I thought it might be interesting to show an example of how Stirling University conducts its sham grievance and disciplinary processes. Just days before I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, the Principal wrote to all staff to tell us that the university is “strongly committed to equality and diversity”. In my grievance against Kathy McCabe I gave a cast iron example of Kathy's sex discrimination.
"Kathy has applied considerable gender bias when promoting and recruiting staff, as well as generally managing the team. The role of DBA had been a grade 3 role before I was appointed to it, but I occupied the role for two years and remained on grade 2. During that time, the role’s responsibility had increased significantly, and I was fully competent (confirmed by Kathy) and also working a lot of extra hours. I met with Kathy and requested grade 3, and she refused. I said that I’d need to look around because I knew that my skills and experience would easily attract a higher salary elsewhere. She threatened to have me dismissed. Then during the same meeting, she suddenly agreed to award me grade 3. Since then, I have helped recruit and trained two part time DBAs and effectively taken on the responsibility of Senior DBA, but Kathy has not recognised this by changing my job title accordingly, despite my request. While we were compiling the DBA role description for role evaluation, I included duties that I have been carrying out for roughly seven years. My DBA colleague was very happy to have them included, but Kathy told me to remove them.
In contrast, Kathy has created numerous new posts and awarded them to women she knew personally, and in some cases their competence and attitude have been highly questionable. For example, the System Assistants role description states that five years Oracle experience is required, but that is simply not true. A new position was created about five years ago. It was highly questionable if the new position was required at all, as the existing two System Assistants appeared not to have sufficient work. Restrictions were made to who could apply, and the post was awarded to Selina Gibb who had no Oracle experience, and has only very recently begun to receive some Oracle training after I gave her a SQL course."
On the face of it, this is a very simple example to investigate. You compare the job advertisement with the role description. You ask for evidence of Selina's Oracle experience. You then ask Kathy to explain the fraud. You ask her why a woman with no Oracle experience has occupied this role for six years when she says it requires five years Oracle experience. You include your findings in your report.
However, Stirling University does it differently. The grievance process is concluded with a report by Eileen Schofield that makes no mention of my allegation. It states "At the hearing meeting, KM presented her case rationally and succinctly, and referred to specific examples in the submitted documentary evidence to support her allegations and to refute those made by AG."
It goes on to say "I do not believe AG's grievance claim to be vexatious on the grounds that he and others think he genuinely believes the allegations made are true. However, by reasonable normal standards in light of the evidence submitted, I do not believe the allegations can be substantiated. Therefore I do not uphold AG's grievance claim.
And that's basically it. That's what you get. So, for the Employment Tribunal, I asked the university to provide details of how they arrived at a decision for each of my allegations. Their responses are included in the 'fraudulent document', but this allegation does not appear.
I asked the university to disclose the job advertisement to which Selina applied. It confirms that no Oracle experience was required. I also asked them to disclose the role description for this role, but they have refused to provide it, and said that it is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not. It relates to a role, not a person. So I've had to ask the tribunal to order them to disclose the role description which will clearly demonstrate fraud. I also asked them to explain why this allegation wasn't investigated. They said that it was considered under the heading 'Recruitment Issues' in the fraudulent document, but that section makes no reference to this allegation.
The conclusion for that section is "Allegation not upheld ‐ considered that University processes were in the main adhered to ‐ considered that there were pragmatic reasons for slight deviation from standard process which had been discussed and agreed with HR Services.
That, readers, is how to conduct a sham grievance process. This is typical of the way they have handled all of my allegations. University Secretary, Kevin Clarke says he saw no flaws in the process when he dismissed my appeal. I look forward to cross examining Mr Clarke at the Tribunal. From what I hear, I don't think he is looking forward to it.
This was an allegation which demonstrated sex discrimination when, if you remember, the university was "strongly committed to equality". It also demonstrates Kathy's abuse of the role evaluation process. It also shows that the university is failing to comply with their legal obligation to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. This formed part of another protected disclosure I made to Peter Kemp who was Director of IS at the time. When I cross examine him at the tribunal, I will ask him what he did with all the information I gave him. In my protected disclosure to him in May 2008, I said:
"I voiced my concerns to a senior colleague. Apparently all of the other seniors had no doubt from the moment Kathy had presented her proposals that it was a plan to give Suzie a job in ISD. This colleague was also aware of another post, which very likely had been created specifically for Selina Gibb. My colleague went on to say that in Selina's case, strict rules were applied that prevented people who wanted to apply from doing so, and that it had caused upset with staff in other departments. Interestingly, the framework role outline for Selina's role states that 5 years Oracle experience is required. But Selina didn't have any Oracle experience when she got the job, and as far as I am aware, she still doesn't."
The university has objected to me calling Kevin Clarke, Peter Kemp, Christine Hallett and Gerry McCormac for cross examination.
The university has broken the law several times over. I have informed the MP for Stirling, Anne McGuire, who intends to investigate this matter.
Principal and Vice Chancellor, Professor Gerry McCormac says he knows how to get the best out of people. I lodged formal grievances with him against Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield and Kevin Clarke. Contrary to the university grievance procedure, and when the doctor had informed the university that he had considerable concerns about my well being, Gerry refused to action my grievances.
Who the fuck told this clown that he knows how to get the best out of people?
Showing posts with label eileen schofield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eileen schofield. Show all posts
Sunday
Friday
Kathy McCabe - Sex Discriminator Extraordinaire
In the period between the years 2000 and 2006, Kathy McCabe made 13 merit awards to team members. Each award was for a value up to £500.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Wednesday
The Plan
I've sent the university a list of documents I require ahead of the tribunal hearing.
Item 12 on my list reads: Please provide a copy of the investigation plan produced by Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark before they began investigating the allegations contained in the conjoined grievances. Please also demonstrate that this document existed before the investigation began, by providing emails to which it was attached, etc.
In April, after some considerable length of time, Stirling University sent a document which describes how Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield arrived at the decision for each allegation made by me and Kathy McCabe in our grievances. The document, which I have alleged to be a fraud, doesn't actually deal with every single allegation we made, so I have also asked how a decision could have been reached without considering those allegations.
Under normal conditions, any investigation requires a plan. You can't just start investigating. You need to know what that investigation is going to consist of. For example, who are you going to interview? What documents and other data holding tools are you going to refer to? What questions do you need to ask whom? That plan must already exist because the investigation was carried out by means of following it. There will be no need for Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield to hastily create one. It's just a matter of popping it in the post.
