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!


Anonymous said...

infamy theyve all got it infamy! can you not get it into your head that the problem may not be 16 people but your attitude?

Allan said...

Hello Anonymous

Do you any have evidence of this?

Do you mean that I could just be imagining that these people have lied?

Well, that would be an interesting theory, but for the fact that there is evidence to prove it, and I've posted much of it on my blog in order to prevent people from thinking that I am just being paranoid.

It's very easy to accuse someone of being paranoid, but in this case, it's difficult to back it up with facts. If there had been any facts that support your theory, then surely they would have used them in their grievance and disciplinary processes. Why would they have had to resort to using sham processes?

Of course, the 16 or so people would like others to think it must be paranoia. And pointing out the numbers would back that theory. But it's not just about numbers; it's about facts and real events; not imaginings.

A lot of it is to do with gossip. People have got caught up in a gossip competition, where they feel that they wouldn't feel part of the group if they didn't have some juicy gossip to tell about me. So they made it up. Selina is a prize example. She turned an innocent conversation I had with her into something horrific. That's because the true story would have been pretty boring to pass on. She told people what she knew they wanted to hear; so she added things like "he went red with rage", "he went wild with anger", "he was spitting on my desk, he was so angry." If there was a video of the actual conversation, you would think that Selina was insane. But no, she was just a liar.

The best evidence I have, is an audio recording of Selina starting another conversation with me during a period when she said she was frightened and nervous around me due to me having allegedly gone wild. She doesn't sound nervous and frightened. In fact she interrupts a work conversation in order to joke with me. Now, you could claim that I just imagined I have that audio recording. You could also claim that I just imagined that Selina invited me to hear her funny stories during the time she said she was frightened of me. But if you want to come along to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal, you will hear Selina either confirm or deny that it is her on the recording making jokes with me, and her who invited me to hear her funny stories.

You might think I just imagined that Jackie screamed at me when she incorrectly thought I made a mistake. Come along to the tribunal and hear the evidence.

What do you think about the attitude of someone who would scream at a colleague and slam her hand on her desk just because she thought he made a mistake? What do you think about the attitude of someone who would do that in the presence of about 12 people, and then deny it?

What do you think of the attitude of all those people who witnessed her do that, including David Black who was only a few feet from her, and not one of them came forward to tell the truth?

What do you think about the attitude of David Black who at first confirmed it happened, and then changed his mind? A grown man in his forties too frightened to tell the truth!

You theory, Anonymous, is one that everybody in that room and in my team would love for people to believe. It would get them off the hook. Here's the problem they will have, though. I am prepared to undergo a lie detector test with them. Would they?