I thought it might be interesting to show an example of how Stirling University conducts its sham grievance and disciplinary processes. Just days before I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, the Principal wrote to all staff to tell us that the university is “strongly committed to equality and diversity”. In my grievance against Kathy McCabe I gave a cast iron example of Kathy's sex discrimination.
"Kathy has applied considerable gender bias when promoting and recruiting staff, as well as generally managing the team. The role of DBA had been a grade 3 role before I was appointed to it, but I occupied the role for two years and remained on grade 2. During that time, the role’s responsibility had increased significantly, and I was fully competent (confirmed by Kathy) and also working a lot of extra hours. I met with Kathy and requested grade 3, and she refused. I said that I’d need to look around because I knew that my skills and experience would easily attract a higher salary elsewhere. She threatened to have me dismissed. Then during the same meeting, she suddenly agreed to award me grade 3. Since then, I have helped recruit and trained two part time DBAs and effectively taken on the responsibility of Senior DBA, but Kathy has not recognised this by changing my job title accordingly, despite my request. While we were compiling the DBA role description for role evaluation, I included duties that I have been carrying out for roughly seven years. My DBA colleague was very happy to have them included, but Kathy told me to remove them.
In contrast, Kathy has created numerous new posts and awarded them to women she knew personally, and in some cases their competence and attitude have been highly questionable. For example, the System Assistants role description states that five years Oracle experience is required, but that is simply not true. A new position was created about five years ago. It was highly questionable if the new position was required at all, as the existing two System Assistants appeared not to have sufficient work. Restrictions were made to who could apply, and the post was awarded to Selina Gibb who had no Oracle experience, and has only very recently begun to receive some Oracle training after I gave her a SQL course."
On the face of it, this is a very simple example to investigate. You compare the job advertisement with the role description. You ask for evidence of Selina's Oracle experience. You then ask Kathy to explain the fraud. You ask her why a woman with no Oracle experience has occupied this role for six years when she says it requires five years Oracle experience. You include your findings in your report.
However, Stirling University does it differently. The grievance process is concluded with a report by Eileen Schofield that makes no mention of my allegation. It states "At the hearing meeting, KM presented her case rationally and succinctly, and referred to specific examples in the submitted documentary evidence to support her allegations and to refute those made by AG."
It goes on to say "I do not believe AG's grievance claim to be vexatious on the grounds that he and others think he genuinely believes the allegations made are true. However, by reasonable normal standards in light of the evidence submitted, I do not believe the allegations can be substantiated. Therefore I do not uphold AG's grievance claim.
And that's basically it. That's what you get. So, for the Employment Tribunal, I asked the university to provide details of how they arrived at a decision for each of my allegations. Their responses are included in the 'fraudulent document', but this allegation does not appear.
I asked the university to disclose the job advertisement to which Selina applied. It confirms that no Oracle experience was required. I also asked them to disclose the role description for this role, but they have refused to provide it, and said that it is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not. It relates to a role, not a person. So I've had to ask the tribunal to order them to disclose the role description which will clearly demonstrate fraud. I also asked them to explain why this allegation wasn't investigated. They said that it was considered under the heading 'Recruitment Issues' in the fraudulent document, but that section makes no reference to this allegation.
The conclusion for that section is "Allegation not upheld ‐ considered that University processes were in the main adhered to ‐ considered that there were pragmatic reasons for slight deviation from standard process which had been discussed and agreed with HR Services.
That, readers, is how to conduct a sham grievance process. This is typical of the way they have handled all of my allegations. University Secretary, Kevin Clarke says he saw no flaws in the process when he dismissed my appeal. I look forward to cross examining Mr Clarke at the Tribunal. From what I hear, I don't think he is looking forward to it.
This was an allegation which demonstrated sex discrimination when, if you remember, the university was "strongly committed to equality". It also demonstrates Kathy's abuse of the role evaluation process. It also shows that the university is failing to comply with their legal obligation to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. This formed part of another protected disclosure I made to Peter Kemp who was Director of IS at the time. When I cross examine him at the tribunal, I will ask him what he did with all the information I gave him. In my protected disclosure to him in May 2008, I said:
"I voiced my concerns to a senior colleague. Apparently all of the other seniors had no doubt from the moment Kathy had presented her proposals that it was a plan to give Suzie a job in ISD. This colleague was also aware of another post, which very likely had been created specifically for Selina Gibb. My colleague went on to say that in Selina's case, strict rules were applied that prevented people who wanted to apply from doing so, and that it had caused upset with staff in other departments. Interestingly, the framework role outline for Selina's role states that 5 years Oracle experience is required. But Selina didn't have any Oracle experience when she got the job, and as far as I am aware, she still doesn't."
The university has objected to me calling Kevin Clarke, Peter Kemp, Christine Hallett and Gerry McCormac for cross examination.
The university has broken the law several times over. I have informed the MP for Stirling, Anne McGuire, who intends to investigate this matter.
Principal and Vice Chancellor, Professor Gerry McCormac says he knows how to get the best out of people. I lodged formal grievances with him against Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield and Kevin Clarke. Contrary to the university grievance procedure, and when the doctor had informed the university that he had considerable concerns about my well being, Gerry refused to action my grievances.
Who the fuck told this clown that he knows how to get the best out of people?
Sunday
Friday
The Never Ending Cover Up...
Jackie O'Neil, 42 Melloch Crescent, Tillicoultry, FK13 6QJ
Stirling University has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up an incident that happened on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand down on her desk in anger in an office containing about ten witnesses.
She had mistakenly thought that I had not carried out an instruction that she had given me before she began upgrading the student records system. Her upgrade failed, but not because of any error on my part, but due to her own error in not giving me another instruction from the instructions she was provided by the system suppliers, Tribal Group. My colleague, David Black and I quickly got the database back to a position where Jackie could restart the upgrade.
Jackie was supposed to ask me to increase the amount of space within the database, but didn't. She did ask me to ensure that the upgrade wouldn't cause the computer's disk to fill up with log files, and I did so, and I confirmed this in an email to her before she started her upgrade.
On 18 March 2010, in the presence of David Black, I informed our manager, Kathy McCabe about the incident. I then followed it up with an email to Kathy in which I indicate that the error was due to Jackie not giving me the instruction.
Kathy passed my email to Mark Toole. Mark said he would arrange a meeting for me and Jackie to discuss the matter, and I accepted. However, Mark decided instead to carry out a sham disciplinary process against me, and told me that Jackie didn't want to attend a meeting with me. A massive cover up had begun.
Jackie was interviewed on 21 April 2010 and gave a false account of the incident. She blamed me for the upgrade failure and denied screaming at me. Obviously she was lying, but Mark Toole knew that and ignored my pleas for him to ask David Black what happened. She also claimed that I hadn't replied to her request to ensure that log files wouldn't fill the computer disk.
At my disciplinary hearing on 17 June 2010, I told him about the instructions that would show him that Jackie hadn't given me the instruction to increase the size of the database. I also showed him my email to Jackie confirming that log files wouldn't be created by the upgrade. Of course, he ignored that too. On 25 June 2010, I was dismissed.
On 16 August 2010, I wrote to Karen Stark to request a copy of the instructions. I got no reply. On the same day, at my appeal hearing, I asked Martin McCrindle for a copy, and he said he'd send them on to me. He didn't.
On 6 September 2010, I wrote to McCrindle asking again for a copy. No answer.
On 22 November 2011, I asked the university again to provide me with a copy of the Unicode 8.3.0 upgrade instructions used by Jackie O'Neil. On 16 December 2011, I received the wrong instructions. He sent me the SITS:VISION 8.3.0 upgrade instructions instead. The unicode instructions are a supplement to those instructions, and contain the instruction that Jackie omitted to send me.
On 19 December 2011, I phoned Tribal Group at Hessle to obtain a copy. A couple of days later, I phoned again, and was told that HE Director, John Gledhill had given instructions to his staff that I was not to receive a copy of the document I required without a court order.
On 21 December 2011, I asked the tribunal to issue them with an order to disclose that document. The university now objects to any order saying "We believe that we have complied with the claimant's request, in that we have furnished him with the copy of the instructions used."
Stirling University is claiming that my dismissal was fair. The lying bastards are determined that I don't even get a fair hearing at the tribunal.
