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.

No comments: