal and received the reply that my number had been dialed randomly. As far as I know, she did not take the matter further. I lost the case.

Again in 2001 I wrote a number of times to the Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporate Ombudsman, but each time I wrote it seemed there was another instance of an East Coast Anthrax Mailing. In 2003 a later Corporate Ombudsman denied the office had received any communication from me. One explanation would be she was lying and she had received my letters; a second explanation might be that Thomas J Pickard’s FBI team, who were investigating the Anthrax mailings, and me, intercepted my letters. As stated earlier, Pickard went to work for Bristol-Myers Squibb in January 2002. Why hasn’t anyone ever been charged with sending the Anthrax letters?

As improbable as it may seem, at Christmas 2001, I was the subject of a Department of Justice/MI6 operation in Barbados; my passport is date stamped for entry on the 22nd December, the same date that Richard Reid the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane. I believe I was being implicated in what I see as a Department of Justice web of deceit surrounding this whole incident. On the outward flight I’d been aware that I was being watched by the individual in the seat next but one to me. I can only assume he was a spook. To confirm my suspicions, I feigned discomfort with my foot and I played with my shoe to alleviate the non-existent problem. This caused alarm to my fellow passenger. On arrival at Barbados the spook jumped the line in the arrivals area and sped off into the terminal. The following day I had a discussion with a number of individuals regarding ‘some arsehole, who tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb’ and had what I felt was an esoteric exchange on the subject of Mesothelioma contracted in the workplace. It was a day or two after that I found out about Reid. Due to a number of other incidents, I returned from holiday a week early suffering acute anxiety; to say I feared for my life, would be an understatement. Jack Straw who had been Home secretary at the time of the FBI/UK operation was at this time foreign secretary. Here’s one for the conspiracy theorists: my passport is also date stamped for entry to Barbados on the 15th June 2005, the date the DoJ and Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. As part of the agreement Bristol-Myers Squibb escaped being charged with “conspiracy to commit securities fraud”. Was this the Department of Justice and Bristol-Myers Squibb sticking up a finger to me? Who knows, but that little episode cost Bristol-Myers Squibb shareholders a cool $300 million dollars. This part of my story, I accept, sounds implausible. Then you remember who was in charge, Bush and “Old Weapons of Mass Destruction” Blair, and maybe it doesn’t seem that far-fetched after all, and then of course there’s the passport entries. What are the chances of those dates coinciding? Passport available to interested parties.

Following my return from Barbados at Christmas 2001, the psychological warfare continued. My bank, the Halifax in Liscard, Wallasey, that I had been a customer with for many years, was unable to find any record of me having an account with them. When I returned to the bank some time later with documents to prove I was a customer, one of the tellers who had been involved left the bank saying ‘let me out of here!!’ I am not prepared to name the tellers/bank employees involved, as I know their instructions came from above. Since then there has been an organized campaign by the UK authorities to undermine me. I don’t intend to publish the methods the UK authorities use to get at whistleblowers, but I feel certain that Dr David Kelly would have gone through hell before he died.

In September 2002, I put up a website, legalrights.co.uk, attacking ACAS, Shrewsbury Employment Tribunal, ConvaTec and Bristol-Myers Squibb. I commented on the unrecorded health and safety lapses and the fraudulent use of company assets at ConvaTec. I questioned the involvement of FBI deputy director Thomas J Pickard, and commented on the fact the UK government, under Tony Blair, would be aware of any FBI operation taking place in the UK – UK services may well have assisted the FBI. As I have said previously, Jack Straw was Home Secretary at the time. As there was FBI involvement, the fact I may have been portrayed as a terrorist or worse, by someone I had pointed the finger at had not escaped me. Under those circumstances I questioned the judgement of the authorities to let me work as an IT technician at West Kirby Grammar School for Girls. Peter Norbury of Eversheds solicitors took on the case for ConvaTec. They threatened me with legal action if I didn’t take the site down and sign an undertaking not to criticise ConvaTec again. I reluctantly complied. Copy of undertaking available to interested parties.

I later complained to the Law Society that there was a conflict of interest on the part of Eversheds. The Law Society said there wasn’t and backed Eversheds against me. I found this strange, as apart from the employment tribunal route, which I accept has quite tight time constraints, I believe I would have been able to take action against ConvaTec in a number of ways had it not been for Eversheds taking up the case for ConvaTec. Quite clearly my whole case was undermined, as all my documentation relating to the case had been viewed and copied by Eversheds when advising me, just eighteen months before they, Eversheds, represented ConvaTec against me.

In 2003, I emailed Peter Dolan, Chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, to complain and to tell him the real reason for the FBI involvement; the possibility of a Mesothelioma-like case against Bristol-Myers Squibb. In an email response from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Ombudsman I was told they had no record of me having contacted them previously but that they supported the actions of ConvaTec and the gag that they had forced on me.

As late as 2007 I wrote a three page letter outlining my concerns to Peter Norbury of Eversheds, ConvaTec's solicitor. It should have been quite clear from this letter I was not happy with the situation and that I felt issues had not been addressed by ConvaTec and Bristol-Myers Squibb. I received no response. Copy of letter available to interested parties.

In January 2008, I reported what went on to the American authorities, through the US embassy in London. I have a letter from the Merseyside police to confirm. Copy of letter from Merseyside police available to interested parties.

As I felt what I had to say fell within the terms of reference of the Chilcot inquiry inasmuch as the inquiry website states the terms are “very broad” and my statement relates to the activities of western agencies prior to the Iraq war, I made a submission to the inquiry on the 18/01/2011. In a follow up email I offered to give verbal evidence to the inquiry.

I had contact with Eversheds solicitors and ConvaTec in 2011, when I requested they release me from the undertaking. They declined to do so.

Of course, the undertaking (gag) and the fact FBI investigating officers went to work for Bristol-Myers Squibb, one in a very senior position, raises the question of disclosure when Bristol-Myers Squibb sold ConvaTec. From my point of view, I don’t really care whether Bristol-Myers Squibb did or did not make full disclosure, nor whether Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, actually exists. My intention has always been to obtain redress in the form of compensation for being accused of being a terrorist. I have my suspicions as to who was responsible for naming me as a terrorist, and I have no doubt in my mind that their intentions were cynical. I’ve had many years of hell as a result of that accusation and it has had an horrendous effect on my personal and family life. I’ve gone through what I consider to be the correct procedures at all times: ConvaTec management; Bristol-Myers Squibb ombudsman; ACAS; solicitor; employment tribunal; Member of Parliament; Law Society; Bristol-Myers Squibb Ombudsman again and now finally Parliament

Yours Faithfully,

James (Jim) Lynchehaun. 

22/11/2013

5 Pages