Thursday
University of Stirling - Callous Bastards
On 24 June 2010, I attended the Occupational Health Department at the university, and met with the doctor for about an hour. The university referred me to him when I told them that my health was suffering due to my manager's bullying behaviour. I had seen him a few times and we had discussed the situation, and that I had lodged a formal grievance against Kathy because the stress I'd suffered for five years had become unbearable. Something had to be done because not only was it damaging my health, but under those circumstances and for that length of time, there becomes a risk that a target of bullying's mind can snap, and they could end up seriously harming the bully, or possibly even killing them. Anybody thinking of becoming a bully should seriously keep that in mind. I have been there, and I often had thoughts of causing Kathy McCabe some serious injury, although they tended to happen when I was away from work. The ironic thing is that my work was the thing that kept me sane. That's what was most damaging when Mark Toole suspended me from work. I had all of the stress, but magnified a thousand times, and in addition I didn't have my work to help counter the stress.
By the time I spoke to the doctor that day, I had long lost the will to live. I had given up on life. In the previous two weeks I had lost £33,000 gambling. That was triggered by David Black changing his account of the Jackie O'Neil incident. It was more than I earned in a year, and I knew I was about to lose my job, but I didn't care. I had no plans to live. Suicide was inevitable. I had also begun self harming earlier that month. I still don't fully understand self harm. It wasn't an attempt to kill myself, but it helped distract me from the pain I was suffering in my head. Not pain like a headache; much worse. The university has seen the evidence of me having lost that money. I had also lost another £10,000 on a single day. That was the day I had a meeting with Mark Toole, and he wouldn't confirm that Kathy was bullying me. That is sheer mental torture! All in all, since the bullying began, I lost over £140,000. Gambling was also a distraction. And sometimes it required a lot to distract me.
On that day in June, I told the doctor that I intended to kill myself. Naturally, he was concerned. The odd thing is, at the time, he was probably more concerned than I was. I'm not even sure why I told him. I told him that I expected that I would be dismissed, and that I could see no future for me. There was no future as far as I was concerned. I had reached the end. I suppose he tried to say the right things, by talking about the possibilities for the future, but I had made my mind up. He advised me to see my GP. But I told him that that was very unlikely. I didn't want to be cured. I wanted to die. He suggested I take my case to the Employment Tribunal, but I'd already thought of that. I thought it was unlikely that I'd make a claim, because I didn't think I'd be around by the time it came to court, but I also knew that it is rare for tribunals to order reinstatement, and I felt that if I didn't have my job, I didn't want to live. My confidence had been completely drained. If I couldn't keep a job after working as hard as I had at the uni, then there was no point.
He knew I had a strong sense of justice, and I think he used that to try to persuade me that I could get justice, and also clear my name. In an earlier meeting with him, I had told him about my idea of creating a web site and making all of the facts public. He thought that that was a good idea too. He strongly urged me to make the claim anyway. I asked him not to tell the university that I planned to kill myself. I also told him that I didn't think there was any point in us meeting again, and we didn't.
That same day, he wrote to the uni, saying:
"It is evident that he feels a very strong sense of injustice about the process to which he has been subject. He also feels that the experience to date has undermined his self-confidence to the extent that he feels he would have considerable difficulty pursuing alternative employment options if his current employment at the University is terminated."
"I have to say that I have considerable concerns about his current state of well-being".
The very next day, Mark Toole dismissed me. Not only did the university know that I was completely innocent, but a doctor had told them of his "considerable concerns" about my well-being. A little thing like my well-being wasn't going to stand in Mark Toole's way though. Even now, when they know that I planned to kill myself, the university is continuing with their completely unbelievable case that the grievance and disciplinary processes were genuine.
I recently asked the doctor a number of questions. Here are his answers which the university has seen.
Would you agree that if, as I described, the university was carrying out sham processes against me while being aware that I was already suffering from stress, it was likely to cause further damage to my health, and that they were likely to have known that?
I agree that were an employer knowingly and deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes it could well prove detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the employee. I would expect most people to be able to appreciate that such a risk would exist.
Can you please confirm that you did not encourage the university to treat me dishonestly, and you did not advise them that it was safe to treat me dishonestly or unjustly and that as a doctor, when you give advice to the university, you must assume that it conducts its procedures in an honest and fair manner, and not in a manner likely to be hazardous to an employee's health. If the university had asked you if it would have been detrimental to my health for me to be subjected to a sham grievance or sham disciplinary process, what would your response have been?
I confirm that I did not encourage the university to deal with you in a dishonest manner, or advise that it would be safe to do so and can assure you that the advice I gave to your employer is exactly as set out in my reports of 13/03/08, 27/05/10 and 24/06/10, copies of which I believe you have received. You are correct that in advising the university I do indeed assume that it behaves honestly and fairly in its dealings with its employees. In the unlikely event that I were asked to advise regarding the likely consequences of subjecting an employee to 'sham' processes I would be bound to advise that to do so could well prove harmful to the employee's health and wellbeing.
If the university is found to have deliberately subjected me to sham processes in order to force me out of the university and I do decide to take my own life, and leave a note specifying that as the sole reason, would you agree that the university and the individuals concerned would share responsibility for my death?
I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do. However I am concerned to hear that you may still be thinking in these terms and if you have not done so I strongly recommend that you arrange to see your GP without delay to discuss these thoughts with them. They may well be able to offer further help and support and even if you consider this to be unlikely I am bound to advise you to make your GP aware of this state of affairs and to seek their professional advice.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to subject me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes while knowing that I was suffering from stress?
In my view there is no legitimate reason for an employer deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes of this kind.
In addition to the sham grievance and sham disciplinary processes I described, I also believe that the university attempted to cover up the sham grievance process by creating and sending a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal giving false details relating to the grievance process. In your opinion, would it be more likely than not that an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process would also be hazardous to my health?
In my opinion had 'sham' processes been applied further falsification, if it occurred, could compound any harm arising from the original processes.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to produce and send a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process while knowing that I was in ill health?
Were it to do so, I cannot personally think of a legitimate reason for an employer to engage in deliberate falsification in such circumstances.
If it is found that the university was deliberately subjecting me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes, what, in your opinion, would have been the purpose of them referring me to the Occupational Health Department without informing you that I was being subjected to sham grievance and disciplinary processes? Do you think it is possible that the university, in those circumstances, may have been attempting to give the appearance that they were fulfilling their duty of care for me?
Again I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do.
In February 2010, I wrote to Professor Christine Hallett who was then Principal of Stirling University. I informed her that my manager's behaviour was damaging my health, and that senior management and the Human Resources department were not taking the issue seriously. It was my hope that Professor Hallett would ensure that my grievance against my manager would be handled fairly. If it is found that I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance process and then a sham disciplinary process, would you agree that Professor Hallett and Stirling University had failed to comply with their legal obligation to care for my health?
See my previous answers; this would however in my view be a matter of legal opinion.
I recently wrote to the university describing the considerable financial hardship I'm now facing. I've had to sell my car, and may soon be faced with the need to sell my house and become homeless, which would undoubtedly worsen my health which they know is poor. I asked them to provide me with a loan of £5,000 to avoid this, but they refused.
I used to work extraordinarily long hours (estimated 4,500 hours) for free because I loved my job, saving the university tens of thousands of pounds, but they wouldn't even loan me £5,000 to help me keep hold of my house, when they know that I'm suffering from depression caused by the torturous treatment I received from them.
Callous bastards!
By the time I spoke to the doctor that day, I had long lost the will to live. I had given up on life. In the previous two weeks I had lost £33,000 gambling. That was triggered by David Black changing his account of the Jackie O'Neil incident. It was more than I earned in a year, and I knew I was about to lose my job, but I didn't care. I had no plans to live. Suicide was inevitable. I had also begun self harming earlier that month. I still don't fully understand self harm. It wasn't an attempt to kill myself, but it helped distract me from the pain I was suffering in my head. Not pain like a headache; much worse. The university has seen the evidence of me having lost that money. I had also lost another £10,000 on a single day. That was the day I had a meeting with Mark Toole, and he wouldn't confirm that Kathy was bullying me. That is sheer mental torture! All in all, since the bullying began, I lost over £140,000. Gambling was also a distraction. And sometimes it required a lot to distract me.
