South Tyneside councillor who bullied staff claims he's victim of 'calculated conspiracy and hate campaign'

Councillor John Robertson, independent representative in the Primrose ward, was the focus of a recent South Tyneside Council standards committee hearing in relation to a complaint lodged in late 2024.

It was submitted by Jonathan Tew, chief executive, Stuart Reid, S151 Officer and Nicola Robason, the then director of governance and corporate affairs and monitoring officer.

It related to Cllr Robertson’s “conduct, behaviour and actions over a prolonged period of time” and focused on his interactions with the council between 1st January 2022 and 31st December 2024.

It included “content of emails written by him, conduct in council meetings and social media posts”.

The complaint from the officers argued Cllr Robertson’s “behaviour and conduct significantly impacts the health and wellbeing of the organisation, and council employees have needed to be protected from what they perceive to be personal and abusive behaviour”.

They added it is their opinion Cllr Robertson “has fallen short of the standardsexpected of a councillor for a prolonged and sustained period of time” and “they have been left with no alternative but to submit a complaint under the member’s code of conduct”.

A written response to the final investigation report from Cllr Robertson, who is part of the REAL Independent group on the council, argued the complaint was “egregious and dishonest” and included “false allegations.”

He also claimed it was “part of a calculated conspiracy and orchestrated hate campaign and vendetta by the complainants”.

He added as a “whistleblower” when he is “made aware of wrongdoing and neglect” he “will not hesitate to act “.

Kirsty Cole, consultant solicitor with Bevan Brittan LLP was appointed to investigate the complaint independently, and produced a report with her findings to the standards committee (on Tuesday, March 10).

Her investigation concluded Cllr Robertson had breached the council’s code of conduct and had “failed to treat officers and other members with respect and decency”.

Other verdicts included that he had “bullied and harassed senior officers”.

She also noted they “found no evidence that the actions of the complainants in lodging the complaint constitute a “vendetta” against the subject member”.

As part of the investigation she said they found “evidence of a significant number of posts by Cllr Robertson on his Facebook page relating to senior officers which are derogatory, offensive and potentially defamatory”.

They also considered whether Cllr Robertson could rely on the protection afforded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of expression.

However Ms Cole concluded Cllr Robertson had “crossed the line” and comments were “personalised and offensive, accusing named officers of being dishonest and corrupt”.

She added it is “clear from the evidence” his behaviour “had a significant impact on the health and wellbeing not only of the individuals concerned but their wider family members”.

As part of the hearing, Ms Cole pointed to several statements provided by the complainants to her.

Mr Tew had commented that: “Cllr Robertson’s behaviour has been so extreme, abusive, persistent, repetitive and voluminous that the main reason for lodging this complaint is to protect the organisation from the enormous distraction effect this behaviour creates.”

A further response from him added: “Any one of the examples of his conduct set out in the complaint would have been utterly shocking.

“In this case the sheer volume has normalised a pattern of behaviour that is not normal and which includes bullying, inventing lies and presenting those lies as fact.

“This warps the council’s culture and intimidates people at all levels.

“There are 3,000 staff behind us who see these behaviours in meetings, read social media, get copied into the appalling correspondence.

“We’ve reached a point where we need to draw a line and try to protect them, as I know that these behaviours ripple down the organisation if we don’t challenge them.”

Mr Tew also described Cllr Robertson’s behaviour in full council meetings as “outrageous and unlike anything I have seen in local government in terms of haranguing of the mayor, interrupting and mocking peers and undermining our ability transact the business of the council”.

Cllr Robertson questioned why a complaint wasn’t made by the statutory officers “three or four years ago” if his behaviour was deemed “that bad”.

Ms Cole responded by noting the officers saw the lodging of a complaint “very much as a last resort” and had been “trying to implement other measures” to address behaviours previously.

Cllr Robertson also made arguments that the standards committee wasn’t “politically balanced” and that timescales hadn’t been followed in regards to the complaint.

He argued the complaint against him was made on September 4, 2024, and was not validated within 21 working days, as set out in the council’s constitution, so should be quashed.

