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 kevin clarke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kevin clarke. 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.
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?
Friday
Suggestions for Kevin Clarke's Temporary Replacement
Kevin Clarke, Kepphill, Arnprior, By Kippen, FK8 3EW
Kevin Clarke is set to retire on 31 March 2012 from his position of University Secretary for University of Stirling. May I respectfully suggest that he leave right now.
Of course, that will mean finding a temporary replacement of at least equal competence to fill the position until a permanent replacement can be found.
May I please ask for your suggestions. You can be as anonymous as you like. But please remember your suggestion must have competence equal to or greater than that of Mr Clarke. I will take a very dim view of any suggestions that do not meet the basic requirement, and they will not be added to the suggestion list below.
The temporary replacement must not cost any more than Mr Clarke's estimated £150,000 per year salary.
You can either post your suggestions in a comment, or email me at: bullyingatstirlinguniversity@gmail.com
Suggestions:
1 The space that he normally takes up.
2 The cat that the woman put in the bin.
3 The woman that put the cat in the bin.
4 The bin.
5 Eileen Schofield.
6 Eileen MacDonald.
7 A little turd.
8 "Professor" David Donaldson
Thursday
Has Anyone Ever Been Literally Laughed Out Of Court?
If not, then the University of Stirling could well be first!
Well done, Kevin Clarke!
I might just turn up at his leaving do.
To be continued...
Well done, Kevin Clarke!
I might just turn up at his leaving do.
To be continued...
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!
Sunday
Stirling University's Fictitious Grievance Investigation
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the powers that be met to discuss what they should do in response to my request for the details of the alleged grievance investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
Friday
Legal Action Imminent?
A little bird tells me that a Stirling University employee is considering legal action against me and my blog.
I can confirm that I have received no correspondence from anyone claiming that my blog contains any inaccuracies. I confirm also that I have written to certain individuals asking if there is anything I've said that they dispute, and to date this has not brought any response.
I hereby extend my offer to anyone who thinks there may be something inaccurate in my blog. Please let me know what it is, and if you can support your claim with evidence, then that would be useful to have.
For example, if you are University Secretary, Kevin Clarke and you think I've unfairly criticised you for having dismissed my appeal against Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield's handling of my grievance, then it would be useful if you were to respond to my questions dated 15 November 2010, when I asked for the facts on which Ms Schofield allegedly based her decision. I also asked if Ms Schofield, who was administratively supported by HR Partner, Karen Stark, gave me the opportunity to state my case. You described Ms Stark as "highly professional".
The University's Grievance Procedure states: At the grievance hearing, both sides i.e. the employee raising the grievance and the party against whom the grievance has been raised, will be given the opportunity to state their case.
It also states: Once all the details of the case have been heard, the chair of the hearing will decide on the outcome based on the facts of the case made available to them.
What's very clear and uncontested is that THEORETICALLY, Karen Stark is highly professional. There can be no doubt that she fully understands the university procedures to such an extent that she is prepared to communicate them in what could be regarded as a highly condescending manner to a less expert employee who seeks clarification on just how thorough the procedure is intended to be. There can be no doubt that Ms Stark definitely knows that the procedure is required to be carried out EQUITABLY and that allegations are to be investigated THOROUGHLY.
Although I do not dispute Ms Stark's knowledge of the requirements of the grievance and disciplinary procedures, I very strongly dispute that she ensured that those procedures were carried out in accordance with that knowledge. I can confidently say that Ms Stark's approach to these procedures was as totally corrupt. This would mean that all employees and former employees who have suffered at the hands of both yourself and Ms Stark should have their individual cases reviewed.
Both my representative and I had indicated to you that procedures had not been carried out equitably or thoroughly, and we gave several examples of this. Therefore I would like you to answer my questions from November 2010, and I would also like you to explain how your claim that there is no evidence of procedural flaw can be consistent with what was described to you in my letter of appeal as well as what was described to you during the hearing.
Here's a helpful reminder of the questions I would like you to answer.
You told the Employment Tribunal that the allegations I made in my grievance were investigated and rejected. For each allegation in my grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) The facts used in deciding to reject the allegation.
(f) Before the allegation was rejected, please state whether or not I was given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support the allegation, and if not, why not?
You also told them that Ms Schofield upheld Ms McCabe's grievance against me. For each allegation in her grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) Was it decided the allegation was true or was it rejected.
(f) The facts used to come to that decision.
(g) If it was decided that the allegation was true, was I given an opportunity to provide evidence to refute the allegation, and if not, why not?
You referred to the report produced by Ms Schofield. The report states that I was asked at the hearing to present my case. Do you now accept that I was asked to present a brief summary of my case only?
Any reputable employer would be only too happy to provide this information. Ms Stark of Chisholm Avenue, Stirling, was aware of her obligation to investigate my allegations thoroughly, but deliberately failed to fulfil her obligation. Instead she used the process to cause bad feeling between me and my colleagues. She was also aware that I was entitled to present my case, but she attended the hearing and knew that I was only allowed to briefly summarise my case. She saw Eileen Schofield's report which falsely states I was asked to present my case. She was aware that Kathy McCabe had presented a pack of lies at her hearing, but just allowed it. She attended interviews with colleagues who supported my case, but none of their statements were reflected in the report. She avoided interviewing important witnesses, including current employees, one of whom I had written to her with their name. All of the irrefutable evidence I presented was completely ignored, and Kathy wasn't even asked to respond to my allegations. The report also falsely states that Kathy was able to point evidence that supported her allegations and refuted mine. Yet Mr Clarke says he sees no flaw in the procedure.
Ms Stark then ensured that the disciplinary procedure was equally biased. She has absolutely no self respect. While she did all of this, she was fully aware that I had been suffering from stress for several years due to Kathy's bullying, and she knew some of the effects the stress was having on me. She also knew that my work was one of the few things that helped to reduce the stress. She also knew how Kathy's behaviour had damaged another employee's health. She is a moral vacuum. God knows what motivates her. She is pure evil!
I intend to have the corrupt bully supporter, Mr Clarke removed from his £150,000 a year job, and replaced by someone with integrity.
