H&H Response to brewdog board letter - 01.04.2022

-/-

DETAILS REMOVED

Via email, received by a representative 

-/-

01.04.2022

Re: Re: Hand & Heart Reconciliation Program

Dear NAME REMOVED

Thank you for your letter received via email today 04.01.2022, and dated 31.03.2022. 

It comes after I paused discussions in order to meet a time-sensitive obligation placed upon me by a representative of your company. This obligation jeopardizes the integrity of the platform in question and the very reconciliation program you discuss. After reading your letter, I do agree there is no discussion to return to. 

I shall take the opportunity of this first contact from you to say, directly and personally, to a peer in business: I will not be forced to do business under duress that is unaligned with my company values, and I will not be forced to withhold information from the people it impacts. I have stated the reasons for putting those facts public very clearly in the statement itself. 

I do take great issue with your accusations of misleading platform participants, encouraging malicious intent, coercion, breach of guidelines, and the document I used to advocate for Affected Worker’s Contingencies ‘’Non-negotiables’’ being unable to be considered by any company. Your letter is offensive, uninformed, and inconsistent with the paper trail I have at hand. Any attempt to accuse me of extortion or coercion is refuted by the very nature in which the platform was established, my conduct with participants, the wishes of participants, and my conduct to date. I chose to pause any business with BrewDog when an individual of your organization sought information from my company in a way that compromises the integrity of the platform. 

(cont…)

H&H gave BrewDog options in good faith, and at the behest of the platform. BrewDog made their choices. Your letter today is the latest of those choices. Regrettably, it is filled with unfounded accusations and uninformed assertions, and frankly, is unbecoming of a leader of your stature and position in the business community. To ensure a truthful record of events, I have attached a topic by topic response (notes) to the end of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Kate Bailey

MD, Hand & Heart

(end letter, notes attached)

#

Correction of accusations of misconduct by Brewdog Board, received 01.04.2022 and date 31.03.2022 (start)

I’d like to begin by clarifying the timeline, as per my records and recollection:

1. H&H created and announced platform, and proceed exactly as outlined in FAQ. I have held onto all my obligations of representing those individuals for free and providing vast support for the psychological safety and security. 

2. BrewDog took a meeting about the platform. I presented a lengthy deck about why the platform exists, the stance of individuals, the hope of individuals and so on. There was meant to be a discussion, but in fact, it was your representatives who fast tracked the conversation and asked me to describe my reconciliation work.

3. BrewDog then formally requested a reconciliation process recommendation. I made it clear I would discuss that with participants (a substantial group of individuals), replicating the process prior. They made clear their contingencies which related to many with pending legal concerns. I sent them over ahead of the meeting. I refrained a number of times from commenting on concerning publics issues, as well as the personal attacks and harassment extending to me and my business.

4. The final meeting, to discuss the deck, indicated that representatives could not understand the concept of investigation as a process requiring engagement from both sides to ascertain the truth, and kept insisting I was proposing something to keep BrewDog out of the process when there were two key components of the entire program that required this involvement. 

5. I have a legal deadline to respond to and one that requires a legal defence of the platform. I did not feel that was fair or just to continue discussions. So, I put them on pause, and provided a public update and answered questions from the the media. I made it clear why I was going forward with that statement.

6. You have sent this letter accusing me of misleading platform participants, encouraging malicious intent, coercion, breach of guidelines and the document I used to advocate for Affected Worker’s Contingencies ‘’Non-negotiables’’ being unable to be considered by any company.

Before I proceed to address your topics, I would also like to note you have based much of your understanding of the program, but especially the contingencies, on a forty five minute meeting in which you representatives told me they could not comment. Your letter has not come after fair and ‘’carefully considered’’ negotiations. 

Correction of accusations of misconduct by Brewdog Board, received 01.04.2022 and date 31.03.2022 (cont…)

RE: Fees

We do receive “zero-point-zero-cents” for our work in acting on behalf of the platform. We do not work for free for large multinational corporations to run a large-scale program that requires a substantial amount of external contractors in multiple locations. I have never been expected to do so, as you are asserting I should here.

The fact platform participants issued contingencies indicates they are well aware I do not rely on a fee from anyone, at anytime, to work for them, and comes from conversations that yes I would charge for the coordination of the project and would have to pay independent contractors. Not one individual has found this confusing or surprising. The actual premise of the entire reconciliation concept is the company pays for the independent and external services rendered by qualified providers.

I do not know how to undo the confusion of such an experienced businessman that a company would charge for such a large scale service that requires a certain level of independence provided by contractors, but I can confidently say not one person I have ever had contact with is unaware of these realities.