At least, that's the theory. I am particularly interested in one item on this plan. What will it say about the allegation that somehow led to Eileen Schofield seeing weeks into the future?
How will Eileen Schofield describe how she planned to look at a witness's statement in order to come to a decision for a specific allegation when she hadn't even planned to ask that witness anything about the allegation?
I suppose they could try saying that they had planned to ask him about it, but forgot. Then when they were about to make their decision, they referred to his statement having forgotten that they had previously forgotten to ask him about it. Then Karen Stark made an enormous typing error. That's about their most sensible option. Or at least, it would have been, but for at least half a dozen other problems they have.
Personally, I don't see them defending this case in court at all. They would have to be mad. The fake investigation is obvious. The tribunal would definitely want to know why they subjected me to a fake grievance process. And their house of cards falls on its face. They have no case at all.
They should have thrown in the towel long ago, but they are playing with the public's money. It would be different if it was their own.
It will be fascinating to see whether, after having already produced at least two fake documents, they go and create another one. Will they come clean, or will they go for broke? I wonder what Gerry McCormac will advise they do.
Stirling University's management is now turning into a farce. It would be excellent to see them on the TV news programmes running from the cameras. Excellent! Maybe that bloke Naughty could give them a spot on his radio show! He could call them all a bunch of Jeremy Hunts! cough, cough!
Item 12 on my list reads: Please provide a copy of the investigation plan produced by Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark before they began investigating the allegations contained in the conjoined grievances. Please also demonstrate that this document existed before the investigation began, by providing emails to which it was attached, etc.
In April, after some considerable length of time, Stirling University sent a document which describes how Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield arrived at the decision for each allegation made by me and Kathy McCabe in our grievances. The document, which I have alleged to be a fraud, doesn't actually deal with every single allegation we made, so I have also asked how a decision could have been reached without considering those allegations.
Under normal conditions, any investigation requires a plan. You can't just start investigating. You need to know what that investigation is going to consist of. For example, who are you going to interview? What documents and other data holding tools are you going to refer to? What questions do you need to ask whom? That plan must already exist because the investigation was carried out by means of following it. There will be no need for Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield to hastily create one. It's just a matter of popping it in the post.
At least, that's the theory. I am particularly interested in one item on this plan. What will it say about the allegation that somehow led to Eileen Schofield seeing weeks into the future?
How will Eileen Schofield describe how she planned to look at a witness's statement in order to come to a decision for a specific allegation when she hadn't even planned to ask that witness anything about the allegation?
I suppose they could try saying that they had planned to ask him about it, but forgot. Then when they were about to make their decision, they referred to his statement having forgotten that they had previously forgotten to ask him about it. Then Karen Stark made an enormous typing error. That's about their most sensible option. Or at least, it would have been, but for at least half a dozen other problems they have.
Personally, I don't see them defending this case in court at all. They would have to be mad. The fake investigation is obvious. The tribunal would definitely want to know why they subjected me to a fake grievance process. And their house of cards falls on its face. They have no case at all.
They should have thrown in the towel long ago, but they are playing with the public's money. It would be different if it was their own.
It will be fascinating to see whether, after having already produced at least two fake documents, they go and create another one. Will they come clean, or will they go for broke? I wonder what Gerry McCormac will advise they do.
Stirling University's management is now turning into a farce. It would be excellent to see them on the TV news programmes running from the cameras. Excellent! Maybe that bloke Naughty could give them a spot on his radio show! He could call them all a bunch of Jeremy Hunts! cough, cough!
Tuesday
The Questions
After 48 days, the Stirling University finally provided answers to my questions; or at least some of them.
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
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.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
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.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
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?
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?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
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?
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?
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?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
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.
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?
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?
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? 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?
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.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
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?
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?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
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.
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?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
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.
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.
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?
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 it was just a coincidence?
6 Document 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 a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
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.
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?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
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?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
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?
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?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
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?
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”?
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.
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?
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?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
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/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 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?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 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.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 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?
12 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?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
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?
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.
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.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
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.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 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.
2 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?
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
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.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
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.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
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?
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.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
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.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
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?
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?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
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?
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?
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?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
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.
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?
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?
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? 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?
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.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
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?
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?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
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.
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?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
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.
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.
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?
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 it was just a coincidence?
6 Document 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 a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
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.
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?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
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?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
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?
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?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
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?
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”?
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.
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?
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?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
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/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 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?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 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.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 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?
12 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?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
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?
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.
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.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
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.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 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.
2 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?
Saturday
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
At the Employment Tribunal hearing, Karen Stark gave evidence, and the university's lawyer, Alun Thomas asked her how often HR has to deal with grievances. She replied that there are not many. The impression they were hoping to give was that HR and management take great care to ensure that staff and students are happy, and that therefore I am unusual, and perhaps the type of person who complains for no good reason. It would perhaps have provided the tribunal with a more accurate impression if Mr Thomas had asked how many grievances are taken seriously, and how many people who raise grievances end up sacked. However, in this case, it's not Mr Thomas' job to present the tribunal with the whole truth, but to persuade it that I am the problem, and that the university acts in a highly professional manner. That means he has to create barriers to prevent the tribunal from learning the whole truth.
In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.
In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.
Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.
By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.
In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.
In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.
Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.
By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.
Monday
Eileen Schofield's miraculous premonition
When the Employment Tribunal hearing was suspended on 14 June 2011, I was cross examining Karen Stark about the document Stirling University fraudulently sent to the ET. My previous post describes the story that Karen invented to deny that it was created fraudulently in an attempt to fool the tribunal into thinking that my allegations against Kathy McCabe were investigated, and that Eileen Schofield's decision not to uphold my grievance was based on evidence, and not simply a response to me whistleblowing to the Principal, Christine Hallett.
The story she gave under oath makes no sense, and she will have to face some very difficult questions when the hearing resumes.
The fraudulent document also states how each allegation was investigated. For this particular allegation, it states that Eileen Schofield referred to a former colleague's email that he sent in response to a question he was asked by Karen Stark about an entirely different matter that had nothing to do with any allegations. So why on earth would she refer to an email that doesn't contain any reference to the allegation? He wasn't asked anything about this allegation when Karen contacted him for the investigation. It's almost as though Mrs Schofield had a miraculous premonition that he would contact the university three weeks later with new evidence about this allegation.