By achieving this, it is my sincere hope that, long after I'm dead, people in positions of power will think more carefully before abusing their power in order to protect bullies and to abuse innocent individuals. No doubt Mr Clarke never gave the slightest thought to any personal risk he may have been taking. As far as he was concerned, there was none. He probably still thinks that! He had managed to get rid of Kathy McCabe's previous victim without suffering any personal consequences. He certainly didn't give a damn what would happen to me. I was just an extremely dedicated, hard working employee; easily disposable.
My blog is possibly causing him some discomfort because it makes it fairly clear that he is corrupt, and I've been reliably told that, away from the university, his acquaintances had no idea what he's really like. His name is one of the most common Google searches that lead to my blog.
Watch this space...
Stirling Uni guilty of serious fraud
I can confirm that I have received no correspondence from anyone claiming that my blog contains any inaccuracies. I confirm also that I have written to certain individuals asking if there is anything I've said that they dispute, and to date this has not brought any response.
I hereby extend my offer to anyone who thinks there may be something inaccurate in my blog. Please let me know what it is, and if you can support your claim with evidence, then that would be useful to have.
For example, if you are University Secretary, Kevin Clarke and you think I've unfairly criticised you for having dismissed my appeal against Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield's handling of my grievance, then it would be useful if you were to respond to my questions dated 15 November 2010, when I asked for the facts on which Ms Schofield allegedly based her decision. I also asked if Ms Schofield, who was administratively supported by HR Partner, Karen Stark, gave me the opportunity to state my case. You described Ms Stark as "highly professional".
The University's Grievance Procedure states: At the grievance hearing, both sides i.e. the employee raising the grievance and the party against whom the grievance has been raised, will be given the opportunity to state their case.
It also states: Once all the details of the case have been heard, the chair of the hearing will decide on the outcome based on the facts of the case made available to them.
What's very clear and uncontested is that THEORETICALLY, Karen Stark is highly professional. There can be no doubt that she fully understands the university procedures to such an extent that she is prepared to communicate them in what could be regarded as a highly condescending manner to a less expert employee who seeks clarification on just how thorough the procedure is intended to be. There can be no doubt that Ms Stark definitely knows that the procedure is required to be carried out EQUITABLY and that allegations are to be investigated THOROUGHLY.
Although I do not dispute Ms Stark's knowledge of the requirements of the grievance and disciplinary procedures, I very strongly dispute that she ensured that those procedures were carried out in accordance with that knowledge. I can confidently say that Ms Stark's approach to these procedures was as totally corrupt. This would mean that all employees and former employees who have suffered at the hands of both yourself and Ms Stark should have their individual cases reviewed.
Both my representative and I had indicated to you that procedures had not been carried out equitably or thoroughly, and we gave several examples of this. Therefore I would like you to answer my questions from November 2010, and I would also like you to explain how your claim that there is no evidence of procedural flaw can be consistent with what was described to you in my letter of appeal as well as what was described to you during the hearing.
Here's a helpful reminder of the questions I would like you to answer.
You told the Employment Tribunal that the allegations I made in my grievance were investigated and rejected. For each allegation in my grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) The facts used in deciding to reject the allegation.
(f) Before the allegation was rejected, please state whether or not I was given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support the allegation, and if not, why not?
You also told them that Ms Schofield upheld Ms McCabe's grievance against me. For each allegation in her grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) Was it decided the allegation was true or was it rejected.
(f) The facts used to come to that decision.
(g) If it was decided that the allegation was true, was I given an opportunity to provide evidence to refute the allegation, and if not, why not?
You referred to the report produced by Ms Schofield. The report states that I was asked at the hearing to present my case. Do you now accept that I was asked to present a brief summary of my case only?
Any reputable employer would be only too happy to provide this information. Ms Stark of Chisholm Avenue, Stirling, was aware of her obligation to investigate my allegations thoroughly, but deliberately failed to fulfil her obligation. Instead she used the process to cause bad feeling between me and my colleagues. She was also aware that I was entitled to present my case, but she attended the hearing and knew that I was only allowed to briefly summarise my case. She saw Eileen Schofield's report which falsely states I was asked to present my case. She was aware that Kathy McCabe had presented a pack of lies at her hearing, but just allowed it. She attended interviews with colleagues who supported my case, but none of their statements were reflected in the report. She avoided interviewing important witnesses, including current employees, one of whom I had written to her with their name. All of the irrefutable evidence I presented was completely ignored, and Kathy wasn't even asked to respond to my allegations. The report also falsely states that Kathy was able to point evidence that supported her allegations and refuted mine. Yet Mr Clarke says he sees no flaw in the procedure.
Ms Stark then ensured that the disciplinary procedure was equally biased. She has absolutely no self respect. While she did all of this, she was fully aware that I had been suffering from stress for several years due to Kathy's bullying, and she knew some of the effects the stress was having on me. She also knew that my work was one of the few things that helped to reduce the stress. She also knew how Kathy's behaviour had damaged another employee's health. She is a moral vacuum. God knows what motivates her. She is pure evil!
I intend to have the corrupt bully supporter, Mr Clarke removed from his £150,000 a year job, and replaced by someone with integrity.
By achieving this, it is my sincere hope that, long after I'm dead, people in positions of power will think more carefully before abusing their power in order to protect bullies and to abuse innocent individuals. No doubt Mr Clarke never gave the slightest thought to any personal risk he may have been taking. As far as he was concerned, there was none. He probably still thinks that! He had managed to get rid of Kathy McCabe's previous victim without suffering any personal consequences. He certainly didn't give a damn what would happen to me. I was just an extremely dedicated, hard working employee; easily disposable.
My blog is possibly causing him some discomfort because it makes it fairly clear that he is corrupt, and I've been reliably told that, away from the university, his acquaintances had no idea what he's really like. His name is one of the most common Google searches that lead to my blog.
Watch this space...
Stirling Uni guilty of serious fraud
Tuesday
Has Stirling University got something to hide?