On that day in June, I told the doctor that I intended to kill myself. Naturally, he was concerned. The odd thing is, at the time, he was probably more concerned than I was. I'm not even sure why I told him. I told him that I expected that I would be dismissed, and that I could see no future for me. There was no future as far as I was concerned. I had reached the end. I suppose he tried to say the right things, by talking about the possibilities for the future, but I had made my mind up. He advised me to see my GP. But I told him that that was very unlikely. I didn't want to be cured. I wanted to die. He suggested I take my case to the Employment Tribunal, but I'd already thought of that. I thought it was unlikely that I'd make a claim, because I didn't think I'd be around by the time it came to court, but I also knew that it is rare for tribunals to order reinstatement, and I felt that if I didn't have my job, I didn't want to live. My confidence had been completely drained. If I couldn't keep a job after working as hard as I had at the uni, then there was no point.
He knew I had a strong sense of justice, and I think he used that to try to persuade me that I could get justice, and also clear my name. In an earlier meeting with him, I had told him about my idea of creating a web site and making all of the facts public. He thought that that was a good idea too. He strongly urged me to make the claim anyway. I asked him not to tell the university that I planned to kill myself. I also told him that I didn't think there was any point in us meeting again, and we didn't.
That same day, he wrote to the uni, saying:
"It is evident that he feels a very strong sense of injustice about the process to which he has been subject. He also feels that the experience to date has undermined his self-confidence to the extent that he feels he would have considerable difficulty pursuing alternative employment options if his current employment at the University is terminated."
"I have to say that I have considerable concerns about his current state of well-being".
The very next day, Mark Toole dismissed me. Not only did the university know that I was completely innocent, but a doctor had told them of his "considerable concerns" about my well-being. A little thing like my well-being wasn't going to stand in Mark Toole's way though. Even now, when they know that I planned to kill myself, the university is continuing with their completely unbelievable case that the grievance and disciplinary processes were genuine.
I recently asked the doctor a number of questions. Here are his answers which the university has seen.
Would you agree that if, as I described, the university was carrying out sham processes against me while being aware that I was already suffering from stress, it was likely to cause further damage to my health, and that they were likely to have known that?
I agree that were an employer knowingly and deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes it could well prove detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the employee. I would expect most people to be able to appreciate that such a risk would exist.
Can you please confirm that you did not encourage the university to treat me dishonestly, and you did not advise them that it was safe to treat me dishonestly or unjustly and that as a doctor, when you give advice to the university, you must assume that it conducts its procedures in an honest and fair manner, and not in a manner likely to be hazardous to an employee's health. If the university had asked you if it would have been detrimental to my health for me to be subjected to a sham grievance or sham disciplinary process, what would your response have been?
I confirm that I did not encourage the university to deal with you in a dishonest manner, or advise that it would be safe to do so and can assure you that the advice I gave to your employer is exactly as set out in my reports of 13/03/08, 27/05/10 and 24/06/10, copies of which I believe you have received. You are correct that in advising the university I do indeed assume that it behaves honestly and fairly in its dealings with its employees. In the unlikely event that I were asked to advise regarding the likely consequences of subjecting an employee to 'sham' processes I would be bound to advise that to do so could well prove harmful to the employee's health and wellbeing.
If the university is found to have deliberately subjected me to sham processes in order to force me out of the university and I do decide to take my own life, and leave a note specifying that as the sole reason, would you agree that the university and the individuals concerned would share responsibility for my death?
I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do. However I am concerned to hear that you may still be thinking in these terms and if you have not done so I strongly recommend that you arrange to see your GP without delay to discuss these thoughts with them. They may well be able to offer further help and support and even if you consider this to be unlikely I am bound to advise you to make your GP aware of this state of affairs and to seek their professional advice.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to subject me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes while knowing that I was suffering from stress?
In my view there is no legitimate reason for an employer deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes of this kind.
In addition to the sham grievance and sham disciplinary processes I described, I also believe that the university attempted to cover up the sham grievance process by creating and sending a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal giving false details relating to the grievance process. In your opinion, would it be more likely than not that an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process would also be hazardous to my health?
In my opinion had 'sham' processes been applied further falsification, if it occurred, could compound any harm arising from the original processes.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to produce and send a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process while knowing that I was in ill health?
Were it to do so, I cannot personally think of a legitimate reason for an employer to engage in deliberate falsification in such circumstances.
If it is found that the university was deliberately subjecting me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes, what, in your opinion, would have been the purpose of them referring me to the Occupational Health Department without informing you that I was being subjected to sham grievance and disciplinary processes? Do you think it is possible that the university, in those circumstances, may have been attempting to give the appearance that they were fulfilling their duty of care for me?
Again I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do.
In February 2010, I wrote to Professor Christine Hallett who was then Principal of Stirling University. I informed her that my manager's behaviour was damaging my health, and that senior management and the Human Resources department were not taking the issue seriously. It was my hope that Professor Hallett would ensure that my grievance against my manager would be handled fairly. If it is found that I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance process and then a sham disciplinary process, would you agree that Professor Hallett and Stirling University had failed to comply with their legal obligation to care for my health?
See my previous answers; this would however in my view be a matter of legal opinion.
I recently wrote to the university describing the considerable financial hardship I'm now facing. I've had to sell my car, and may soon be faced with the need to sell my house and become homeless, which would undoubtedly worsen my health which they know is poor. I asked them to provide me with a loan of £5,000 to avoid this, but they refused.
I used to work extraordinarily long hours (estimated 4,500 hours) for free because I loved my job, saving the university tens of thousands of pounds, but they wouldn't even loan me £5,000 to help me keep hold of my house, when they know that I'm suffering from depression caused by the torturous treatment I received from them.
Callous bastards!
Professor Gerry McCormac
I don't want that one!
Stirling University is objecting to me calling Principal and Vice Chancellor, Gerry McCormac as a witness at the forthcoming Employment Tribunal hearing.
In September 2010, and in accordance with the university's Grievance Procedure, I lodged formal grievances with him against thirteen university employees. None of my grievances were vexatious; indeed they've not been claimed to be vexatious. However, Gerry took it upon himself to disregard the university's published procedures, and refused to process my grievances. He claimed that there was no grievance procedure available to me. Basically, in the style of Little Britain's Andy Pipkin, Gerry pointed to the university's grievance procedure and said "I don't want that one!"
Gerry is the head of a grossly corrupt management, and is himself, grossly corrupt. University procedures are there for the protection of its employees. When the head of the university thinks he can pick and choose which procedures he wishes to work to on any given day, then employees have no chance. If you can't trust the Principal, then you can't trust anyone.
The university has also committed criminal fraud by creating and sending a document to the Employment Tribunal which purports to be a description of a grievance process that took place in 2010. However, it clearly describes a decision that was made in 2011, as well as the process Eileen Schofield used to arrive at that decision. The decision is based on evidence that didn't exist until after Eileen Schofield had produced her report on the outcome of the grievance process. That was because the sham grievance process that took place in 2010 did not include this decision, or any other decision, except to produce a sham outcome in favour of long term bully and sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe, who just happens to be married to the university's Finance Director, Liam McCabe.
The fraudulent document also contains a statement that appears to be nothing more than random mudslinging at me. The university has refused to explain where this statement could have come from. It certainly wasn't something that was produced from the sham investigation that took place in 2010. It's a piece of fiction that's been added for effect. The authors were so anxious to make me look bad that they forgot they were trying to describe a genuine grievance process.
Any respectable Principal would be shocked and alarmed that his university would perform such a criminal act, but not Gerry. For all I know, he may have been the one who gave orders for the fraud to take place. He certainly hasn't denied it.
Gerry has some explaining to do. His responses are dishonest. He didn't action my grievances because he was fully aware that my grievances were genuine and that his management is corrupt. His responses must be tested in court because they make no sense. His behaviour is consistent with that of an employer that dismisses employees for making protected disclosures. Of course he should be cross examined in court. Then, if he doesn't have the decency to resign, he should be sacked!
"Professor McCormac, would you please inform the tribunal who the fuck gave you the authority to disregard the university's grievance procedure and ignore legitimate grievances whenever the hell you like?"
"Well, I was testing out this new template response to formal grievances that HR had made up. Karen, show him that new template response to formal grievances we are testing out. Show him the date on it. See, it was made before you lodged your grievances. Thanks Karen. Can you make me up some of those new £25 notes when you get a minute."
If you were so confident that it was unnecessary to process my grievances, then why is it proving so difficult for me to get answers and documents from the university? It's as if you've got stuff to hide, Gerry.