Councillor Paul Brenen, South Tyneside Alliance Group representative on the committee, echoed similar concerns.

However the deputy monitoring officer responsible confirmed the finalised complaint was submitted on December 18, and it was referred for investigation that day, noting more information had been sought between the September submission and the final complaint being lodged.

Cllr Robertson also raised concerns around other timescales, including the hearing not being held within three months of the receipt of the investigation report, which was completed in July.

The committee was satisfied by a majority of three to one the complaint was submitted on December 18 and that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify departing from the three month timeline for the hearing to be scheduled.

Cllr Robertson also argued he was “already being punished” as he has been subject to “temporary measures” for numerous periods since November 2022 which includes an email divert of all Cllr Robertson’s emails to council officers and elected members.

This sees the emails directed to a designated suspense account which is overseen by the council’s monitoring officer.

The investigator’s response noted the measures were put in place “not as a sanction under the standards regime but as a measure which the council considered necessary to protect its employees and elected members from the impact of Cllr Robertson’s conduct”.

The standards committee also heard whether an “informal resolution” could have been possible.

Cllr Robertson argued “mediation has never been tried with me” and no form of informal resolution had been approached, despite previous requests from him to “get round the table”.

A response from Ms Robason to the final report noted they did not regard Cllr Robertson’s suggestion “to be a credible offer from him in the circumstances” and there had been “very many attempts already made to resolve” issues previously.

Investigator Ms Cole noted they ruled informal resolution “would not be appropriate” and the “nature of the behaviours was such that informal resolution wasn’t a viable option”.

Cllr Robertson stressed “not everybody in the council has clashed” with him and he gets on “with 90% of officers”.

He also argued he was “the victim” and he has been through “a year of hell”, along with claiming he was “ambushed with massive statements” from the complainants in the investigator’s final report.

Speaking towards the end of the hearing, Cllr Robertson admitted he “did cross the line” in some circumstances and did “apologise” for some of the language used.

He added: “I have used the wrong words, because the difference between calling someone a “dishonest person” and calling someone a “crook in a suit”, of course it’s upsetting.

“If I could turn back the clock I would say dishonest person and I will from now on.

“I did cross the line and I regret it, but it was frustration.

“I don’t want to complain, I want it resolved, I want the council running right, I want a good council that’s what I want.”

He added he is now using AI and Chat GPT and if he had used them when compiling some of the emails in question “there wouldn’t have been any complaints”.

Cllr Robertson also said he was keen for “mediation” moving forward and there would be a commitment from him that “emails will not return to what they were because I’ve got to be able to represent my residents.”

Following a day of debate and private deliberations, the verdict of the standards committee was delivered.

The committee agreed by a majority of three to one that Cllr Robertson failed to treat officers with respect and decency by subjecting officers to personal attack and public criticism, breaching the council’s code of conduct.

They also found he “bullied and harassed senior council officers by his conduct in council meetings and in his criticisms of those officers”.

Elsewhere they agreed by the same margin he “misused his position in pursuing personal and historic disagreements with officers” and “brought his role and local authority into disrepute” through his conduct.

However the committee did not believe Cllr Robertson sought to, or did, compromise the impartiality of officers or that he misused council resources.

The official response and recommendations from the committee included issuing “a formal censure of Councillor Robertson”.

It was also agreed to recommend to council that the council itself issues a formal censure.

They also agreed to recommend to council that Cllr Robertson be removed from membership of the standards committee and that he not be reappointed to that position at the May 2026 annual meeting of the council.

The three measures were all approved by a majority of three to one by councillors on the standards panel.

The committee also agreed to instruct the monitoring officer to commission training for Cllr Robertson on effective and constructive communications with officers, in use of social media, and conduct in council meetings, to take place within 3 months of 7th May 2026.

They also recommend to council that Cllr Robertson’s access to council officers be restricted by means of an email diversion to a dedicated officer to be designated by the monitoring officer until satisfactory completion of the above training.