Stirling University wrote to the Employment Tribunal recently, and in response to my claims, stated:
The allegations he made in his grievance were investigated and rejected.
Conclusion
His complaints should be dismissed.
We reserve our position in relation to any claim we may make that he has acted unreasonably or that his claim has been misconceived.
I consider these to be very bold statements. One would imagine that if that was their genuine belief, they would be only too keen to provide information in support of their claims, and to demonstrate that they have acted in good faith. Why wouldn't they?
I received a list of questions from the tribunal, and I replied with great detail which required eight A4 pages of closely typed text. I have nothing to hide, you see.
Similarly, the University received questions about how the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. To be clear, they were not being asked to carry out another investigation, they were just being asked about the investigation that they say had already taken place. In other words, the information should already exist. All they had to do was print it and send it off.
My grievance included allegations of bullying, harassment, victimisation and sex discrimination over several years. The University claims that I was dismissed because I was the major contributor to the breakdown in the relationship between me and my manager, Kathy McCabe. They also claim that I was dismissed because I bullied colleagues based on gender over a period of time.
However, the University objected to providing answers to the questions, saying that the issue of my grievance is irrelevant to my claims.
They will be required to show that I was dismissed for the reasons they gave, and not because I had justifiably submitted grievances against my manager and Eileen MacDonald, and because I had raised my concerns with the Principal that HR and senior management were failing in their duty to care for me. It would certainly be to their benefit to show that my grievances were treated fairly and that my allegations were investigated thoroughly as required by the grievance procedure.
My allegation is that Eileen Schofield, aided by Karen Stark, conducted what amounts to no more than a sham of a grievance procedure which was designed to turn my colleagues against me, and that Kevin Clarke conducted a sham of an appeal hearing.
Has Stirling University got something to hide?
The allegations he made in his grievance were investigated and rejected.
Conclusion
His complaints should be dismissed.
We reserve our position in relation to any claim we may make that he has acted unreasonably or that his claim has been misconceived.
I consider these to be very bold statements. One would imagine that if that was their genuine belief, they would be only too keen to provide information in support of their claims, and to demonstrate that they have acted in good faith. Why wouldn't they?
I received a list of questions from the tribunal, and I replied with great detail which required eight A4 pages of closely typed text. I have nothing to hide, you see.
Similarly, the University received questions about how the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. To be clear, they were not being asked to carry out another investigation, they were just being asked about the investigation that they say had already taken place. In other words, the information should already exist. All they had to do was print it and send it off.
My grievance included allegations of bullying, harassment, victimisation and sex discrimination over several years. The University claims that I was dismissed because I was the major contributor to the breakdown in the relationship between me and my manager, Kathy McCabe. They also claim that I was dismissed because I bullied colleagues based on gender over a period of time.
However, the University objected to providing answers to the questions, saying that the issue of my grievance is irrelevant to my claims.
They will be required to show that I was dismissed for the reasons they gave, and not because I had justifiably submitted grievances against my manager and Eileen MacDonald, and because I had raised my concerns with the Principal that HR and senior management were failing in their duty to care for me. It would certainly be to their benefit to show that my grievances were treated fairly and that my allegations were investigated thoroughly as required by the grievance procedure.
My allegation is that Eileen Schofield, aided by Karen Stark, conducted what amounts to no more than a sham of a grievance procedure which was designed to turn my colleagues against me, and that Kevin Clarke conducted a sham of an appeal hearing.
Has Stirling University got something to hide?
Saturday
Una Forsyth
This is the statement that Una Forsyth gave as part of the disciplinary investigation carried out by Graham Millar and Gail Miller. It is clear that she had colluded with Eileen MacDonald, Jackie O'Neil, Selina Gibb and Karen Eccleson in order to portray me as someone who has issues with women. Eileen MacDonald had even admitted to collusion in her statement, saying that Una had asked her what she should say at her interview. Eileen claims to have instructed Una to "just tell the truth". The question is; how is it that she tells so many lies, including lies that are very similar to lies told by Eileen in her own statement. The witnesses were instructed not to discuss the matter with other employees, but as usual Eileen does things her own way. Una was accompanied at her interview by Karen Eccleson who knows that Una was lying. Karen had been very supportive of my grievance with Kathy. She shared my opinion of Kathy, and particularly her dishonesty. She kept asking me how it was going, but I wasn't allowed to say anything once Eileen Schofield said there would be an investigation. However, immediately after Una was interviewed for the grievance, Karen's support shifted to Una. She probably thought I was trying to cause trouble for Una. The team needs a full time psychiatrist in my view. This is a direct result of being badly managed for so many years. They're all too frightened to tell the truth. Everybody in the team will know that Una was lying.
While reading this, it should be kept in mind that this comes after 13 years service in which no official complaint has been made about me, and that I worked for a manager who was desperate to find any fault with me whatsoever. So much so that she criticised me for incidents where she should have been thanking me. Yet once she realised she was wrong, she never apologised.
Section 4. In December 2006 at a work's night out, Una travelled about 12 feet to where I was dancing, and pushed me as hard as she could in the back with both hands. I could see that her face was contorted with anger. She was indeed perfectly sober. I was completely astonished by it because there had been no interaction between us at all that night. I had had a couple of drinks from the drinks kitty, but I was certainly not drunk. It was early in the evening, and I'd spent most of my time dancing with colleagues and other women that I'd known from dance classes. I had just sat down when a woman who had seen me dancing came over and asked me to dance. I could see that she had been drinking, but I didn't want to offend her by refusing to dance with her. It was while we were dancing that Una assaulted me. A few minutes later, I approached Una and asked her why she did it. She was with EB who told me to leave her alone.
The reason I had not danced with Una was because it was during a period in which she wasn't talking to me. I never knew the reason for her not talking to me either, because we had been fairly close friends up until then. There were a couple of possible reasons. There's a strong gossip culture in the team, and I knew that Eileen MacDonald had been very jealous of me. I also know that Una is very impressionable and could easily be taken in by any lies. The other possibility is that she had a soft spot for me, and that she was in some way doing it to attract attention, and the assault may have been due to her being jealous of me dancing with other women. I feel that this is the more likely reason having read Sections 16 to 18.