Karen told the tribunal that Schofield did not review her decision for this allegation when they received the new information. Karen said that she just mistakenly typed the wrong decision, and that she also mistakenly typed the wrong facts on which the decision was based. Already that is impossible. But will she dare to tell the tribunal that she also mistakenly typed that they referred to that email; an email that had no bearing on the allegation, but which came from the person whose information she mistakenly typed, and which altered the decision that she mistakenly typed? Surely not! And then there's something else she'll have to explain which I'll keep to myself for the moment.
She has already had to admit to the tribunal that a whole bunch of my allegations were simply not investigated. It will soon become clear that none of them were investigated.
Interestingly, Karen Stark is taking full responsibility for this document, saying that Schofield took no part in its creation. They must have agreed that if anyone has to go to jail for perverting the course of justice, Karen is to be the sacrificial lamb.
Stirling University should have considered the consequences of committing fraud more seriously before creating that document. They are making complete fools of themselves.
The story she gave under oath makes no sense, and she will have to face some very difficult questions when the hearing resumes.
The fraudulent document also states how each allegation was investigated. For this particular allegation, it states that Eileen Schofield referred to a former colleague's email that he sent in response to a question he was asked by Karen Stark about an entirely different matter that had nothing to do with any allegations. So why on earth would she refer to an email that doesn't contain any reference to the allegation? He wasn't asked anything about this allegation when Karen contacted him for the investigation. It's almost as though Mrs Schofield had a miraculous premonition that he would contact the university three weeks later with new evidence about this allegation.
Karen told the tribunal that Schofield did not review her decision for this allegation when they received the new information. Karen said that she just mistakenly typed the wrong decision, and that she also mistakenly typed the wrong facts on which the decision was based. Already that is impossible. But will she dare to tell the tribunal that she also mistakenly typed that they referred to that email; an email that had no bearing on the allegation, but which came from the person whose information she mistakenly typed, and which altered the decision that she mistakenly typed? Surely not! And then there's something else she'll have to explain which I'll keep to myself for the moment.
She has already had to admit to the tribunal that a whole bunch of my allegations were simply not investigated. It will soon become clear that none of them were investigated.
Interestingly, Karen Stark is taking full responsibility for this document, saying that Schofield took no part in its creation. They must have agreed that if anyone has to go to jail for perverting the course of justice, Karen is to be the sacrificial lamb.
Stirling University should have considered the consequences of committing fraud more seriously before creating that document. They are making complete fools of themselves.
Wednesday
Digital Recordings
I have sent Stirling University's lawyers sound recordings that support my assertion that a number of colleagues have told porky pies.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
Friday
Stirling University employees may face jail sentences
A company boss was jailed for four months after he faked evidence for an Employment Tribunal in Edinburgh. Story at Deadline News and Northgate Arinso Employer Services.
He would have been jailed for six months, but his sentence was reduced because he admitted his crime of perverting the course of justice.
What he did is similar to what Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark have done for the Employment Tribunal case that I have brought against University of Stirling.
Schofield and Stark faked evidence in order to fool the tribunal that, for a grievance I raised against Kathy McCabe, Schofield had formed her decision to reject my allegations based on evidence. However, evidence that they claim influenced her decision simply didn't exist when she made it. Details here.
He would have been jailed for six months, but his sentence was reduced because he admitted his crime of perverting the course of justice.
What he did is similar to what Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark have done for the Employment Tribunal case that I have brought against University of Stirling.
Schofield and Stark faked evidence in order to fool the tribunal that, for a grievance I raised against Kathy McCabe, Schofield had formed her decision to reject my allegations based on evidence. However, evidence that they claim influenced her decision simply didn't exist when she made it. Details here.
Saturday
Student newspaper prints my story
Brig, Stirling University's student newspaper has printed my story on page 4 of its May edition.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Wednesday
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!
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!
Saturday
Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal
As part of my claim to the Employment Tribunal, I had complained that I had been subjected to a sham grievance investigation after I had made a Protected Disclosure to the Principal. Stirling University denied this. The Tribunal asked them to provide details of the alleged investigation, including the facts that led to the decision. It took five months and several letters from me before they finally provided the information they claimed existed in March 2010.
However, there is irrefutable proof that they have lied to the Tribunal. The information they sent describes how Eileen Schofield arrived at a particular decision after referring to the contents of a certain document in March 2010. She describes its contents. Unfortunately for Mrs Schofield, the document she referred to doesn't contain what she said it does.
There is, however, a different document from the same author which contains exactly what she described; but that document was never available to her as part of the grievance process. In fact, it didn't even exist until June 2010.
Therefore, Mrs Schofield has told the Tribunal that she was able to come to a decision based on evidence that simply did not exist until three months after she made her decision.
It's a big fat lie!
It represents an elaborate fraud in an attempt to fool the tribunal into believing that a real investigation had taken place, rather than just admit that there was none.
Last week, Stirling University rejected my suggestion that they were stalling by taking so long to provide evidence that a fair investigation had taken place.
In an earlier post, I spoke about how providing false evidence is fraught with danger.
It would be astonishing if Mrs Schofield was to survive this massive fraud with her job intact.
However, there is irrefutable proof that they have lied to the Tribunal. The information they sent describes how Eileen Schofield arrived at a particular decision after referring to the contents of a certain document in March 2010. She describes its contents. Unfortunately for Mrs Schofield, the document she referred to doesn't contain what she said it does.
There is, however, a different document from the same author which contains exactly what she described; but that document was never available to her as part of the grievance process. In fact, it didn't even exist until June 2010.
Therefore, Mrs Schofield has told the Tribunal that she was able to come to a decision based on evidence that simply did not exist until three months after she made her decision.
It's a big fat lie!
It represents an elaborate fraud in an attempt to fool the tribunal into believing that a real investigation had taken place, rather than just admit that there was none.
Last week, Stirling University rejected my suggestion that they were stalling by taking so long to provide evidence that a fair investigation had taken place.
In an earlier post, I spoke about how providing false evidence is fraught with danger.
It would be astonishing if Mrs Schofield was to survive this massive fraud with her job intact.
Thursday
My Offer To Stirling University
Stirling University has got so used to conducting sham hearings that they expect the Employment Tribunal to conduct sham hearings on their behalf. They have their story all sorted out, and they don't want any facts or any alternative positions to be considered; claiming that they are irrelevant. Here is their position, as viewed by Mark Toole who dismissed me.
Allan's female manager submitted a grievance against him, and he made allegations that she had bullied him and discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. After a fair and thorough investigation, his allegations were rejected, and the Deputy Secretary found him to be a bully. He appealed against that decision, but the University Secretary could find no flaw in the grievance procedure.
