Stirling University to explain fraud

The Employment Tribunal has asked Stirling University to comment on my allegation of fraud. Link to details.

They will be required to explain how, in March 2010, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark were able to refer to a document that did not exist until June 2010. Furthermore, they will be required to explain how that document was able to influence the decision Mrs Schofield made in March 2010; that I had bullied my manager, Kathy McCabe, and that Mrs McCabe had not bullied me.

The apparent fraud supports my claim that I had been subjected to a sham grievance procedure immediately after I had made a Protected Disclosure informing the Principal that my allegations of bullying and sex discrimination were not being handled properly by management and HR.

To avoid admitting that the process was a sham, Stirling University tried to fool the Tribunal into believing they had investigated my allegations of bullying. They produced a ten page fraudulent document purporting to be details of an investigation and decision process that took place in March 2010.

I can't imagine how the university will be able to explain this; other than to admit that the grievance process was a sham, and that they have committed fraud. As well as Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark, this revelation also implicates University Secretary, Kevin Clarke who conducted the appeal hearing and said he saw no flaw in the grievance procedure.

Stirling University now requires snookers!

1 May 2011
Update

I received a copy of a letter that the university sent to the Tribunal in response to my letter to the tribunal informing them of the fraud.

Firstly, they criticise me for bringing the matter to the attention of the tribunal. Clearly they would prefer that the tribunal was not aware of their fraud. That is perfectly understandable.

Secondly, they misquote what I said in my letter, and then they say that what they misquoted was simply wrong. If they had quoted me correctly, they would have seen that what I said was simply correct.

Then there is a very long winded explanation of how the author of the document that was referred to in the fictitious investigation sent them a copy of it around 15 April 2010. They accept that this post dates Mrs Schofield's decision by roughly three weeks.

Then they say that the ten page document is an explanation of the findings made in the context of the general conclusion reached on the grievances.

They state that, because of the information received on 15 April 2010, an allegation I made in my grievance against Kathy McCabe's long term bullying behaviour was upheld.

But nowhere in their letter, which I have read very carefully several times, can I see any explanation of how information, that they accept didn't exist at the time of Mrs Schofield's decision, could have influenced that decision. And it certainly influenced her decision because, without it, my allegation would definitely not have been upheld.

The ten page fraudulent document states that neither I nor Kathy McCabe were given any further opportunity to provide further evidence before the decision was made as it was not thought to be necessary, proportionate or appropriate.

It is therefore extremely unlikely that Mrs Schofield would think it was necessary, proportionate or appropriate to use further evidence at least three weeks after making her general decision to alter her decision on one allegation, especially when she knew that it would not change her general decision.

The process they describe in that document simply did not take place before the decision was made, because the decision was not based on any evidence, but was a response to me having made a protected disclosure to the Principal.

It took them five weeks to provide the information which they say was originally created within a week or two while they were carrying out the investigation. They should have been able to supply the information by the following day. In fact, they should have given it to me when the decision was announced. They didn't, because it never existed.

No one in their right mind would go through every allegation, and make a decision on each one, when the general decision is not based on any evidence. So, as you can imagine, the contents of that ten page document are not just fraudulent, they are the biggest pile of tosh ever written. It is hard to imagine that anyone from the university would actually want to appear at a tribunal hearing and, under oath and with a straight face, argue that it represents a fair and thorough grievance process.

There is a list of flaws a mile long. University Secretary, Mr Kevin Clarke may have to appear in order to explain how each one of those flaws is not a flaw. That should be interesting!