For example, why, after 18 months of me asking for the Unicode upgrade instructions, did you get Jackie O'Neil to disclose the SITS:VISION upgrade instructions instead? Why not get someone to explain my questions to Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield if she doesn't understand them? Why not disclose the feedback that would show what the team really thinks of Kathy McCabe? Why not provide a breakdown of how Kathy McCabe spent the budget she was given for staff development? Why not disclose the System Assistant role description that Kathy says needs five years Oracle experience? Why not provide the tribunal with the towns where Una Forsyth lived? Why allow Selina Gibb to simply refuse to answer my questions? Why do so many university employees feel they need to lie? That can't be healthy, can it? Why not provide the source of the statement that appears to come from nowhere in the fraudulent document? etc, etc. It just doesn't make sense, Gerry! But you'll have an opportunity to explain the sense in it to the tribunal, Gerry.
I'd imagine that if the tribunal finds that Stirling University had conducted sham processes, Gerry would have to do the honourable thing, and resign. Did Gerry realise he was making such a brave decision when he just cast aside my grievances? Surely he wouldn't have the gall to continue in his role after that? Nobody could ever feel safe raising a grievance if they think the Principal approves of sham processes. He says he knows how to get the best out of people. Everybody will know he's a liar. His position would be untenable. Surely he would feel obliged to pay the compensation from his own pocket too. Why should the public pay for his corrupt behaviour?
About a year ago, I informed the tribunal that I was calling Kathy McCabe as a witness. The university strongly objected, and even sent the tribunal judge parts of my blog to support their objection. The university is now themselves calling Mrs McCabe as a witness. Of course, they did this in the knowledge that the tribunal would likely have overruled their objection anyway. Stirling University is probably the first employer ever to object to a witness appearing, as well as calling the same witness. Maybe they'll decide to call Gerry as a witness too.
Tuesday
The Answers To My Questions
After 48 days, Stirling University has finally provided answers to my questions, or at least, some of them. There are an awful lot of porky pies. I thought the delay may have been due to someone insisting that they tell the truth. Sadly not!
Some of these people may have been misled into thinking that the case won't go to court, and that some eleventh hour incident will save them. Unlikely, methinks.
Some of my former colleagues who read this will recognise some of the lies because they witnessed certain incidents that people have lied about. Off the top of my head, two witnesses are David Edgar and Lynn McDonald who witnessed Kathy McCabe, in the presence of Mark Toole and Karen Stark, proudly announce that she had told me she was not interested when I told her about Jackie O'Neil's "our useless DBA" incident. Somebody must have told her that a proper manager doesn't do that, because she is now denying it. "I expect my staff to deal with such matters between themselves", was what she said.
Karen Stark is on this lie too, because she attended that meeting as the note taker. I didn't receive her notes until I asked for them while I was suspended, more than a year later. All reference to this was omitted. I asked for her handwritten notes, but they were destroyed, she said. Two other note takers took part in the grievance and disciplinary procedures. Karen was the only one who destroyed their handwritten notes. Also missing from the notes was all reference to the assault. Karen Stark is addicted to fraud. But the biggest fraud is not going to persuade the tribunal that a proper grievance process took place.
The tribunal will have lots of experience of attempts to fool them with fake documents. They won't be fooled by these. They don't make sense, you see.
Whatever happened to "Honesty goes to the core of my very being", Kathy?
Una Forsyth is also being a bit shy about backing up her impossible allegation. I will have to ask her about it in court. Is she going to lie to the tribunal and say that she was still living with her husband in 2005? Will she tell another great big fat lie and claim she doesn't know of any Ricky from Edinburgh? Well, I'll let you know on here that same day. What a service! Do you think that the blog is the invention which will eventually make lying obsolete? That and digital recorders and little video recorders. A world where nobody lies, like in the Ricky Gervais film.
We have to keep in mind that, theoretically, the university actually believes all of the allegations against me. So why wouldn't they be anxious to investigate Una's allegations? HR and management were quite happy that Una had told the truth, so why should they object to me making a fool of myself by claiming she lied, when she had been telling the truth all along? It's bound to help their case, is it not?
Selina Gibb too, doesn't want to answer my questions. Selina should have thought about that before getting involved in the gossip that she then went on to make formal.
Eric Hall has been working in Kathy's team for about twelve years. He has been close friends with David Gardiner since his schooldays. He says he doesn't know if Kathy McCabe is close friends with David and his ex wife, Suzie Law. He also claims to never have said "I hate the fucking bitch" when referring to Kathy. Lynn McDonald was with us when he said that. He also denies lying when giving feedback for Kathy while she was enrolled on a Future Leaders training course, and saying he gave her better feedback than she deserved "for a quiet life". Jaana Stewart and Deana Jamieson, who both also provided feedback, witnessed him say that proudly in the tea room. Jaana was quite annoyed with him because she felt it was a waste of time if they weren't honest with their feedback. Eric also denies ever insisting that fraud had been used to produce his grade from the role evaluation process. Again, Lynn McDonald witnessed this as well as most of the team, I expect. Ironically, at the time, I didn't think there was any chance that the uni would use fraudulent means to grade roles. I now think Eric was probably right. And I think Peter Kemp, who was initially very critical of the process, was told to cover up the fraud. That's why he had to act as though he was thick and couldn't understand my concerns.
Eileen Schofield has a very good tactic. She must have read the piece I wrote, for comedy effect, in which Eric advises his colleagues to keep saying that they didn't hear the question. Eileen has used a slightly different version by saying that she doesn't understand the questions. For a little variation, she says that she would prefer not to answer the question. I bet she does. That's why I asked it.
I can just imagine Eileen sitting in her office for 48 days and 48 nights staring at my questions, scratching her head, and the rest of her work piling up on her desk, almost touching the ceiling. She's the Deputy Secretary of Stirling University, and she never thought of going to a colleague and asking them to explain the questions to her. Absolutely no initiative! She'll be on about 70 grand a year too. Can I have a job like hers please? 48 days, then "I don't understand the questions." You're having a laugh, Eileen!
As expected, David Black has talked himself into knots. He's all over the ship, man. He really needs to grow himself a spine and a couple of balls, because he is fast becoming the comedy act among the witnesses. He's now saying that Jackie shouted at me angrily, but she somehow managed to do it in a respectful manner. "Mr Black, would you please demonstrate how Mrs O'Neil shouted angrily at me whilst slamming her hand on her desk and maintaining respect for me." Where the hell is he going with his story? He used to talk himself into corners when I worked with him. Then he'd start to get aggressive when he realised I knew he was talking shit, and change the subject. He won't be able to change the subject in court. He's going to have to stew in his own juices long after he's made it obvious he's lying. And here's an interesting one; he thinks the transcript of my recording isn't accurate, but Kathy thinks it is.
Jackie was supposed to provide me with a copy of the Unicode upgrade instructions that she used that day. She conveniently provided the SITS:VISION upgrade instructions instead. It's the unicode instructions that contain the instruction to increase the size of the database. The instruction that she didn't give me that day which resulted in her upgrade failing, followed by Jackie respectfully screaming at me. David estimates 10 colleagues were in the room at the time, which I think is about right. None of them were interviewed by the investigators though. Funny that!
Jackie said she was advised by HR not to meet with me and Mark Toole to discuss the screaming incident. How convenient! That's another act that followed my protected disclosure that caused me detriment. How the hell do Karen Stark and Mark Toole think they are going to explain this away? They must be expecting the tribunal to be blind or something. Mark didn't tell me that he and Karen Stark had set that up.
Here are the answers I received to my questions
Selina Gibb
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
Mrs Gibb would prefer not to respond to questions in advance of the tribunal hearing. She denies making any false statements or being involved in any collusion during the course of the grievance or disciplinary investigations.
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
n/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
n/a
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
see above
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
see above
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please
explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
see above
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
see above
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
see above
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
see above
Una Forsyth
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
The witness spoke to you because you were part of the conversation, she would partake in such a conversation as anyone would. She was just making chat. She felt she was being professional and should respond. The fact that she did so does not contradict the comments made in her statement.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
The Witnesses does not wish to respond to these questions. They relate to personal matters the relevance of which is not accepted.
Separated from your husband, Harry. see above
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn. see above
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. see above
Relocated to Bo’ness see above
Ended your relationship with Ricky see above
Married for any second time. see above
Jackie O'Neil
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
The witness states that she did not conspire with anyone.
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
Yes this is true. The witness declined the meeting and the reason she gave Mark Toole was as follows:-‘I have been advised by HR that I should not discuss any issues with Allan at this time. I am quite happy to meet with you at any time but not with Allan present.’ The witness felt that she could not go into a meeting with AG & MT to discuss ‘the DBA’s mistake / pen slamming incident’ in isolation (given that at this point she was now aware he had made a number of other allegations about her to management ).