I received complaints against Allan from three other women saying he had bullied them over time. I arranged a fair and thorough investigation, and held a fair disciplinary hearing. Allan claimed the women were lying, but I could see no reason why they would lie.
I dismissed Allan for reasons that are fair and genuine. He appealed, but the HR Director and another Director could find no flaw in the disciplinary process. His email to the Principal does not qualify as a Protected Disclosure, and even if it does, he did not suffer any detriment as a result of it. The Tribunal asked us to explain why it does not qualify as a protected disclosure, but we refused to explain because we, with professional representation, believe it is not relevant to his case.
It certainly sounds like a very convincing case. There's just one slight problem with it. It's complete bollocks!
Here is my own position.
My female manager bullied me and discriminated against me on the basis of my gender for several years to the injury of my mental health. However, management failed in their duty of care for me by not handling my manager's behaviour appropriately. I made a protected disclosure to the Principal, and submitted a formal grievance against my manager.
Management immediately closed ranks. The Principal forwarded my protected disclosure to the IS Director and HR Advisor who I said had failed in their duty of care. I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance procedure which included a sham investigation that was designed to create friction between me and my colleagues. The Deputy Secretary dishonestly rejected my allegations and accepted my manager's vexatious allegations. Her decision was dishonestly upheld at appeal by the University Secretary.
Motivated by the sham investigation, three women made malicious complaints against me. These were women who had previously abused me, but their actions had not been dealt with by their manager, HR or management; all of whom had known about that abuse.
A sham disciplinary investigation was arranged by the IS Director, and was followed by a sham hearing conducted by the IS Director. Although he knew I was innocent, he dismissed me dishonestly. His decision was dishonestly upheld by two further Directors, including the HR Director. I submitted grievances against all of these dishonest Directors to the new Principal. He failed to action my grievances.
The University was issued with a request by the Tribunal to answer my questions on 16 November 2010. The questions seek to discover the facts that were said to have been relied upon to reject my allegations of bullying. Surprisingly, the University refused to comply with the request saying that the questions are irrelevant. I've now been waiting more than four months for the answers which are most certainly relevant. If, as I expect, they show that the investigation was a sham, then:
it supports my position that I was dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would make my dismissal automatically unfair.
it supports my position that the disciplinary procedure was also a sham, because Karen Stark took part in both procedures.
it supports my position that the purpose of the 'investigation' was to cause bad feelings, rather than to discover facts.
it would also represent detriment following my protected disclosure.
Mr Toole included the outcome of the grievance in his reason for dismissing me, and that would make it unfair.
it would support my claim of sex discrimination.
it would show that Mr Clarke had also been dishonest when rejecting my appeal, making it even more likely that my dismissal was unfair.
Tribunals can increase compensation by up to 25% where employers have failed to carry out grievance and disciplinary procedures appropriately.
the Uni has hinted that it may seek costs from me for raising a misconceived claim. This would help make that unlikely. Indeed I may seek costs from the Uni.
the Tribunal hearing would take far less time, and that benefits everybody.
Clearly it would greatly help my case. However, if the answers show that the investigation was thorough and fair, then it would greatly help the Uni's case. So ask yourself why they are so reluctant to provide the answers. Well, I was recently told that they are also concerned that I may publish the answers on my blog.
Stirling University now say they may voluntarily(?) provide me with the answers to my questions in the next few days. So here's my genuine offer. If they answer my questions fully and honestly in the next few days, I will guarantee that they will not appear on my blog. I make this offer in good faith, and in the hope that we can move forward, and towards a point when, hopefully, there may be no need for me to continue with my blog.
17 March 2011
=============================================
Timeline for the questions and answers.
8 November 2010
Tribunal orders me to provide answers to questions about my protected disclosures, including the obligations Stirling University had failed to comply with, the detriment to which I was subjected, and the facts that link the detriment to the protected disclosures.
15 November 2010
I answer the questions honestly, and in full with no legal assistance. My disclosures easily qualify for protection, because the University has failed to comply with multiple obligations.
16 November 2010
Tribunal asks Stirling University to provide answers to my questions. They are asked to provide the facts that were used to come to the decision to reject the allegations contained in my grievance, and to uphold my manager's allegations, and to explain how the investigation produced these facts. They are also asked to explain how my email to the Principal does not qualify as a protected disclosure.
23 November 2010
Stirling University refuses to answer the questions, claiming them to be irrelevant to my case.
23 November 2010, 20 December 2010 and 3 March 2011
I write to confirm that the questions are relevant to my case and clearly state why they are relevant.
11 March 2011
Anticipating an order from the Tribunal to answer the questions, Stirling University say they will consider answering at least some of the questions, depending on the extent to which Mr Toole had considered the outcome of the grievances when he dismissed me.
14 March 2011
I write again saying that all of the questions are relevant, and again I state why. I say that the extent to which Mr Toole allegedly considered the grievance outcome is not relevant. His reason for dismissal refers to it. I question if the Uni are now changing their reason for dismissal.
17 March 2011
I create this post in my blog.
18 March 2011
Stirling University write to say that they will answer the questions, but they still say the questions are not relevant to my case. They say it could take two weeks to provide the answers, and they blame me for this because of the level of detail that is likely to be necessary to satisfy me.
The level of detail I require is the same level of detail that would have been required by Mrs Schofield in order to come to her decision.
While I am pleased that, after more than four months, the Uni has finally decided to answer the questions, I am surprised that it should require another two weeks to provide the answers. They claim that they completed the thorough investigation itself within one week. The answers to my questions should already exist because Mrs Schofield had to use the facts that allegedly came from the investigation in order to make her decision. If they did indeed carry out the thorough investigation they say they did, it should take no more than an hour to answer my questions. However, in reality, it should take no more than ten minutes because the allegations were not investigated; or at least if they were investigated, the facts were ignored because they did not support the required decision.
So they need an additional two weeks on top of the previous four months to try to come up with something that makes it sound as though they genuinely investigated all of the allegations within one week, and that the investigation produced facts which refuted all my allegations (including the ones that are irrefutable) and supported Kathy McCabe's allegations (which are all vexatious).
Alternatively, they may tell the truth and admit that the decision was based on something other than facts, while defiantly insisting that the questions are not relevant to the case. What's it to be, I wonder? So far, they have omitted to say why the questions are not relevant.
