Has Stirling University got something to hide?

Stirling University wrote to the Employment Tribunal recently, and in response to my claims, stated:

The allegations he made in his grievance were investigated and rejected.

His complaints should be dismissed.

We reserve our position in relation to any claim we may make that he has acted unreasonably or that his claim has been misconceived.

I consider these to be very bold statements. One would imagine that if that was their genuine belief, they would be only too keen to provide information in support of their claims, and to demonstrate that they have acted in good faith. Why wouldn't they?

I received a list of questions from the tribunal, and I replied with great detail which required eight A4 pages of closely typed text. I have nothing to hide, you see.

Similarly, the University received questions about how the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. To be clear, they were not being asked to carry out another investigation, they were just being asked about the investigation that they say had already taken place. In other words, the information should already exist. All they had to do was print it and send it off.

My grievance included allegations of bullying, harassment, victimisation and sex discrimination over several years. The University claims that I was dismissed because I was the major contributor to the breakdown in the relationship between me and my manager, Kathy McCabe. They also claim that I was dismissed because I bullied colleagues based on gender over a period of time.

However, the University objected to providing answers to the questions, saying that the issue of my grievance is irrelevant to my claims.

They will be required to show that I was dismissed for the reasons they gave, and not because I had justifiably submitted grievances against my manager and Eileen MacDonald, and because I had raised my concerns with the Principal that HR and senior management were failing in their duty to care for me. It would certainly be to their benefit to show that my grievances were treated fairly and that my allegations were investigated thoroughly as required by the grievance procedure.

My allegation is that Eileen Schofield, aided by Karen Stark, conducted what amounts to no more than a sham of a grievance procedure which was designed to turn my colleagues against me, and that Kevin Clarke conducted a sham of an appeal hearing.

Has Stirling University got something to hide?


Stirling University loses at Employment Tribunal

Glasgow Employment Tribunal has ruled that Stirling University broke the law when they failed to consult with the unions over redundancies. The tribunal will reconvene to consider awards estimated to be around £500,000.

You can read the full story here and here.


Bad employers hate whistleblowers. Good employers love them.

The University of Gloucestershire invested in excess of £150,000 of public money in order to defend a claim brought by Jan Merrigan at an Employment Tribunal. She claimed that she suffered a detriment after blowing the whistle on the state of finances at the university. After hearing the case over four days, the Tribunal upheld her claim and awarded Jan, who still works at the university, £6,000.

The university, which was recently reported to be in danger of going bankrupt, is considering spending more public money by appealing the decision. They have also expressed their disappointment that Mrs Merrigan decided to make her views public.

You couldn't make this stuff up!


Oracle Database Administrator (DBA) Stirling University

Some people are finding their way to my blog following searches they have made in relation to the above job that is being advertised on line.

I can provide additional information to those people who may be thinking about applying for the job.

This is the job from which I was dismissed. I have lodged a complaint with the Employment Tribunal about, among other things, the unfairness of my dismissal. I hadn't intended to discuss that complaint on here, but I think it can only be helpful for those particular people who may be thinking about applying for it. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of my complaint, one of the options open to a Tribunal is to award the employee reinstatement to their old job. This can happen especially with a complaint of the type I have made, and especially if, as in my case, the employee seeks to be reinstated.

The University appears to have prejudged the Tribunal's decision by advertising this job as permanent. Or possibly they are stating their intention to refuse to comply with such an award if it were to be made.

If I was currently employed, I would certainly think twice before giving up my job to take up this post which may be of a very temporary nature. As you may know, employers can quickly get rid of an employee within the first year, and the employee has very limited rights in those circumstances.

Secondly, the advertisement states that the University is an equal opportunity employer. Do not believe a word of that. In fact I firmly believe that any employer should require agreement from a regulator before being able to make such a claim. Further, if a Tribunal finds that an employer unlawfully discriminates, I would strongly argue that they be forced to disclose this to prospective employees until they can demonstrate to the regulator that they have learned the error of their ways.

Thirdly, you would be working for Kathy McCabe, as described within my blog, and you would be part of a team which has become dysfunctional due to twelve years of her mismanagement. Thank me later.


I've just realised there's a flaw in my argument. If an employer is allowed to describe itself as a non equal opportunity employer, it may attract the type of employee it wants.

It would be far better that people were taught from birth that discrimination is wrong. However, it is possible that people are born with no natural discrimination, but that they learn it from people who do.