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
The witness does not recall anyone asking to see them until recently. She has now made them available
Eileen MacDonald
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/A
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No
David Black
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
No
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
Yes
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Millar about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
No
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
No
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a
telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
Yes
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
No
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
The witness states "I didn't consider it to be a significant incident. I would not use the word "disrespectful" to describe the incident."
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
No
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
No
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
No
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
The witness states " I may have, but I don't see its relevance to my statement, especially when Allan didn't ask Kathy to take any action over "the incident."
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
Around 10
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Yes
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Yes
Kathy McCabe
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
The grievance was genuine and in no way vexatious. The witness states that no one encouraged her to make it.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
Yes
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me?
The witness states that she tried hard to stay calm during the course of this meeting. They were difficult meetings generally. She accepts that she didn’t sound surprised. Her reaction was not so much a lack of surprise but more that she didn't know how to react. She knew something had gone on and she wanted to know if the Claimant wanted the issue to be dealt with as a formal complaint which would have been passed to MT.
Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
No
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
The Claimant never reported formally or informally any abuse from female team members. No action was taken because none was required to be taken. There is accordingly no documentary evidence available of this sort.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
No - The witness does not accept this. The only communication she can recall which prompted such a response was following a conversation in the corridor when he asked about rumours about his girlfriend at dance classes.
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
The witness accepts that she may have used such a phrase in the context that she was not interested in matters outside of work. The Claimant never came to her with problems about colleagues.
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
Nothing was reported and accordingly the witness didn't take any action.
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
See above
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format and will be happy to do so at the tribunal hearing.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
The witness wasn't aware until years after the incident that the Claimant viewed the incident as being a matter upon which she might have taken action or be required to take action. No formal complaint has ever been submitted
Graham Millar
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
The witness states "I was asked by the director of information services to investigate recent events that may have affected the state of relationships within the BSDS team". It was not a sham.
If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a
Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a
Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham.
Please describe how you became aware.
n/a
If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
The investigations were carried out in accordance with the university support
staff disciplinary procedure.
Wasn’t it obvious to you that the interviewees were lying?
no
Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
The statements referred to and included with the report are a reasonably
accurate account of the discussions held
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The report was based on a draft template that the witness was informed was being considered by the university HR department and staff union representative. The format reflects the template that he had been given.
Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes
On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
The witness states "Both accounts were included in the notes from the interviews and the differences could be explored should the disciplinary process be taken further forward."
In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
During the interviews both AG and SG were asked if they could describe any recent events that had any effect on, and the current state of, working relationships with other team members. The report reflects the comments made during our investigation
Mr Kevin Clarke
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
Yes
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Yes
Eileen Schofield
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
They were handled completely and genuinely
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
N/a
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that is was just a coincidence?
The witness understands that a mistake was made in the preparation of the document C3
6 C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement, But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply an clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
see above
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
see above
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
see above
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
see above
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
see above
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
The witness states that she does not believe there was an inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
The witness does not share your belief
Christine Hallett
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
The witness states that she cannot recall this e-mail
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
The witness states " the University Secretary briefed me orally on your grievance, which was being handled in accordance with the grievance procedure for support staff. Matters such as those you mention were always taken seriously and handled in accordance with the relevant procedures for the staff group concerned."
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
No
Dr Peter Kemp
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
When the witness was interviewed in March 2010 he stated that he would be working from recall of events that occurred two years ago and that his memory might be selective. That said his statement was a truthful recollection of matters as he recalled them at the time.
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
N/a
Gerry McCormac
I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
If AG is referring to his letter of 23 September, this contained assertions considered in the already concluded grievance, disciplinary and appeals procedures and the witness' decision was therefore that he had exhausted the procedures available to him.
I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
This is an assertion raised in the context of AG’s current Employment Tribunal action, and a matter to be considered in that setting.
Eric Hall
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
Tony Osborne (Chair), Brian Sharp (Finance Office), Kathy McCabe, Suzie Law
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
yes
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
It was appropriate for her to be on the panel as she was the out-going post holder.
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
The witness states "I don’t know"
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
The witness states "I did not receive favourable treatment. I do not know how much AG was allocated from the staff development fund."
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example, didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
The witness was surprised by her low scores
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
yes
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
The witness recalls that Mrs McCabe did speak to them. She seemed surprised and upset by the scores. She was not intimidating
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
No
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
The witness states "I did not lie, nor did anyone encourage me to lie"
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
The witness states "I made these comments believing them to be true"
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
The witness states "I found the framework process irritating and frustrating and did occasionally have a rant about it. I do not believe that the process was fraudulent"
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
No
Gail Miller
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
It was genuine
If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a
Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a
Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
n/a
If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
no
Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
no
Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
Refer to statements
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The witness points out "The procedure actually states – “The report should detail the facts established by the investigation and no recommendations or judgements should be made.”"
Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes
On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
The witness states "The statement captures the feelings experienced by the interviewee."
In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
The statement was signed as being truthful by the interviewee
To be continued...
Some of these people may have been misled into thinking that the case won't go to court, and that some eleventh hour incident will save them. Unlikely, methinks.
Some of my former colleagues who read this will recognise some of the lies because they witnessed certain incidents that people have lied about. Off the top of my head, two witnesses are David Edgar and Lynn McDonald who witnessed Kathy McCabe, in the presence of Mark Toole and Karen Stark, proudly announce that she had told me she was not interested when I told her about Jackie O'Neil's "our useless DBA" incident. Somebody must have told her that a proper manager doesn't do that, because she is now denying it. "I expect my staff to deal with such matters between themselves", was what she said.
Karen Stark is on this lie too, because she attended that meeting as the note taker. I didn't receive her notes until I asked for them while I was suspended, more than a year later. All reference to this was omitted. I asked for her handwritten notes, but they were destroyed, she said. Two other note takers took part in the grievance and disciplinary procedures. Karen was the only one who destroyed their handwritten notes. Also missing from the notes was all reference to the assault. Karen Stark is addicted to fraud. But the biggest fraud is not going to persuade the tribunal that a proper grievance process took place.
The tribunal will have lots of experience of attempts to fool them with fake documents. They won't be fooled by these. They don't make sense, you see.
Whatever happened to "Honesty goes to the core of my very being", Kathy?
Una Forsyth is also being a bit shy about backing up her impossible allegation. I will have to ask her about it in court. Is she going to lie to the tribunal and say that she was still living with her husband in 2005? Will she tell another great big fat lie and claim she doesn't know of any Ricky from Edinburgh? Well, I'll let you know on here that same day. What a service! Do you think that the blog is the invention which will eventually make lying obsolete? That and digital recorders and little video recorders. A world where nobody lies, like in the Ricky Gervais film.
We have to keep in mind that, theoretically, the university actually believes all of the allegations against me. So why wouldn't they be anxious to investigate Una's allegations? HR and management were quite happy that Una had told the truth, so why should they object to me making a fool of myself by claiming she lied, when she had been telling the truth all along? It's bound to help their case, is it not?
Selina Gibb too, doesn't want to answer my questions. Selina should have thought about that before getting involved in the gossip that she then went on to make formal.
Eric Hall has been working in Kathy's team for about twelve years. He has been close friends with David Gardiner since his schooldays. He says he doesn't know if Kathy McCabe is close friends with David and his ex wife, Suzie Law. He also claims to never have said "I hate the fucking bitch" when referring to Kathy. Lynn McDonald was with us when he said that. He also denies lying when giving feedback for Kathy while she was enrolled on a Future Leaders training course, and saying he gave her better feedback than she deserved "for a quiet life". Jaana Stewart and Deana Jamieson, who both also provided feedback, witnessed him say that proudly in the tea room. Jaana was quite annoyed with him because she felt it was a waste of time if they weren't honest with their feedback. Eric also denies ever insisting that fraud had been used to produce his grade from the role evaluation process. Again, Lynn McDonald witnessed this as well as most of the team, I expect. Ironically, at the time, I didn't think there was any chance that the uni would use fraudulent means to grade roles. I now think Eric was probably right. And I think Peter Kemp, who was initially very critical of the process, was told to cover up the fraud. That's why he had to act as though he was thick and couldn't understand my concerns.