26 March 2011
It's now nine days since I made my offer to Stirling University, and I've still not received any answers to my questions.
I'm looking forward to receiving the answers. I know that there is no way that they could have discovered facts that support Eileen Schofield's decision, but University management has landed themselves in a very difficult position due to their corrupt activities. Not only do they have to produce facts that don't and can't exist; they also have to describe how their investigation produced those facts, while demonstrating that the investigation was thorough and fair, and that they have been even handed. This is made all the more difficult by me having copies of the witness statements. It means they can't just invent facts from those. They've now given themselves a further problem by promising the Tribunal that they will provide answers with a level of detail that they say needs twice as much time to put on paper than it took to investigate.
I'm especially looking forward to seeing how the Uni answers one of Kathy's most bizarre allegations; Constant threat of bringing a grievance but never acting on it. This is the type of stupid lie that I could maybe imagine a five year old spoilt child blurting out in the spur of the moment during a tantrum. However, even a child would quickly become embarrassed once they realised it was obvious to everyone that it was a lie. Mrs Kathy McCabe is over 50 years old. She has been a senior manager for 12 years and earns in excess of £50,000 a year. She didn't say this on the spur of the moment, but had taken the time to type it into her official grievance document. She sent that document to Karen Stark whom she must have known would instantly recognise that it was a lie. Karen did not question me or Kathy about this at the hearing. It is a very serious matter to make malicious complaints, and Karen Stark must know that.
Answering my questions will just be the beginning of their difficulties. At the Tribunal hearing, they'll be asked about the investigation and its purpose. What was the purpose of the hearing? Why did they ask the questions they did, and not the ones they should have asked? Why was a lot of evidence ignored? Why did they say they checked Kathy's statement when they obviously hadn't? Why did they not interview the obvious witnesses, including the one I suggested? Why was I never subjected to disciplinary action before I made my protected disclosure? Why was I not allowed to respond to witness statements as asked. Why was I only asked to summarise my grievance when the report falsely claims I was asked to present my whole grievance? Why was Kathy not asked to respond to my allegations? Why, when they knew of the mental injuries I'd already suffered, did they deliberately act in a way that was likely to rub salt in the wounds? How could Kevin Clarke fail to see the procedural flaws?
It will quickly become very clear that the process was a complete sham, and that Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield, Karen Stark and Kevin Clarke are all guilty of gross misconduct, for which they have not yet been punished. The questions I've asked are the questions that Principal Gerry (I focus on getting the best out of people) McCormac is paid a quarter of a million pounds a year to ask. So why didn't he? It will also be clear that former Principal, Christine Hallett had completely mishandled my protected disclosure in which I alerted her to the fact that management and HR were not taking the matter seriously, and that it was seriously damaging my health. She just allowed this farce to happen.
I have suffered the most severe mental torture in the 13 months since I told the Principal about it. I'm hoping that the torture will soon be over, and that justice will be seen to be done. However, I think it will take a very long time for me to get my life back on track. At this moment I can't visualise it. Six years of my life have been ruined, and the last year has been sheer hell. The shocking truth is that around 15 people were willing to lie in order to ruin my life. They were effectively happy to line up to stab me in the heart. The most shocking was Selina Gibb who, just weeks before, seemed ever so genuinely concerned about my health. Then I learned that she had lied in order to deprive me of my livelihood. Other 'friends' were unwilling to come forward and tell the truth. That is far from a confidence boost for someone who was already known to suffer from a lack of confidence and assertiveness. Another 'friend' enthusiastically asked me to phone him at home the following day, and then simply wouldn't answer my calls. He answered one of my calls, but wouldn't speak. He just pretended he wasn't there. How ridiculous! He, along with Jackie O'Neil, holds an executive position within the local branch of the UCU union. He was by no means a friend of Kathy McCabe, and was well aware of her discriminatory behaviour. The next day, I felt suicidal. It was not the first time, but it was easily the strongest. I had even changed my socks and underwear in preparation.
31 March 2011
It's now two weeks since I made my offer in good faith. It no longer applies.
Stirling University has one more day to comply with the commitment they made to the Employment Tribunal that they would answer my questions in full.
1 April 2011
On the day by which Stirling University said they would furnish me with the answers to my questions, they have written to the Tribunal to say that they need more time.
The information I've requested, which allegedly already exists, is going to take another two weeks to prepare. "Substantial progress" has been made they say, but two of the personnel involved in preparing the document are on pre-planned leave next week.
Stirling University is making a mockery of the Employment Tribunal process. The information I've requested should take one person (Eileen Schofield) MINUTES, not a team of personnel MONTHS. They say that they now hope to be able to respond by 15 April 2011. I'm not holding my breath.
Assuming the Tribunal allows this additional time, it gives the Uni two more weeks to consider their options. In my opinion, their options are now less attractive than they were when they first agreed to provide the answers. Their best option then was to have told the truth. I still think their best option is to tell the truth, but if they do that now, it will be obvious that they have been stalling, and lying about making "substantial progress".
Another option will be to stall again. We might find, for example, that two personnel have been on unplanned sick leave, or that a dog has eaten the document. The Tribunal will eventually lose patience with this, though, and of course, they would be no better off. They are just delaying the inevitable, and the longer they take, the worse it looks for them.
Another option is to lie and provide false answers that make the decision appear correct. That will be far from easy, and if they were intending to try this, they should have tried it before now, because they still have to make it appear that the information existed a year ago, but now they have to make it appear that at least three weeks was required merely to document this information that they said already existed.
The false answers option will be extremely difficult, and it is fraught with danger. The Uni would risk having their entire case thrown out or being denied the right to give evidence. It would probably be picked up by the media, and would severely damage the reputation of the Uni and of the individuals concerned.
For each allegation that Kathy and I made, they would have to somehow demonstrate a fair and thorough investigation was made that included referring to supporting evidence we provided. Then they have to state the facts that the investigation uncovered that support the decision. Even by giving false answers, this will be incredibly difficult to achieve. I certainly wouldn't want that job. There are no facts that came from the interviews that support Kathy's allegations and refute mine. I can only think that the Uni could try creating documents, and claim they existed at the time. That would be very dangerous, and it still wouldn't solve the massive problem they are facing.
Let's take one example; Kathy's allegation of Constant threat of raising a grievance but never acting on it. There is simply no way they could say they investigated this, and didn't find it to be a vexatious allegation. It was not raised in any of the interviews, including mine and Kathy's. Karen Stark, who helped carry out the investigation, was fully aware that I had already raised two grievances against Kathy, and that Kathy was fully aware of them. There is documentary evidence to prove this. There can be no evidence of me constantly threatening to raise a grievance, unless they create it now. That would then raise the question of why Kathy didn't include it with her grievance to support her allegation.