That same night, I approached a colleague who works very closely with Una to ask her if she knew the reason for Una's behaviour, but she said she didn't want to get involved. Back at work on the following Monday, I talked with two colleagues who were there (Paul and Stephen). They knew that Una had assaulted me, but they said they didn't know why she did it.
Just before my grievance hearing, Paul Scott had heard gossip that I had complained about Una assaulting me. Una regularly babysat for his children. He was fearful that Una could get into trouble for it, and that it was so long since it happened. I assured him that I had not, but that I had merely given it as an example of Kathy's inconsistent behaviour of how she had taken no action when she had found out about me being assaulted, yet she had written a letter to the university complaining about me having my arms folded during a team meeting, saying that she believes arm folding is aggressive. I also assured him that I had not named Una in my grievance. When I was talking with Paul, I also mentioned another occasion about two years earlier when I was abused by another colleague. He immediately said that he couldn't remember it. He certainly remembered it, because he had spoken to me about it only a few days before, and he remembered it so well that he was able to demonstrate the gesture I had made with my hands at the time of the incident. Knowing that I'd submitted a grievance, he denied having any knowledge of it. Cheers Paul!
In truth, I still don't know for sure the reason for Una's behaviour, but it's certainly not as she describes in her statement. If the roles had been reversed, and I had bizarrely assaulted a colleague and they didn't report me for it, I would have been extremely grateful. However, Una who assaulted me in front of about 100 witnesses, 10 of whom work for the university, and her manager knew about it, has succeeded in having me dismissed. It's a mad world! How does she and all of those witnesses sleep at night?
Sections 11, 21 and 23. Una talks of me gloating and looking smug because she has been spoken to about the assault. Yet I had no way of knowing who was interviewed or when they were interviewed. I had also objected to the interviews taking place. Also I hadn't named her in my grievance, and I didn't think she would be interviewed. So this is all either a lie, or it is all in her imagination.
Sections 16 to 18. This is completely false and impossible. I had been living with my girlfriend for over 6 years. Una's marriage broke up at the same time as mine, eight years ago. Not long afterwards, she had a long term relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. She moved home from Bannockburn to Bo'ness to be midway between him and her children. Why would she be "visibly upset" by this 4 or 5 years later? Karen Eccleson and Graham Millar who was interviewing her would have known this.
Section 8. At the lunch she refers to, which Graham Millar attended, it was impossible for her to sit close to me, because all of the seats at my end of the table were taken. At the previous lunch outing, Una sat across the table from me, when she had the choice to sit anywhere. At one lunch she was arranging, I said I didn't want to go in case Kathy was there. Una coaxed me into attending and said that she would sit close to me so that Kathy would be further away. At the previous two Christmas nights out, Una came over and sat beside me and on both occasions she complimented me on my dancing, and said that she thought my girlfriend was very pretty.
At another Christmas night out, during a period when she wasn't talking to me, she came over to me and held my arm and told me she was very upset and thinking of going home. I asked her what was wrong. She told me that a young male colleague had been looking at her breasts. She was wearing a revealing top, and I had no idea what I was supposed to say in response. There were at least two other occasions when she told me stories that involved her breasts. I felt she may have been doing it to embarrass me or to try to draw my attention to them. On another occasion during the period she wasn't talking to me, she came over to my desk which was at the opposite end of the room to hers. It was first thing in the morning and followed a quiz night that most of the team attended, but Una hadn't attended. I attended with my girlfriend Ruth, and Una knew this because there had been emails sent around the team beforehand saying who was going. Everyone else in the team was in the tea room at the time and would have been discussing the quiz night. Una was dressed sexually provocatively. She was displaying more cleavage than I had ever seen her doing at any other time before or since. It looked like she was wearing a push up bra. The conversation we had was completely social and it was out of context for our relationship at that time. As she was standing and I was sitting, she leaned over showing more cleavage. She had a pen in her hand for no apparent reason. She dropped the pen, and bent down to pick it up revealing more cleavage. I definitely felt sexually intimidated.
At nights out, Ruth often caught Una checking her out in a way that made her feel that Una saw her as the competition.
Una also showed me a photograph that her boyfriend had taken of her coming out of the shower with just a towel in front of her. She also sent me two animated files that showed cartoon characters Bart Simpson and Betty Boop having oral sex. Another email she sent me was of a story of a man who had his genitals stuck in a pipe. Other emails she sent me contained sexually explicit jokes.
Una and I used to play squash regularly for several years. Una would wear a very skimpy outfit. She'd often compare me with her husband and say how she wished he was more like me. When her marriage broke up, she told me that her husband thought that she was having an affair with me. After my marriage broke up, my lifestyle changed and I joined the university squash club and began taking squash more seriously. It meant that I didn't have time to play Una, so I suggested other people she could play that were closer to her level of play. She only played one of them once, and said she didn't like playing him. It seemed she only wanted to play with me.
Section 29. LM was a woman who worked in the team for a year or two. Due to the type of work she did, there was very little interaction between the two of us. She worked in a different part of the building, and we rarely saw each other. To claim that I ruined her life is absurd. The "investigators" didn't even ask how I ruined her life or if she reported me for ruining her life. Mark Toole said this was to be a "thorough and fair" investigation.
Section 31. Una claims that I get on with just one or two of the eleven female team members. This was to support her lie that I have a problem with women. The "investigators" didn't interview all of those women to find out if or why I don't get on with them, including the ones I went to lunch with once a week. They also don't ask Una why she cooked a meal for me if she didn't get on with me.
They also didn't ask her why she chose to confide in me that she didn't like being line managed by Eileen, and that she was upset by how Eileen treated her. They also didn't ask her why she invited me to become her friend on facebook, or why she collected the lottery subscriptions for me. The reason they didn't ask these obvious questions is because they knew she was lying, and that's what they wanted.
I'd be very happy for me and Una to take a polygraph test.
As at 22 June 2011, this is the second most frequently visited post on my blog.
To be continued...
