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.

Conclusion
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?