Eileen Schofield has a very good tactic. She must have read the piece I wrote, for comedy effect, in which Eric advises his colleagues to keep saying that they didn't hear the question. Eileen has used a slightly different version by saying that she doesn't understand the questions. For a little variation, she says that she would prefer not to answer the question. I bet she does. That's why I asked it.
I can just imagine Eileen sitting in her office for 48 days and 48 nights staring at my questions, scratching her head, and the rest of her work piling up on her desk, almost touching the ceiling. She's the Deputy Secretary of Stirling University, and she never thought of going to a colleague and asking them to explain the questions to her. Absolutely no initiative! She'll be on about 70 grand a year too. Can I have a job like hers please? 48 days, then "I don't understand the questions." You're having a laugh, Eileen!
As expected, David Black has talked himself into knots. He's all over the ship, man. He really needs to grow himself a spine and a couple of balls, because he is fast becoming the comedy act among the witnesses. He's now saying that Jackie shouted at me angrily, but she somehow managed to do it in a respectful manner. "Mr Black, would you please demonstrate how Mrs O'Neil shouted angrily at me whilst slamming her hand on her desk and maintaining respect for me." Where the hell is he going with his story? He used to talk himself into corners when I worked with him. Then he'd start to get aggressive when he realised I knew he was talking shit, and change the subject. He won't be able to change the subject in court. He's going to have to stew in his own juices long after he's made it obvious he's lying. And here's an interesting one; he thinks the transcript of my recording isn't accurate, but Kathy thinks it is.
Jackie was supposed to provide me with a copy of the Unicode upgrade instructions that she used that day. She conveniently provided the SITS:VISION upgrade instructions instead. It's the unicode instructions that contain the instruction to increase the size of the database. The instruction that she didn't give me that day which resulted in her upgrade failing, followed by Jackie respectfully screaming at me. David estimates 10 colleagues were in the room at the time, which I think is about right. None of them were interviewed by the investigators though. Funny that!
Jackie said she was advised by HR not to meet with me and Mark Toole to discuss the screaming incident. How convenient! That's another act that followed my protected disclosure that caused me detriment. How the hell do Karen Stark and Mark Toole think they are going to explain this away? They must be expecting the tribunal to be blind or something. Mark didn't tell me that he and Karen Stark had set that up.
Here are the answers I received to my questions
Selina Gibb
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
Mrs Gibb would prefer not to respond to questions in advance of the tribunal hearing. She denies making any false statements or being involved in any collusion during the course of the grievance or disciplinary investigations.
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
n/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
n/a
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
see above
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
see above
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please
explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
see above
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
see above
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
see above
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
see above
Una Forsyth
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
The witness spoke to you because you were part of the conversation, she would partake in such a conversation as anyone would. She was just making chat. She felt she was being professional and should respond. The fact that she did so does not contradict the comments made in her statement.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
The Witnesses does not wish to respond to these questions. They relate to personal matters the relevance of which is not accepted.
Separated from your husband, Harry. see above
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn. see above
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. see above
Relocated to Bo’ness see above
Ended your relationship with Ricky see above
Married for any second time. see above
Jackie O'Neil
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/a
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
The witness states that she did not conspire with anyone.
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
Yes this is true. The witness declined the meeting and the reason she gave Mark Toole was as follows:-‘I have been advised by HR that I should not discuss any issues with Allan at this time. I am quite happy to meet with you at any time but not with Allan present.’ The witness felt that she could not go into a meeting with AG & MT to discuss ‘the DBA’s mistake / pen slamming incident’ in isolation (given that at this point she was now aware he had made a number of other allegations about her to management ).
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
The witness does not recall anyone asking to see them until recently. She has now made them available
Eileen MacDonald
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
True
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
N/A
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No
David Black
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
No
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
Yes
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Millar about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
No
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
No
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a
telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
Yes
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
No
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
The witness states "I didn't consider it to be a significant incident. I would not use the word "disrespectful" to describe the incident."
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
No
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
No
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
No
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
The witness states " I may have, but I don't see its relevance to my statement, especially when Allan didn't ask Kathy to take any action over "the incident."
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
Around 10
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Yes
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Yes
Kathy McCabe
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
The grievance was genuine and in no way vexatious. The witness states that no one encouraged her to make it.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
Yes
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me?
The witness states that she tried hard to stay calm during the course of this meeting. They were difficult meetings generally. She accepts that she didn’t sound surprised. Her reaction was not so much a lack of surprise but more that she didn't know how to react. She knew something had gone on and she wanted to know if the Claimant wanted the issue to be dealt with as a formal complaint which would have been passed to MT.
Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
No
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
The Claimant never reported formally or informally any abuse from female team members. No action was taken because none was required to be taken. There is accordingly no documentary evidence available of this sort.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
No - The witness does not accept this. The only communication she can recall which prompted such a response was following a conversation in the corridor when he asked about rumours about his girlfriend at dance classes.
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
The witness accepts that she may have used such a phrase in the context that she was not interested in matters outside of work. The Claimant never came to her with problems about colleagues.
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
Nothing was reported and accordingly the witness didn't take any action.
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
See above
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format and will be happy to do so at the tribunal hearing.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
The witness wasn't aware until years after the incident that the Claimant viewed the incident as being a matter upon which she might have taken action or be required to take action. No formal complaint has ever been submitted
Graham Millar
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
The witness states "I was asked by the director of information services to investigate recent events that may have affected the state of relationships within the BSDS team". It was not a sham.
If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a
Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a
Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham.
Please describe how you became aware.
n/a
If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
The investigations were carried out in accordance with the university support
staff disciplinary procedure.
Wasn’t it obvious to you that the interviewees were lying?
no
Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
The statements referred to and included with the report are a reasonably
accurate account of the discussions held
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The report was based on a draft template that the witness was informed was being considered by the university HR department and staff union representative. The format reflects the template that he had been given.
Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes
On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
The witness states "Both accounts were included in the notes from the interviews and the differences could be explored should the disciplinary process be taken further forward."
In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
During the interviews both AG and SG were asked if they could describe any recent events that had any effect on, and the current state of, working relationships with other team members. The report reflects the comments made during our investigation
Mr Kevin Clarke
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
Yes
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Yes
Eileen Schofield
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
They were handled completely and genuinely
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
N/a
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that is was just a coincidence?
The witness understands that a mistake was made in the preparation of the document C3
6 C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement, But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply an clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
see above
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
see above
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
see above
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
see above
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
see above
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
The witness states that she does not believe there was an inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
The witness does not share your belief
Christine Hallett
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
The witness states that she cannot recall this e-mail
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
The witness states " the University Secretary briefed me orally on your grievance, which was being handled in accordance with the grievance procedure for support staff. Matters such as those you mention were always taken seriously and handled in accordance with the relevant procedures for the staff group concerned."
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
No
Dr Peter Kemp
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
When the witness was interviewed in March 2010 he stated that he would be working from recall of events that occurred two years ago and that his memory might be selective. That said his statement was a truthful recollection of matters as he recalled them at the time.
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
N/a
Gerry McCormac
I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
If AG is referring to his letter of 23 September, this contained assertions considered in the already concluded grievance, disciplinary and appeals procedures and the witness' decision was therefore that he had exhausted the procedures available to him.
I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
This is an assertion raised in the context of AG’s current Employment Tribunal action, and a matter to be considered in that setting.
Eric Hall
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
Tony Osborne (Chair), Brian Sharp (Finance Office), Kathy McCabe, Suzie Law
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
yes
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
It was appropriate for her to be on the panel as she was the out-going post holder.
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
The witness states "I don’t know"
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
The witness states "I did not receive favourable treatment. I do not know how much AG was allocated from the staff development fund."
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example, didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
The witness was surprised by her low scores
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
yes
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
The witness recalls that Mrs McCabe did speak to them. She seemed surprised and upset by the scores. She was not intimidating
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
No
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
The witness states "I did not lie, nor did anyone encourage me to lie"
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
The witness states "I made these comments believing them to be true"
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
The witness states "I found the framework process irritating and frustrating and did occasionally have a rant about it. I do not believe that the process was fraudulent"
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
No
Gail Miller
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
It was genuine
If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a
Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a
Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
n/a
If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
no
Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
no
Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
Refer to statements
The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The witness points out "The procedure actually states – “The report should detail the facts established by the investigation and no recommendations or judgements should be made.”"
Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes
On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
The witness states "The statement captures the feelings experienced by the interviewee."
In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
The statement was signed as being truthful by the interviewee
To be continued...