While reading this, it should be kept in mind that this comes after 13 years service in which no official complaint has been made about me, and that I worked for a manager who was desperate to find any fault with me whatsoever. So much so that she criticised me for incidents where she should have been thanking me. Yet once she realised she was wrong, she never apologised.
Section 4. In December 2006 at a work's night out, Una travelled about 12 feet to where I was dancing, and pushed me as hard as she could in the back with both hands. I could see that her face was contorted with anger. She was indeed perfectly sober. I was completely astonished by it because there had been no interaction between us at all that night. I had had a couple of drinks from the drinks kitty, but I was certainly not drunk. It was early in the evening, and I'd spent most of my time dancing with colleagues and other women that I'd known from dance classes. I had just sat down when a woman who had seen me dancing came over and asked me to dance. I could see that she had been drinking, but I didn't want to offend her by refusing to dance with her. It was while we were dancing that Una assaulted me. A few minutes later, I approached Una and asked her why she did it. She was with EB who told me to leave her alone.
The reason I had not danced with Una was because it was during a period in which she wasn't talking to me. I never knew the reason for her not talking to me either, because we had been fairly close friends up until then. There were a couple of possible reasons. There's a strong gossip culture in the team, and I knew that Eileen MacDonald had been very jealous of me. I also know that Una is very impressionable and could easily be taken in by any lies. The other possibility is that she had a soft spot for me, and that she was in some way doing it to attract attention, and the assault may have been due to her being jealous of me dancing with other women. I feel that this is the more likely reason having read Sections 16 to 18.
That same night, I approached a colleague who works very closely with Una to ask her if she knew the reason for Una's behaviour, but she said she didn't want to get involved. Back at work on the following Monday, I talked with two colleagues who were there (Paul and Stephen). They knew that Una had assaulted me, but they said they didn't know why she did it.
Just before my grievance hearing, Paul Scott had heard gossip that I had complained about Una assaulting me. Una regularly babysat for his children. He was fearful that Una could get into trouble for it, and that it was so long since it happened. I assured him that I had not, but that I had merely given it as an example of Kathy's inconsistent behaviour of how she had taken no action when she had found out about me being assaulted, yet she had written a letter to the university complaining about me having my arms folded during a team meeting, saying that she believes arm folding is aggressive. I also assured him that I had not named Una in my grievance. When I was talking with Paul, I also mentioned another occasion about two years earlier when I was abused by another colleague. He immediately said that he couldn't remember it. He certainly remembered it, because he had spoken to me about it only a few days before, and he remembered it so well that he was able to demonstrate the gesture I had made with my hands at the time of the incident. Knowing that I'd submitted a grievance, he denied having any knowledge of it. Cheers Paul!
In truth, I still don't know for sure the reason for Una's behaviour, but it's certainly not as she describes in her statement. If the roles had been reversed, and I had bizarrely assaulted a colleague and they didn't report me for it, I would have been extremely grateful. However, Una who assaulted me in front of about 100 witnesses, 10 of whom work for the university, and her manager knew about it, has succeeded in having me dismissed. It's a mad world! How does she and all of those witnesses sleep at night?
Sections 11, 21 and 23. Una talks of me gloating and looking smug because she has been spoken to about the assault. Yet I had no way of knowing who was interviewed or when they were interviewed. I had also objected to the interviews taking place. Also I hadn't named her in my grievance, and I didn't think she would be interviewed. So this is all either a lie, or it is all in her imagination.
Sections 16 to 18. This is completely false and impossible. I had been living with my girlfriend for over 6 years. Una's marriage broke up at the same time as mine, eight years ago. Not long afterwards, she had a long term relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. She moved home from Bannockburn to Bo'ness to be midway between him and her children. Why would she be "visibly upset" by this 4 or 5 years later? Karen Eccleson and Graham Millar who was interviewing her would have known this.
Section 8. At the lunch she refers to, which Graham Millar attended, it was impossible for her to sit close to me, because all of the seats at my end of the table were taken. At the previous lunch outing, Una sat across the table from me, when she had the choice to sit anywhere. At one lunch she was arranging, I said I didn't want to go in case Kathy was there. Una coaxed me into attending and said that she would sit close to me so that Kathy would be further away. At the previous two Christmas nights out, Una came over and sat beside me and on both occasions she complimented me on my dancing, and said that she thought my girlfriend was very pretty.
At another Christmas night out, during a period when she wasn't talking to me, she came over to me and held my arm and told me she was very upset and thinking of going home. I asked her what was wrong. She told me that a young male colleague had been looking at her breasts. She was wearing a revealing top, and I had no idea what I was supposed to say in response. There were at least two other occasions when she told me stories that involved her breasts. I felt she may have been doing it to embarrass me or to try to draw my attention to them. On another occasion during the period she wasn't talking to me, she came over to my desk which was at the opposite end of the room to hers. It was first thing in the morning and followed a quiz night that most of the team attended, but Una hadn't attended. I attended with my girlfriend Ruth, and Una knew this because there had been emails sent around the team beforehand saying who was going. Everyone else in the team was in the tea room at the time and would have been discussing the quiz night. Una was dressed sexually provocatively. She was displaying more cleavage than I had ever seen her doing at any other time before or since. It looked like she was wearing a push up bra. The conversation we had was completely social and it was out of context for our relationship at that time. As she was standing and I was sitting, she leaned over showing more cleavage. She had a pen in her hand for no apparent reason. She dropped the pen, and bent down to pick it up revealing more cleavage. I definitely felt sexually intimidated.
At nights out, Ruth often caught Una checking her out in a way that made her feel that Una saw her as the competition.
Una also showed me a photograph that her boyfriend had taken of her coming out of the shower with just a towel in front of her. She also sent me two animated files that showed cartoon characters Bart Simpson and Betty Boop having oral sex. Another email she sent me was of a story of a man who had his genitals stuck in a pipe. Other emails she sent me contained sexually explicit jokes.
