16. The complainants urge me not to "fragment" their complaints and test whether any fragment demonstrates maladministration on its own account but instead to look at the overall pattern. They see my decision not to investigate matters before 1995 as the broadest example of what they describe as a fragmentary approach. They also complain that I have failed to deal with several matters which they have set out in the course of their lengthy and detailed submissions. What I have sought to do is to steer a middle course. On the one hand, it is not appropriate for me to conduct some kind of Commission of Inquiry into the recruitment and employment practices of IBM either nationally or globally. My role is to consider specific allegations of injustice caused by maladministration or specific disputes of fact or law. I have sought to exercise my discretion as to whether to accept complaints for investigation so as to focus on the key issues which I see as underlying the references to me. To the extent that different key issues are identified then my approach can be seen as fragmented; to the extent that I have consolidated various matters under one heading, the opposite is true. In following both courses where appropriate I have not ignored what some of the complainants have referred to as a pattern of dealings on the part of the Respondents.

We expect it will be obvious to you why fragmenting so that matters prior to 1995 are not considered will prevent proper consideration of the complaints.  Many of you will have retired before 1995 and the whole process of exchanging your work for a pension bargain will have completed when you retired.   Ignoring pre-1995 ignores the argument that the behaviour pre-1995 can be assessed as maladministration by comparing it with post-1995 behaviour. 

There is a Straw Man about "some kind of Commission of Inquiry into the recruitment and employment practices of IBM either nationally or globally".  We see no suggestion the Ombudsman was asked to do that.  However, the complaints do specifically relate to the IBM statement about pensions in payment policy:  "As in all compensation and benefit matters, we aim to compete favourably with the practice of other leading companies".  So there is a specific need to understand what the first clause of this statement meant to employees. 

The last sentence is inconsistent with the previous text.  One cannot take a pattern, throw out some of its components, look at the remainder, and reasonably say "I have looked at the pattern".  Before the investigation the Ombudsman wrote "My directions are only concerned with correcting injustice and repetition or pattern, as you put it, would not seem relevant to that task."  It is not clear that the Ombudsman has yet understood the role of pattern in drawing inferences.