Immediately before the investigation began, Karen Stark wrote to tell me that they were obliged to investigate the allegations thoroughly. That just increases the difficulty they have. Added to this, Karen had witnessed Kathy bullying me, with other witnesses present.
They have to show that none of my allegations were true or represented bullying, dishonesty or sex discrimination. Eileen Schofield, in her report, considered whether my allegations were vexatious. The answers will have to show that that was a reasonable consideration.
They will also have to show evidence of the merit award that Kathy claims she gave me, and also evidence that she promoted me to Trainee Database Administrator. These will prove very difficult to achieve since the Payroll Manager already confirmed to me in writing that these claims are both untrue. Yet somehow, Eileen Schofield claimed she checked these facts.
... and much, much more ...
My guess is that the Uni will stall again. Can everyone please try to refrain from slitting Eileen Schofield's throat until I receive the answers!
And we haven't even touched on Mark Toole's fake investigation yet. He will have to explain how the impossible is possible. I don't envy that job either.
I wrote to the Tribunal to complain about the university's stalling tactics. I reminded them that the information I've requested should already exist, and that I first asked for it 5 months ago.
8 April 2011
Stirling University rejects my suggestion that they are stalling. They say that they are merely ensuring sufficient time and resource is expended to ensure that their response is properly prepared. They don't say why it is taking so long, and they don't say why they think the information is not relevant to my claim.
15 April 2011
At 5:21pm, just five months to the day since I asked my questions, Stirling University has finally answered them; or at least some of them. For example, I really wanted to publish the details of their investigation into Kathy's allegation about me constantly threatening to raise a grievance but never acting on it; but unfortunately they've decided that, even though it was one of Kathy's main allegations, it would be best not to refer to it in their answers. I can imagine it would be very difficult to provide an answer that didn't include the word nutjob.
The reason Stirling University took 5 months to provide the details of the investigation, is because no real investigation took place. The details they have provided could not have come from any investigation that took place in March 2010 because it refers to information that simply didn't exist at that time. The reason they have been stalling is because they have been trying to invent a new, fraudulent investigation and pretend it happened in March 2010. They will have some explaining to do at the hearing.
Allan's female manager submitted a grievance against him, and he made allegations that she had bullied him and discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. After a fair and thorough investigation, his allegations were rejected, and the Deputy Secretary found him to be a bully. He appealed against that decision, but the University Secretary could find no flaw in the grievance procedure.
I received complaints against Allan from three other women saying he had bullied them over time. I arranged a fair and thorough investigation, and held a fair disciplinary hearing. Allan claimed the women were lying, but I could see no reason why they would lie.
I dismissed Allan for reasons that are fair and genuine. He appealed, but the HR Director and another Director could find no flaw in the disciplinary process. His email to the Principal does not qualify as a Protected Disclosure, and even if it does, he did not suffer any detriment as a result of it. The Tribunal asked us to explain why it does not qualify as a protected disclosure, but we refused to explain because we, with professional representation, believe it is not relevant to his case.
It certainly sounds like a very convincing case. There's just one slight problem with it. It's complete bollocks!
Here is my own position.
My female manager bullied me and discriminated against me on the basis of my gender for several years to the injury of my mental health. However, management failed in their duty of care for me by not handling my manager's behaviour appropriately. I made a protected disclosure to the Principal, and submitted a formal grievance against my manager.
Management immediately closed ranks. The Principal forwarded my protected disclosure to the IS Director and HR Advisor who I said had failed in their duty of care. I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance procedure which included a sham investigation that was designed to create friction between me and my colleagues. The Deputy Secretary dishonestly rejected my allegations and accepted my manager's vexatious allegations. Her decision was dishonestly upheld at appeal by the University Secretary.
Motivated by the sham investigation, three women made malicious complaints against me. These were women who had previously abused me, but their actions had not been dealt with by their manager, HR or management; all of whom had known about that abuse.
A sham disciplinary investigation was arranged by the IS Director, and was followed by a sham hearing conducted by the IS Director. Although he knew I was innocent, he dismissed me dishonestly. His decision was dishonestly upheld by two further Directors, including the HR Director. I submitted grievances against all of these dishonest Directors to the new Principal. He failed to action my grievances.
The University was issued with a request by the Tribunal to answer my questions on 16 November 2010. The questions seek to discover the facts that were said to have been relied upon to reject my allegations of bullying. Surprisingly, the University refused to comply with the request saying that the questions are irrelevant. I've now been waiting more than four months for the answers which are most certainly relevant. If, as I expect, they show that the investigation was a sham, then:
it supports my position that I was dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would make my dismissal automatically unfair.
it supports my position that the disciplinary procedure was also a sham, because Karen Stark took part in both procedures.
it supports my position that the purpose of the 'investigation' was to cause bad feelings, rather than to discover facts.
it would also represent detriment following my protected disclosure.
Mr Toole included the outcome of the grievance in his reason for dismissing me, and that would make it unfair.
it would support my claim of sex discrimination.
it would show that Mr Clarke had also been dishonest when rejecting my appeal, making it even more likely that my dismissal was unfair.
Tribunals can increase compensation by up to 25% where employers have failed to carry out grievance and disciplinary procedures appropriately.
the Uni has hinted that it may seek costs from me for raising a misconceived claim. This would help make that unlikely. Indeed I may seek costs from the Uni.
the Tribunal hearing would take far less time, and that benefits everybody.
Clearly it would greatly help my case. However, if the answers show that the investigation was thorough and fair, then it would greatly help the Uni's case. So ask yourself why they are so reluctant to provide the answers. Well, I was recently told that they are also concerned that I may publish the answers on my blog.
Stirling University now say they may voluntarily(?) provide me with the answers to my questions in the next few days. So here's my genuine offer. If they answer my questions fully and honestly in the next few days, I will guarantee that they will not appear on my blog. I make this offer in good faith, and in the hope that we can move forward, and towards a point when, hopefully, there may be no need for me to continue with my blog.
17 March 2011
=============================================
Timeline for the questions and answers.
8 November 2010
Tribunal orders me to provide answers to questions about my protected disclosures, including the obligations Stirling University had failed to comply with, the detriment to which I was subjected, and the facts that link the detriment to the protected disclosures.