There is also the factual error of a ‘‘request for fees’’ made by H&H, of which the images featured here (updated later than the publication on 01.04.2022, and not included in the original letter response) clearly show this claim from Mr Leighton to be a malicious lie. These have been included here due to the fact the media has reported this fake claim.

RE: Malicious Intent FAQ

This was to stop the countless abuses of the platform expected, and have now been received from people we have traced back to being EFP members or having associations with your company. I am sure any woman, Black person, gay person or autistic person like myself can speak to the ongoing and persistent abuse recevied from the Craft Beer sector. I mentioned this abuse to your representatives.

Here’s an example of what the platform received, just a few weeks ago:

1. fuckyou1@gmail.com said: ‘’hope you get raped’’. I told multiple people about this at the time, and of course have such abuses logged on a protocol.

This abuse is yet another thing I have politely remained quiet on publicly, in line with stated agendas of all parties I cooperate with. To your note, ‘’the unavoidable impression is that of H&H charging the company to extinguish a fire it is fuelling itself.’’. The platform was

Correction of accusations of misconduct by Brewdog Board, received 01.04.2022 and date 31.03.2022 (cont…)
established without any assertion of cooperation nor any requirement of it to bring forward justice for these Affected Workers, just that we would try where possible but concurrently would consider other avenues. We have been working on that, actively. I do not work to ‘’save BrewDog’’, I work for the justice of those your workplace has impacted. I have a duty to 

respond when public accusations arise, especially the ones relating to the CEO of late. If you’re looking for fuel and fire start there, because I, nor my company, were the ones doing anything that warranted the media attention you have received.

Further to your point that I ever, under any circumstances, asserted the discussed engagement was anything beyond delivering a workplace reconciliation program – as I told your representatives, in our last meeting, and to paraphrase the overall sentiment I communicated multiple times – The only way to change public narrative is through changed behaviour, and consistency with that. We can only speak to what is happening, we can’t change the narrative.

I was gravely concerned they did not understand I was there to deliver a reconciliation program, not public relation services. I was so concerned in fact, that I took a time stamped note about this topic, noting my every item of concern around this particular matter as it related to your companys’ focus on ‘’changing the narrative’’. 

Coercion

To accuse me of coercion, you’ve quoted me, and said:

“There will be a broad refusal to discuss any cases in any way, until the program is complete.” This could easily be interpreted as H&H offering to quell social media criticism in return for payment rather than a genuine “reconciliation”.

It is my professional assessment people should not discuss cases under active investigation, especially one involving a network of investigators, practitioners, legal counsel and psychological support and heavy public interest. That’s a part of upholding the independence of the program. That’s part of ensuring the integrity of the program and it’s outcomes. I am not even insulted personally, just concerned the company do not comprehend the literal meaning of investigations.

Correction of accusations of misconduct by Brewdog Board, received 01.04.2022 and date 31.03.2022 (end…)

Breach of AOWI Guidelines and neutrality

As a start, you have listed the wrong guidelines as it relates to investigations as these actually have nothing to do with the explicit prescription of the specific investigative services a company like BrewDog needs. It’s a professional association, not a regulatory body. I am willing to respond as they they do, though, as it speaks to other inconsistencies in your letter.

My entire proposal centered around my role being a ‘’coordinator’’.  I clearly stated multiple times in writing and in person, and this would require the hiring of external investigation contractors to be hired to conduct the investigations independently. All legal counsel would have to be newly acquired. I made it very clear.

Speaking to that, even when pressed, I did not give any quote and why I stated it would take a week of work to provide a quote and I also said multiple times we need to agree (me - H&H and platform, you - BrewDog) on how the program would run through discussions and negotiation before any quote would be provided. 

There is no clarity or foundation in your accusations. The implication when framed with the facts is, that I am extorting BrewDog while not providing recourse for independence by saying I will have to charge BrewDog in order for it to be independent hy hiring external professionals? Or am I an advocate breaching the guidelines of an association I am a member of by ensuring I do not breach the guidelines of the association I am a member of by making all investigations and legal considerations independent of me?

Contingencies or ‘’non-negotiables’’

Making this point at this late stage, after zero discussion has been had about that letter, because your representatives ‘’could not comment’’ is frankly, pathetic. It is not my job to help you with such difficulties understanding such things, but to point to the fact that there is a very recent precedent where it worked well for all parties to negotiate terms and conditions of engagement before signing papers. I made it clear I represented the interests of the platform. Once again, I was trying to avoid costly litigation for all and to create negotiation channels. This was meant to be a discussion and negotiation, to find a means to come together and find solutions.