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...
No comments:
Post a Comment