15 November 2010
I answer the questions honestly, and in full with no legal assistance. My disclosures easily qualify for protection, because the University has failed to comply with multiple obligations.
16 November 2010
Tribunal asks Stirling University to provide answers to my questions. They are asked to provide the facts that were used to come to the decision to reject the allegations contained in my grievance, and to uphold my manager's allegations, and to explain how the investigation produced these facts. They are also asked to explain how my email to the Principal does not qualify as a protected disclosure.
23 November 2010
Stirling University refuses to answer the questions, claiming them to be irrelevant to my case.
23 November 2010, 20 December 2010 and 3 March 2011
I write to confirm that the questions are relevant to my case and clearly state why they are relevant.
11 March 2011
Anticipating an order from the Tribunal to answer the questions, Stirling University say they will consider answering at least some of the questions, depending on the extent to which Mr Toole had considered the outcome of the grievances when he dismissed me.
14 March 2011
I write again saying that all of the questions are relevant, and again I state why. I say that the extent to which Mr Toole allegedly considered the grievance outcome is not relevant. His reason for dismissal refers to it. I question if the Uni are now changing their reason for dismissal.
17 March 2011
I create this post in my blog.
18 March 2011
Stirling University write to say that they will answer the questions, but they still say the questions are not relevant to my case. They say it could take two weeks to provide the answers, and they blame me for this because of the level of detail that is likely to be necessary to satisfy me.
The level of detail I require is the same level of detail that would have been required by Mrs Schofield in order to come to her decision.
While I am pleased that, after more than four months, the Uni has finally decided to answer the questions, I am surprised that it should require another two weeks to provide the answers. They claim that they completed the thorough investigation itself within one week. The answers to my questions should already exist because Mrs Schofield had to use the facts that allegedly came from the investigation in order to make her decision. If they did indeed carry out the thorough investigation they say they did, it should take no more than an hour to answer my questions. However, in reality, it should take no more than ten minutes because the allegations were not investigated; or at least if they were investigated, the facts were ignored because they did not support the required decision.
So they need an additional two weeks on top of the previous four months to try to come up with something that makes it sound as though they genuinely investigated all of the allegations within one week, and that the investigation produced facts which refuted all my allegations (including the ones that are irrefutable) and supported Kathy McCabe's allegations (which are all vexatious).
Alternatively, they may tell the truth and admit that the decision was based on something other than facts, while defiantly insisting that the questions are not relevant to the case. What's it to be, I wonder? So far, they have omitted to say why the questions are not relevant.
26 March 2011
It's now nine days since I made my offer to Stirling University, and I've still not received any answers to my questions.
I'm looking forward to receiving the answers. I know that there is no way that they could have discovered facts that support Eileen Schofield's decision, but University management has landed themselves in a very difficult position due to their corrupt activities. Not only do they have to produce facts that don't and can't exist; they also have to describe how their investigation produced those facts, while demonstrating that the investigation was thorough and fair, and that they have been even handed. This is made all the more difficult by me having copies of the witness statements. It means they can't just invent facts from those. They've now given themselves a further problem by promising the Tribunal that they will provide answers with a level of detail that they say needs twice as much time to put on paper than it took to investigate.
I'm especially looking forward to seeing how the Uni answers one of Kathy's most bizarre allegations; Constant threat of bringing a grievance but never acting on it. This is the type of stupid lie that I could maybe imagine a five year old spoilt child blurting out in the spur of the moment during a tantrum. However, even a child would quickly become embarrassed once they realised it was obvious to everyone that it was a lie. Mrs Kathy McCabe is over 50 years old. She has been a senior manager for 12 years and earns in excess of £50,000 a year. She didn't say this on the spur of the moment, but had taken the time to type it into her official grievance document. She sent that document to Karen Stark whom she must have known would instantly recognise that it was a lie. Karen did not question me or Kathy about this at the hearing. It is a very serious matter to make malicious complaints, and Karen Stark must know that.
Answering my questions will just be the beginning of their difficulties. At the Tribunal hearing, they'll be asked about the investigation and its purpose. What was the purpose of the hearing? Why did they ask the questions they did, and not the ones they should have asked? Why was a lot of evidence ignored? Why did they say they checked Kathy's statement when they obviously hadn't? Why did they not interview the obvious witnesses, including the one I suggested? Why was I never subjected to disciplinary action before I made my protected disclosure? Why was I not allowed to respond to witness statements as asked. Why was I only asked to summarise my grievance when the report falsely claims I was asked to present my whole grievance? Why was Kathy not asked to respond to my allegations? Why, when they knew of the mental injuries I'd already suffered, did they deliberately act in a way that was likely to rub salt in the wounds? How could Kevin Clarke fail to see the procedural flaws?
It will quickly become very clear that the process was a complete sham, and that Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield, Karen Stark and Kevin Clarke are all guilty of gross misconduct, for which they have not yet been punished. The questions I've asked are the questions that Principal Gerry (I focus on getting the best out of people) McCormac is paid a quarter of a million pounds a year to ask. So why didn't he? It will also be clear that former Principal, Christine Hallett had completely mishandled my protected disclosure in which I alerted her to the fact that management and HR were not taking the matter seriously, and that it was seriously damaging my health. She just allowed this farce to happen.
I have suffered the most severe mental torture in the 13 months since I told the Principal about it. I'm hoping that the torture will soon be over, and that justice will be seen to be done. However, I think it will take a very long time for me to get my life back on track. At this moment I can't visualise it. Six years of my life have been ruined, and the last year has been sheer hell. The shocking truth is that around 15 people were willing to lie in order to ruin my life. They were effectively happy to line up to stab me in the heart. The most shocking was Selina Gibb who, just weeks before, seemed ever so genuinely concerned about my health. Then I learned that she had lied in order to deprive me of my livelihood. Other 'friends' were unwilling to come forward and tell the truth. That is far from a confidence boost for someone who was already known to suffer from a lack of confidence and assertiveness. Another 'friend' enthusiastically asked me to phone him at home the following day, and then simply wouldn't answer my calls. He answered one of my calls, but wouldn't speak. He just pretended he wasn't there. How ridiculous! He, along with Jackie O'Neil, holds an executive position within the local branch of the UCU union. He was by no means a friend of Kathy McCabe, and was well aware of her discriminatory behaviour. The next day, I felt suicidal. It was not the first time, but it was easily the strongest. I had even changed my socks and underwear in preparation.
