Fair dismissal, my arse!

I've spoken to a few people about the treatment I received from Stirling University. The general response is one of surprise that a university would behave that way. It's natural to think that a university comprises the smartest brains in the country, and that they would lead the way in employment matters. In reality, however, they are still in the dark ages where they believe that employees should have no rights and that they should be able to dismiss employees on a whim.

If their accounts department was run the way they run their Human Resources department, they would still be using books and quills instead of computers.

Fortunately, there are laws to protect employees from rogue employers like Stirling University. You need a genuine reason for dismissing someone, and it is not a genuine reason to dismiss an employee for whistleblowing. Of all employers, universities should be encouraging whistleblowers, not sacking them.

There is a test that Employment Tribunals use to decide if a dismissal for misconduct was fair or not.

1 The employer believed that the employee was guilty.

2 They had reasonable grounds on which to sustain that belief.

3 They carried out as much investigation as reasonable in the circumstances.

4 Where there was conflicting evidence, real attempts were made to determine what happened by locating independent witnesses and evidence.

The law does not allow an employer to perform a sham investigation and to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't help them achieve their aim to dismiss a whistleblower. The oppressive nature of my dismissal, and because the university generally shows contempt for employment law means that I am seeking an award of exemplary damages as well as the normal uplift applied to compensation when an employer fails to carry out grievance and disciplinary procedures appropriately. There is no upper limit to the compensation awarded for detriment caused by acts in response to making protected disclosures. Sex discrimination also attracts an award for injury to feelings. A person or persons may have to spend some time in jail for perverting the course of justice with the fraudulent document. Others who lie in court also risk a prison sentence. The publicity of justice may cause the university to reconsider its behaviour; alternatively it may become worse, but less obvious.

1 The university carried out an extremely contrived investigation, light years from the reasonable one that is required.

2 They did not believe I was guilty. Indeed, they absolutely knew I was innocent, and that was the motive for conducting such a contrived investigation.

3 It immediately followed a sham grievance investigation which was so absurd that they had to invent an investigation a year later to make it look like there had been an investigation. But even the invented investigation is absurd.

4 It also followed malicious complaints from employees that I had already complained about. My complaints were basically ignored while they carried out their sham disciplinary process.

5 The malicious complaints arose as a direct result of an act by the university in response to my protected disclosure, and that equates to detriment.

6 Independent witnesses were avoided at all costs despite my pleas.

7 The university has a very poor track record with regard to employment law.

If Stirling University can convince the tribunal that my dismissal was fair, then we would be as well scrapping all of the law books and making everything legal. I doubt if I'd want to live in a world where the treatment I received is legal.