Saturday
Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
Friday
8000 Emails Suddenly Vanish Into Thin Air
When I suspected that I was going to be sacked for whistleblowing, I made a point of asking Mark Toole and Karen Stark to preserve my emails so that I could have them available for any case I brought to the Employment Tribunal.
After I was dismissed, I was sent my emails, however every single email that I'd received during a 26 month period was missing. I estimate that that would be about 8000 emails that I would have received in that period were gone.
I still haven't been provided with these emails. Nor have I been offered an explanation as to why they are missing.
The emails definitely existed because I printed several of them for the disciplinary hearing.
After I was dismissed, I was sent my emails, however every single email that I'd received during a 26 month period was missing. I estimate that that would be about 8000 emails that I would have received in that period were gone.
I still haven't been provided with these emails. Nor have I been offered an explanation as to why they are missing.
The emails definitely existed because I printed several of them for the disciplinary hearing.
Kathy McCabe - Sex Discriminator Extraordinaire
In the period between the years 2000 and 2006, Kathy McCabe made 13 merit awards to team members. Each award was for a value up to £500.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Sunday
My Letter to Gerry McCormac
I wrote to Stirling University Principal and Vice Chancellor, Gerry McCormac recently to find out from him what action the university has taken with regard to the fraudulent document they sent to Glasgow Employment Tribunal. I also asked him who gave instructions for that fraudulent document to be created.
On 6 December 2011, I received the following letter from Kevin Clarke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Principal has passed your correspondence of 25 November 2011 for me to reply.
It is the policy of the University not to correspond on matters whilst they are the subject of proceedings of the Employment Tribunal which have yet to be concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is a policy that the university has published anywhere, or if it's one they've made up on the spur of the moment. What surprises me, if this is a university policy, is that it is a policy they are actually working to, unlike their policies on bullying, grievances and disciplinary matters. What is their policy on committing fraud and perverting the course of justice?
I would hope that if PC Plod comes knocking at their door, they may have to consider letting him in on their secret.
Gerry is to appear as a witness at the tribunal hearing. Will he refuse to answer my questions then, I wonder? Will he say that he hasn't bothered to investigate a possible crime that has been reported to him? How does this compare with my own experience of being suspended from work in a flash to accommodate a sham investigation? Even if I was guilty of everything that I was accused of, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans compared to criminal fraud. If there's an innocent explanation for this, then why not tell us? Why leave everybody thinking that there's a possibility that Stirling University has perverted the course of justice? Surely the only reason he would want a criminal to retain their job at the university would be that the criminal is one of the untouchables or was following instructions from one of the untouchables.
His secrecy also offers little confidence to staff and students who are considering raising grievances. Surely he should be shouting loud and clear that the university will take swift action to remove the criminal element that carries out sham grievance and disciplinary processes. If he doesn't, staff and students would have every right to believe that he is somehow involved in it.
It began with bullying and sex discrimination by the Finance Director's wife, Kathy McCabe; then we had a sham grievance process to cover that up; then we had a sham disciplinary process to get rid of me for blowing the whistle on the bullying and sex discrimination; then we had criminal fraud to cover up the sham grievance process. And now we have the Principal of Stirling University covering up criminal fraud by his staff. Where will it end?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25 November 2011
Dear Professor McCormac
I wrote to you on 23 September 2010 with a list of thirteen formal grievances I have with Stirling University employees. You replied saying that mechanisms had been exhausted, and my grievances were not processed.
Would you please explain why my grievances were not processed in accordance with the university’s grievance policy which states that an employee may raise grievances up to three months after leaving the university.
I now refer you to the very serious matter of criminal fraud. In relation to the claim I lodged with Glasgow Employment Tribunal, I asked Stirling University to provide details of how my grievance against Mrs Kathy McCabe resulted in all of my allegations against her being rejected. The university responded five months later with a ten page document. I attach the first page of that document.
I refer you to the first allegation [1] our useless DBA. It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark referred to former colleague, Mr F’s statement between 5 and 24 March. In their findings they state that Mr F recalled an incident when Mrs O’Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards me when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone. The document then goes on to state that my allegation was upheld, but that it was not considered to be material.
However, Mr F’s statement, which I have attached, makes no reference to my allegation. The simple reason for this is that Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked him about that, or any other allegation I had made. So when Ms Schofield referred to his statement, she could not have seen what she said she had seen that persuaded her that my allegation should be upheld.
Since Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked Mr F about this allegation, there is no valid reason for them to have referred to his statement in order to attempt to come to any conclusion for this allegation. However, the document that Stirling University sent to the tribunal is a fraud. It is an amateurish attempt to persuade the tribunal that the grievance process, which I described as a sham, was conducted appropriately.
Three weeks after Ms Schofield had concluded her investigation and produced her report for the grievances between me and Mrs McCabe, I contacted Mr F. He clearly remembered the incident with Mrs O’Neil and wrote to me about it. He also informed Ms Stark about it. However, Ms Schofield could not possibly have known about that when she came to her conclusion. She hadn’t asked Mr F or Mrs McCabe or me about the incident. From the sham method that Ms Schofield used to investigate this allegation, she could only conclude that it didn’t happen.
It is now more than seven months since this fraud was committed by Stirling University. Would you please tell me what action you or anyone else at Stirling University has taken in that time in relation to this criminal act. Would you please tell me if you instructed employees to create this fraudulent document? Did University Secretary, Kevin Clarke give instructions for this fraudulent document to be produced?
Since I wrote to you in September 2010, matters have got much worse for Stirling University and I firmly believe it was unwise for you to have simply ignored my letter. To carry out sham internal grievance and disciplinary procedures is very serious, but Stirling University has gone a step further and attempted to pervert the course of justice by committing criminal fraud to deny me justice at the tribunal hearing.
I look forward to your reply.
On 6 December 2011, I received the following letter from Kevin Clarke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Principal has passed your correspondence of 25 November 2011 for me to reply.
It is the policy of the University not to correspond on matters whilst they are the subject of proceedings of the Employment Tribunal which have yet to be concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is a policy that the university has published anywhere, or if it's one they've made up on the spur of the moment. What surprises me, if this is a university policy, is that it is a policy they are actually working to, unlike their policies on bullying, grievances and disciplinary matters. What is their policy on committing fraud and perverting the course of justice?
I would hope that if PC Plod comes knocking at their door, they may have to consider letting him in on their secret.
Gerry is to appear as a witness at the tribunal hearing. Will he refuse to answer my questions then, I wonder? Will he say that he hasn't bothered to investigate a possible crime that has been reported to him? How does this compare with my own experience of being suspended from work in a flash to accommodate a sham investigation? Even if I was guilty of everything that I was accused of, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans compared to criminal fraud. If there's an innocent explanation for this, then why not tell us? Why leave everybody thinking that there's a possibility that Stirling University has perverted the course of justice? Surely the only reason he would want a criminal to retain their job at the university would be that the criminal is one of the untouchables or was following instructions from one of the untouchables.
His secrecy also offers little confidence to staff and students who are considering raising grievances. Surely he should be shouting loud and clear that the university will take swift action to remove the criminal element that carries out sham grievance and disciplinary processes. If he doesn't, staff and students would have every right to believe that he is somehow involved in it.
It began with bullying and sex discrimination by the Finance Director's wife, Kathy McCabe; then we had a sham grievance process to cover that up; then we had a sham disciplinary process to get rid of me for blowing the whistle on the bullying and sex discrimination; then we had criminal fraud to cover up the sham grievance process. And now we have the Principal of Stirling University covering up criminal fraud by his staff. Where will it end?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25 November 2011
Dear Professor McCormac
I wrote to you on 23 September 2010 with a list of thirteen formal grievances I have with Stirling University employees. You replied saying that mechanisms had been exhausted, and my grievances were not processed.
Would you please explain why my grievances were not processed in accordance with the university’s grievance policy which states that an employee may raise grievances up to three months after leaving the university.
I now refer you to the very serious matter of criminal fraud. In relation to the claim I lodged with Glasgow Employment Tribunal, I asked Stirling University to provide details of how my grievance against Mrs Kathy McCabe resulted in all of my allegations against her being rejected. The university responded five months later with a ten page document. I attach the first page of that document.
I refer you to the first allegation [1] our useless DBA. It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark referred to former colleague, Mr F’s statement between 5 and 24 March. In their findings they state that Mr F recalled an incident when Mrs O’Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards me when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone. The document then goes on to state that my allegation was upheld, but that it was not considered to be material.