Una and I used to play squash regularly for several years. Una would wear a very skimpy outfit. She'd often compare me with her husband and say how she wished he was more like me. When her marriage broke up, she told me that her husband thought that she was having an affair with me. After my marriage broke up, my lifestyle changed and I joined the university squash club and began taking squash more seriously. It meant that I didn't have time to play Una, so I suggested other people she could play that were closer to her level of play. She only played one of them once, and said she didn't like playing him. It seemed she only wanted to play with me.
Section 29. LM was a woman who worked in the team for a year or two. Due to the type of work she did, there was very little interaction between the two of us. She worked in a different part of the building, and we rarely saw each other. To claim that I ruined her life is absurd. The "investigators" didn't even ask how I ruined her life or if she reported me for ruining her life. Mark Toole said this was to be a "thorough and fair" investigation.
Section 31. Una claims that I get on with just one or two of the eleven female team members. This was to support her lie that I have a problem with women. The "investigators" didn't interview all of those women to find out if or why I don't get on with them, including the ones I went to lunch with once a week. They also don't ask Una why she cooked a meal for me if she didn't get on with me.
They also didn't ask her why she chose to confide in me that she didn't like being line managed by Eileen, and that she was upset by how Eileen treated her. They also didn't ask her why she invited me to become her friend on facebook, or why she collected the lottery subscriptions for me. The reason they didn't ask these obvious questions is because they knew she was lying, and that's what they wanted.
I'd be very happy for me and Una to take a polygraph test.
As at 22 June 2011, this is the second most frequently visited post on my blog.
To be continued...
Thursday
Kevin Clarke
[Kevin Clarke, Kepphill, Arnprior, By Kippen, FK8 3EW]
Kevin Clarke chaired the hearing for my appeal against Eileen Schofield's decision not to uphold my grievance, but to uphold Kathy McCabe's grievance.
Kevin always seemed like an amiable bloke to me. Although he didn't know who I was, he would always say hello with a smile on passing. Unknown to himself, he referred to me once about ten years ago at a celebration just after the SAP system was implemented for Human Resources. In his speech he commended the project team for its efforts, and said that one employee had even worked until 4:30 in the morning. I was that employee.
However, at union meetings, several members had expressed their strong concerns about him. Many regarded him as the main source of the university's problems. I recall at one meeting that someone called for his head on a plate.
My union rep was fairly confident that Eileen Schofield's decision would have to be overturned. The procedure was so flawed in his view. My view was that it was far too flawed for there to have been any possibility that it had been an honest decision. Eileen Schofield was a fairly new employee having come from Aberdeen University, and the few people I knew who had any contact with her had all been impressed by her. Any intelligent person couldn't possibly have come to the decision that she did with the facts available to her.
I'd also attended meetings where Mark Toole had witnessed Kathy bullying me, and he simply refused to acknowledge it. I suspected that Kevin Clarke would also pretend that Kathy wasn't a bully, and uphold Eileen's decision. I just didn't know how he could do it while appearing professional.
Eileen Schofield's report was deliberately misleading. It falsely implies that all of the witnesses considered Kathy to be a wonderful manager. Eileen had not intended for me to have seen the witness statements. Nor had she intended for me to see the transcript for Kathy's hearing. Eileen had denied me any opportunity to respond to the statements. Therefore she wasn't interested in any evidence I may have that would have refuted any false statements. I had pointed to examples where Kathy had lied at her hearing and in her grievance letter on matters that Eileen could easily have checked out. Eileen's report said that Kathy had pointed to documentation to support her allegations and to refute mine. She couldn't have, and hadn't. Eileen hadn't even put my allegations to Kathy. Many of the questions she asked witnesses were irrelevant, and she failed to ask a witness, who had seen me being ill treated, anything about it. I had even given the name of a current employee who had witnessed me being abused, but she avoided interviewing that person. She also deliberately avoided interviewing another witness who would have confirmed Kathy's dishonesty. Documents I had submitted that showed irrefutable proof of Kathy's dishonesty were just ignored. The whole process was dishonest.
The university's Grievance Procedure states that I sbould be allowed an opportunity to state my case. Eileen Schofield only offered me an opportunity to state a brief summary of my case, but in her report she said that I was asked to present my case. The Grievance Procedure also states that the chair of the hearing will decide on the outcome based on the facts of the case made available to them. However, Eileen ignored all of the facts I submitted, and falsely claimed that Kathy had been able to point to documents that refuted my allegations and supported her own.
Kevin Clarke just ignored all of this and said I can find no evidence of procedural flaw as asserted as the grounds of your appeal.
Disgusting!
Legal Action Imminent?
Stirling Uni guilty of fraud.
Monday
Grievance Procedure
[Eileen Schofield, 50 Fonthill Road, Aberdeen AB11 6UJ]
See Timeline and Personnel
I submitted my formal grievance against my manager, Kathy McCabe on 9 February 2010. Kathy also submitted a formal grievance against me. This was a tactic she had used before when I had submitted an informal grievance against her. Bully Online states that this is common among bullies, and is tantamount to an admission of guilt. It muddies the waters. I had set out a very large number of allegations of bullying, dishonesty and sex discrimination in my six page grievance document, and I submitted lots of documents to support my allegations and to refute Kathy’s allegations.
Eileen Schofield was to conduct the grievance hearing. She was working closely with Kathy on a project at the time. She arranged three meetings; each one was scheduled to last an hour. Eileen first had a meeting with Kathy, then a meeting with me, and then a meeting with both of us together. I had asked Karen Stark before the meetings what the format would be, but she just referred me to the Grievance Procedure, so I didn’t know what would be expected of me at the meetings. An hour seemed a very short time for the number of allegations and the amount of evidence submitted.
At my meeting, Eileen said she had read all of the documents, and then asked me to just give a brief summary of my case. That’s what I did. I didn’t go into great detail of each individual incident of bullying. Most of the time was spent with Eileen asking me questions, and I was happy to answer anything she asked because I had nothing to hide. I naturally assumed that Eileen knew what she was doing, and that she already understood the allegations and that she didn’t need to examine me in depth about them. I could have had no idea that Eileen would later claim in her report that she had asked me to present my case, and not just a brief summary.