31 March 2011
It's now two weeks since I made my offer in good faith. It no longer applies.
Stirling University has one more day to comply with the commitment they made to the Employment Tribunal that they would answer my questions in full.
1 April 2011
On the day by which Stirling University said they would furnish me with the answers to my questions, they have written to the Tribunal to say that they need more time.
The information I've requested, which allegedly already exists, is going to take another two weeks to prepare. "Substantial progress" has been made they say, but two of the personnel involved in preparing the document are on pre-planned leave next week.
Stirling University is making a mockery of the Employment Tribunal process. The information I've requested should take one person (Eileen Schofield) MINUTES, not a team of personnel MONTHS. They say that they now hope to be able to respond by 15 April 2011. I'm not holding my breath.
Assuming the Tribunal allows this additional time, it gives the Uni two more weeks to consider their options. In my opinion, their options are now less attractive than they were when they first agreed to provide the answers. Their best option then was to have told the truth. I still think their best option is to tell the truth, but if they do that now, it will be obvious that they have been stalling, and lying about making "substantial progress".
Another option will be to stall again. We might find, for example, that two personnel have been on unplanned sick leave, or that a dog has eaten the document. The Tribunal will eventually lose patience with this, though, and of course, they would be no better off. They are just delaying the inevitable, and the longer they take, the worse it looks for them.
Another option is to lie and provide false answers that make the decision appear correct. That will be far from easy, and if they were intending to try this, they should have tried it before now, because they still have to make it appear that the information existed a year ago, but now they have to make it appear that at least three weeks was required merely to document this information that they said already existed.
The false answers option will be extremely difficult, and it is fraught with danger. The Uni would risk having their entire case thrown out or being denied the right to give evidence. It would probably be picked up by the media, and would severely damage the reputation of the Uni and of the individuals concerned.
For each allegation that Kathy and I made, they would have to somehow demonstrate a fair and thorough investigation was made that included referring to supporting evidence we provided. Then they have to state the facts that the investigation uncovered that support the decision. Even by giving false answers, this will be incredibly difficult to achieve. I certainly wouldn't want that job. There are no facts that came from the interviews that support Kathy's allegations and refute mine. I can only think that the Uni could try creating documents, and claim they existed at the time. That would be very dangerous, and it still wouldn't solve the massive problem they are facing.
Let's take one example; Kathy's allegation of Constant threat of raising a grievance but never acting on it. There is simply no way they could say they investigated this, and didn't find it to be a vexatious allegation. It was not raised in any of the interviews, including mine and Kathy's. Karen Stark, who helped carry out the investigation, was fully aware that I had already raised two grievances against Kathy, and that Kathy was fully aware of them. There is documentary evidence to prove this. There can be no evidence of me constantly threatening to raise a grievance, unless they create it now. That would then raise the question of why Kathy didn't include it with her grievance to support her allegation.
Immediately before the investigation began, Karen Stark wrote to tell me that they were obliged to investigate the allegations thoroughly. That just increases the difficulty they have. Added to this, Karen had witnessed Kathy bullying me, with other witnesses present.
They have to show that none of my allegations were true or represented bullying, dishonesty or sex discrimination. Eileen Schofield, in her report, considered whether my allegations were vexatious. The answers will have to show that that was a reasonable consideration.
They will also have to show evidence of the merit award that Kathy claims she gave me, and also evidence that she promoted me to Trainee Database Administrator. These will prove very difficult to achieve since the Payroll Manager already confirmed to me in writing that these claims are both untrue. Yet somehow, Eileen Schofield claimed she checked these facts.
... and much, much more ...
My guess is that the Uni will stall again. Can everyone please try to refrain from slitting Eileen Schofield's throat until I receive the answers!
And we haven't even touched on Mark Toole's fake investigation yet. He will have to explain how the impossible is possible. I don't envy that job either.
I wrote to the Tribunal to complain about the university's stalling tactics. I reminded them that the information I've requested should already exist, and that I first asked for it 5 months ago.
8 April 2011
Stirling University rejects my suggestion that they are stalling. They say that they are merely ensuring sufficient time and resource is expended to ensure that their response is properly prepared. They don't say why it is taking so long, and they don't say why they think the information is not relevant to my claim.
15 April 2011
At 5:21pm, just five months to the day since I asked my questions, Stirling University has finally answered them; or at least some of them. For example, I really wanted to publish the details of their investigation into Kathy's allegation about me constantly threatening to raise a grievance but never acting on it; but unfortunately they've decided that, even though it was one of Kathy's main allegations, it would be best not to refer to it in their answers. I can imagine it would be very difficult to provide an answer that didn't include the word nutjob.
The reason Stirling University took 5 months to provide the details of the investigation, is because no real investigation took place. The details they have provided could not have come from any investigation that took place in March 2010 because it refers to information that simply didn't exist at that time. The reason they have been stalling is because they have been trying to invent a new, fraudulent investigation and pretend it happened in March 2010. They will have some explaining to do at the hearing.
Wednesday
Eileen Schofield death threat
Eileen Schofield, Deputy Secretary
Eileen Schofield, who conducted a sham grievance procedure between myself and Kathy McCabe, appears to have upset a Postgraduate researcher to the point where he felt the need to threaten to slit her throat if she ever lied to him again.
STV report here.
The report describes emails sent to Mrs Schofield with subjects 'You're an ignorant piece of sh*t' and 'C*nt'. One email said 'Your disciplinary procedures are a lot of sh*te. Mess with me again and I will kill you.'.
The report does not say whether, despite his threat, Mrs Schofield intends to continue with her corrupt practices.
BBC report here.
The report describes Mrs Schofield as "responsible for staff discipline". However, my own experience of Mrs Schofield is that she is corrupt, and she deliberately ignored evidence and came up with the dishonest decision that I had not been bullied by my manager to the detriment of my health, but that I had in fact bullied Mrs McCabe.
Since 15 November 2010, Stirling University has refused to provide me with the facts that Mrs Schofield used to arrive at her ridiculous decision. At first they claimed that these facts were irrelevant to the claim I brought to the Employment Tribunal. They now say that it is because I will "think about them", and that they are not sure whether I want them for the Tribunal, or for my blog which, despite its increased viewing figures, they say is not popular with certain members of staff.
It is unclear why the University thinks I would publish facts that would allow the public to see proof that I bullied my allegedly completely innocent manager who treated the team fairly and consistently. It is also unclear why the University would be opposed to me publishing these facts. One would have thought they would insist I publish them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)