However, Mr F’s statement, which I have attached, makes no reference to my allegation. The simple reason for this is that Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked him about that, or any other allegation I had made. So when Ms Schofield referred to his statement, she could not have seen what she said she had seen that persuaded her that my allegation should be upheld.
Since Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked Mr F about this allegation, there is no valid reason for them to have referred to his statement in order to attempt to come to any conclusion for this allegation. However, the document that Stirling University sent to the tribunal is a fraud. It is an amateurish attempt to persuade the tribunal that the grievance process, which I described as a sham, was conducted appropriately.
Three weeks after Ms Schofield had concluded her investigation and produced her report for the grievances between me and Mrs McCabe, I contacted Mr F. He clearly remembered the incident with Mrs O’Neil and wrote to me about it. He also informed Ms Stark about it. However, Ms Schofield could not possibly have known about that when she came to her conclusion. She hadn’t asked Mr F or Mrs McCabe or me about the incident. From the sham method that Ms Schofield used to investigate this allegation, she could only conclude that it didn’t happen.
It is now more than seven months since this fraud was committed by Stirling University. Would you please tell me what action you or anyone else at Stirling University has taken in that time in relation to this criminal act. Would you please tell me if you instructed employees to create this fraudulent document? Did University Secretary, Kevin Clarke give instructions for this fraudulent document to be produced?
Since I wrote to you in September 2010, matters have got much worse for Stirling University and I firmly believe it was unwise for you to have simply ignored my letter. To carry out sham internal grievance and disciplinary procedures is very serious, but Stirling University has gone a step further and attempted to pervert the course of justice by committing criminal fraud to deny me justice at the tribunal hearing.
I look forward to your reply.
Thursday
What protection does the union offer against a corrupt management?
The short answer to that question, is not much.
I had been a member of the Universities and Colleges (UCU) union for several years. I paid around £15 per month. I always assumed that the union would protect you against unfair practices by your employer, but sadly I found to my cost that that just isn't the case.
The UCU provided a representative to accompany me to grievance and disciplinary hearings, and the representatives did that very well, and they knew without a shadow of doubt that I was being victimised by management. However, at the end of the day, they didn't stop it. If a corrupt management decides to victimise you and get rid of you for any bogus reason, they'll do it, and there's nothing that the union will do to stop it.
Even worse than that, my union was in fact working against me. When I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, she was accompanied at her hearing by a union representative who announced during the hearing that my written grievance was disturbing and riddled with misrepresentations and used inflammatory language. She said that my submission made extremely serious allegations relating to gender and equality, and that there appeared to be a worrying trend of unprofessional behaviour from me, most of which related to female colleagues. She said she was surprised that I was allowed to continue to be like this and that my behaviour should not be tolerated.
She had never met me, and was only going by what Kathy had told her. It's sickening to read this from a representative from a union that you are paying towards each month.
One of the women who had abused me over the years, and who Kathy refused to manage properly was Jackie O'Neil. About two weeks before I was suspended, Jackie had screamed at me in front of about twelve witnesses, and she slammed her hand on her desk in anger at me because she thought I had made a mistake. I complained to Mark Toole who said he would arrange a meeting for us to discuss the issues. However, Jackie said she wouldn't attend a meeting with me. Along with three other women, she made malicious complaints against me.
Jackie is a member of the UCU committee at Stirling. I recently complained to the UCU about Jackie's inclusion in the committee and asked that she be removed. I even suggested that they could have a brief investigation that would show conclusive proof that Jackie had lied in order to have me unfairly dismissed. However, the UCU plans to take no action.
I think the UCU has damaged its reputation by allowing Jackie O'Neil, who may well become the subject of a defamation claim, to continue as a committee member knowing that she lied and conspired with others in order to end a colleague's career.
Shame on you, UCU!
I had been a member of the Universities and Colleges (UCU) union for several years. I paid around £15 per month. I always assumed that the union would protect you against unfair practices by your employer, but sadly I found to my cost that that just isn't the case.
The UCU provided a representative to accompany me to grievance and disciplinary hearings, and the representatives did that very well, and they knew without a shadow of doubt that I was being victimised by management. However, at the end of the day, they didn't stop it. If a corrupt management decides to victimise you and get rid of you for any bogus reason, they'll do it, and there's nothing that the union will do to stop it.
Even worse than that, my union was in fact working against me. When I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, she was accompanied at her hearing by a union representative who announced during the hearing that my written grievance was disturbing and riddled with misrepresentations and used inflammatory language. She said that my submission made extremely serious allegations relating to gender and equality, and that there appeared to be a worrying trend of unprofessional behaviour from me, most of which related to female colleagues. She said she was surprised that I was allowed to continue to be like this and that my behaviour should not be tolerated.
She had never met me, and was only going by what Kathy had told her. It's sickening to read this from a representative from a union that you are paying towards each month.
One of the women who had abused me over the years, and who Kathy refused to manage properly was Jackie O'Neil. About two weeks before I was suspended, Jackie had screamed at me in front of about twelve witnesses, and she slammed her hand on her desk in anger at me because she thought I had made a mistake. I complained to Mark Toole who said he would arrange a meeting for us to discuss the issues. However, Jackie said she wouldn't attend a meeting with me. Along with three other women, she made malicious complaints against me.
Jackie is a member of the UCU committee at Stirling. I recently complained to the UCU about Jackie's inclusion in the committee and asked that she be removed. I even suggested that they could have a brief investigation that would show conclusive proof that Jackie had lied in order to have me unfairly dismissed. However, the UCU plans to take no action.
I think the UCU has damaged its reputation by allowing Jackie O'Neil, who may well become the subject of a defamation claim, to continue as a committee member knowing that she lied and conspired with others in order to end a colleague's career.
Shame on you, UCU!
Saturday
Stirling Uni Tries to Silence Wikipedia
Professor David Donaldson
Stirling University doesn't like bad publicity. However that hasn't stopped them from using their corrupt practices to destroy people's lives. Instead, they try to hide their devious ways from the public gaze. Their lawyer obsessively raises the matter of my blog with judges because it is causing the university and several of its employees considerable embarrassment.
Since 2009, Wikipedia has displayed the story of David Donaldson, who in 2007 was a senior researcher at Stirling University. He removed a colleague's name from her research grant application, and replaced it with his own, attempting to make it look like it was his work. His act of piracy, which required swapping names eleven times, was discovered and he eventually wrote a letter of apology to his colleague, Dr. Rhodes. However, he later unfairly forced her out of her job at the university. She won her unfair dismissal claim at Glasgow Employment Tribunal in February 2009. Stirling University awarded Donaldson a Professorship shortly after he admitted to stealing Dr. Rhodes' work.
A number of attempts have been made to remove the article from Wikipedia. It is bound to be a source of embarrassment to the University. In the talk section for Wikipedia's Stirling University page, a discussion refers to a legal representative for the university asking for the Donaldson article to be removed. The request was rejected.
Times Higher Education carries a more detailed account of what happened.
Of course you must be wondering how an academic gets pushed out of a University by another academic. Dr. Rhodes was subjected to the same sham grievance procedure as I was. HR Director, Martin McCrindle conducted an investigation into her grievance and concluded there was no case to answer. He was backed by Principal, Christine Hallett. When Dr Rhodes told Martin McCrindle that she would prove what happened in court, McCrindle replied saying that she had 'no basis' to make a claim to the tribunal. As soon as she submitted her complaints to the tribunal, which she did as she had no other way of addressing what happened, they declared they wouldn't contest her claims! She won the case before it even got to court!
Their lawyer agreed with the judge when he said that not resisting her claims amounted to agreeing with them. Her claims included the fact that Donaldson's theft of her research had led to her dismissal (the theft for which she had a letter of apology) and a sham grievance procedure to investigate what happened when she found herself forced out. The university changed their reason for dismissing Dr. Rhodes three times. Each time she informed them that the reason was not valid in her case, so they just invented another false reason each time.
Similarly, in my own case, at my appeal hearing against dismissal I advised Martin McCrindle that my dismissal would prove embarrassing to the university and to several of its employees. He replied saying that that was only my opinion. Well, of course it was only my opinion, but I think it was a correct opinion. If my blog isn't causing anyone any embarrassment, then why is the university paying their lawyer to keep going on about it like a broken record? And if they weren't embarrassed by their sham grievance procedure, why would they risk a jail sentence by committing fraud in an attempt to cover it up, Martin?
Will Stirling University ever learn that they can't treat people like this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)