I asked Eileen what the format would be of the joint meeting with Kathy arranged later that afternoon. She seemed either unable or unwilling to say. I explained that, during a meeting with Kathy and Mark Toole that was supposed to help resolve the dispute informally, Kathy had been allocated about 90% of the time and used it to bully me with outrageous and false criticism, and that I was fearful that the same may happen again. The afternoon meeting lasted only a few minutes, so I never got to hear Kathy’s response to my allegations of bullying. Just what was the original purpose of that meeting, I wonder.
A few days after the hearing, Eileen wrote to say she was going to interview people who were mentioned in the documents submitted by Kathy and me. I wrote to protest at this because it was bound to cause bad feelings within the team. My union rep wrote to ask that the process be transparent, and that I be given an opportunity to respond to the statements, particularly since there was evidence of scapegoating. However, Eileen wrote her report with her decision to dismiss my grievance and uphold Kathy’s grievance without giving me an opportunity to respond to the statements; without me seeing the statements; and without telling me who was interviewed. Even the report doesn’t say who was interviewed.
Afterwards, I wrote to HR to request copies of the statements from those who were interviewed. The first thing I noticed was that all of the statements were dated AFTER the date of the report. The report gives the impression that Kathy is a very good manager, and that it is me who is the cause of the problems between us. It states that a total of eleven witnesses (current and former employees) were interviewed and that they expressed the common view that Kathy is considered to be a determined, focused and supporting manager who leads the team well.
The report does not refer to the view of a former employee who said in his statement that Kathy had ill treated him, and that he had to attend Occupational Health due to it. Neither did it refer to another witness who had stated he had witnessed that ill treatment and was aware of Kathy’s ill treatment of other employees. Nor did it refer to the witnesses who had referred to Kathy’s partisan treatment of her employees, and in particular how she favours female members of the team. Neither did it mention that a witness had spoken of a group of team members who felt the need to confront her on that very topic. I believe the reason the report does not refer to any of this is because it supports the allegations I made in my grievance. It clearly demonstrates suppression of dissent. However, it does not negate my grievance to say that some employees are happy with Kathy. In fact it supports my claim that she treats employees inconsistently.
The report does not refer to a team member who returned to our office crying uncontrollably following a meeting with Kathy. This was an incident which had been reported to Karen Stark. Nor did it refer to another team member who needed to take two days sick leave with work related stress following what she described as "bullying" from Kathy.
After I read the report, I spoke with two former employees who were mentioned in the documents, because I knew that the report did not reflect their views of Kathy. They confirmed that they had not been interviewed, and both expressed their strong dislike of Kathy. One described her as "macho" and "overly agressive". The other strongly objected to Kathy's partisan behaviour towards her staff, and particularly the special treatment afforded to Eileen MacDonald. He, rightly in my view, said he was unfairly treated by Kathy. He also referred to the large number of extra hours work I carried out regularly over many years. He was in regular contact with two other people who he felt were dismissed unfairly from their jobs in Information Services, and expressed his concern that there was something seriously wrong with the university's management.
Another former employee who was mentioned in the documents was JH who was the Departmental Secretary. In my grievance, I referred to Kathy's dishonesty, and gave examples. One example was that Kathy had falsely claimed to have instructed JH, while I was on sick leave, to tell me that I was not to return to work without my doctor's consent. JH had already confirmed this to be untrue, but Kathy repeated the same lie in her grievance papers. JH was not invited to be interviewed. I wonder why!
Another person mentioned but not interviewed was my girlfriend, Ruth who attended the mediation meeting with me and Kathy in my support. However, Colin Sinclair who attended in support of Kathy was invited. In my grievance I said that during mediation, Kathy wouldn't follow the procedure for which the mediator had prepared us, by refusing to answer any of my questions. She added that if I tried to ask her a question, she would leave the mediation. In his interview, Colin falsely claimed that Kathy answered my questions. Eileen did not ask him for any examples of questions I asked that Kathy had answered.
Of course the report cannot refer to what some of the interviewees say about Kathy in private (often using colourful language!). It does not refer to feedback provided by four random team members for a training course she attended. The feedback to certain questions was said to be the worst by far that any manager attending that course had ever received. According to one team member, Kathy received scores of 2 and 3, while other course members received 7 and 8. On discovering her results, Kathy met with the four team members to tell them they hadn't understood the questions. Some said they felt intimidated by this. At the end of the course, they were to answer the questions again, and one admitted to having lied and given better scores than she deserved just for a quiet life.
One of the witnesses later told me that he wasn't asked anything about bullying or ill treatment from my colleagues. He said he definitely remembered when Jackie O'Neil burst into the room and phoned the software suppliers and angrily described me as "our useless DBA". When Jackie was asked about this, she denied it. She was also asked if she had ever shouted at me, and she said that she had never shouted at me or anyone else. She was interviewed on 16 March, just six days after she had shouted at me while slamming her hand on her desk because she thought I had made a mistake. This took place in a room with up to 14 team members. She also denied spreading false rumours about me. My girlfriend, Ruth confirmed in writing that Jackie had falsely claimed that I cheated by taking time in lieu that I hadn't earned.
Una Forsyth was asked if she had physically assaulted me. She gave a false account of this by claiming that she had merely nudged me after I had drunkenly bumped into her. She had in fact travelled about 12 feet to push me in the back as hard as she could with both hands. This was witnessed by about ten university employees.
The report says The specific allegations made by AG against named individuals were refuted strongly by them and were received with a mix of incredulity and anger. These were all incidents that Kathy had admitted in the presence of Mark Toole that she had known about. She had even signed a document confirming this. However, my grievance was not against my colleagues, but my manager's failure to act to protect me from such incidents. She was paid handsomely to do that, and the university has a duty of care for me which wasn't being carried out.
The report states At her 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.
This is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, if Kathy was offered the opportunity to present her case, why wasn’t I? Secondly, Kathy’s allegations are nonsense, and she couldn’t possibly have pointed to documentary evidence to support it, and to refute my allegations. I’ve seen a transcript of Kathy’s hearing meeting, and she didn’t. To my disgust, Kathy was not even asked to respond to the allegations I had made. It is possible that Eileen and Kathy had prearranged what could be asked. I knew that Kathy was always very reluctant to discuss her bullying behaviour. While she loves doing it, she hates being asked about it.
The report also states At the hearing meeting AG was asked to present his case and intimated that he believed KM had ill treated him and it was causing him stress. This is false, because I was only asked to give a brief summary. The impression the report attempts to give is that I was asked to present my case, but that I didn’t really have one to present, and that I had just irrationally said that I believed I was being ill treated without any real reason for believing it, other than perhaps due to stress, my mental state isn’t what it could be.
This impression is supported by the following statement from the report: I do not believe that AG’s grievance claim is 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.
In my view it would be reasonable for Eileen to go through each of my allegations giving her reasons why she does not believe it represents bullying (by reasonable normal standards) as described in the university's Anti Bullying policy. She should also explain clearly, with examples backed up by facts, how I have bullied my manager. If she is unable to do that, then I feel she should resign or be dismissed. I believe it is a dishonest decision.
Kathy's statement is littered with lies. She claimed that my grievance contained lots of inaccuracies. For example, I had said that she had never awarded me with a merit, but Kathy said that she had indeed awarded me with a merit. If I had been in Eileen's position, I would have asked Kathy some questions about the merit she alleges she awarded me. For example, why did she award me it, and when. However, no question was asked. At the appeal hearing I pointed out that this was something Eileen and Karen Stark could easily have checked out with HR. In fact I had done that very thing after the hearing, and it was confirmed that Kathy had never awarded me with a merit. Eileen said she did check out Kathy's evidence. Nonsense! She also claimed to have promoted me to Trainee DBA. Another lie which HR confirmed to be false.
To be continued…
I offered Eileen Schofield an opportunity to respond to this statement on 6th September 2010. I have not received a reply.
Tuesday
Disciplinary Hearing
Mark Toole
See Timeline and Personnel
I received notification from Mark Toole that he was arranging a Disciplinary Hearing. For the first time, I was now able to see what the allegations were. I received copies of the statements from the complainants, and I received a copy of the Investigators' report.
The investigators' report is intended to establish the facts, and not to make any judgements. However, the report produced by Gail Miller and Graham Millar was precisely the opposite. Facts had been deliberately avoided and ignored. The report contained conclusions, and the "findings" were highly judgemental too. It was obvious that it wasn't intended to be an honest report. Ignoring facts was the tactic that the university had used for the grievance hearing as well as the appeal against the grievance decision, and they saw no reason to deviate from a winning formula.
Depite his previous involvement in my grievance and with his informal investigation, Mark had decided that he was going to chair the hearing himself. Far too risky to have an independent chair, obviously. He was also aware that I had made a Disclosure to the University Principal stating that I did not feel that he and HR were complying with the University Anti Bullying policy, by failing to take my grievance against Kathy's bullying seriously.
I could see that everything I'd said was ignored, and that I was the only person being honest. I could also see that the Investigators had deliberately avoided interviewing an obvious witness to an incident that was crucial to the investigation. It was an incident I'd already written and spoken to Mark about several times, but he was determined not to tell me the outcome of a discussion he had with Jackie O'Neil about this very incident. Now for the first time, I could see that Jackie had lied about that incident too. It was an incident where Jackie had screamed at me at the top of her voice while slamming her hand on her desk. She did this in an office occupied by up to 14 team colleagues. David Black was right next to me when it happened. I had already described it to Kathy in David's presence. The only possible reason that I can think of for both Mark and the investigators not to have interviewed David was because they knew very well that I had given the correct account of the incident. Jackie screamed at me because she thought I had made a mistake, when in fact it was she who had made the mistake. This was fairly common for Jackie. who despite frequently having to come to me for help with her own work because she lacked the skills to do it herself (even after 12 years in the job), she would frequently, with extraordinary arrogance believe that she knew my job better than I did, to the extent that she undid work that I'd done because she thought I'd done it incorrectly, even after I had explained to her two times that it was correct. Her manager, Kathy McCabe knew about this, but just chose not to do anything about it in those 12 years. Mark had offered to arrange a meeting with me and Jackie to discuss the problems. That could have been very helpful to me, but also to Jackie. She has been doing her job for 12 years, but it's never been brought to her attention just how frustrating she is to work with. However, Mark changed his mind, and cancelled the meeting. So, I've been dismissed, Jackie has once again gone unpunished for screaming at me, and she still probably thinks she is doing a great job, and is a joy to work with.
Screaming at me was pretty bad, and is included in the university's examples of bullying. Much worse though, is that once again Jackie had gone to Kathy and given a very false account of the incident by claiming that MY mistake had caused her to have to work until 10pm that day. The truth is that HER mistake would have delayed her for about an hour. This was due to David and me quickly fixing HER mistake. HER mistake had caused me and David extra work. In her statement, Jackie still refers to MY mistake which she says is evidence of my stress. Erm, no Jackie. It was YOUR mistake which was due to your inability to focus on your work instead of looking for faults in other people. Mark wasn't interested in these mere facts. He says he sees no reason to disbelieve Jackie. He should explain why. If he can't give a reasonable explanation, he should resign or be sacked. He has irrefutable proof that she lied.
I was not allowed to talk to any of my colleagues, so my girlfriend, Ruth spoke with David about that incident. David confirmed that Jackie had shouted at me angrily. Ruth wrote a letter confirming this. I submitted that letter as evidence.
When I received the report from Mark and could see that the imvestigation had been carried out so dishonestly, my health deteriorated once again. Everything was stacked against me, except the facts, but Mark didn't care about the facts. I could see that he was determined to dismiss me, and that the same tactic of ignoring evidence would be used. If he had intended for the procedure to be honest, he would surely have asked the investigators to go back to the complainants to check out the conflicting evidence. He would also have insisted that they interview David.
I knew that there was lots of evidence available to refute the allegations, but I needed access to my office PC to obtain it. Mark placed strict time limits on my access to my PC, and because my health wasn't great, that was very inconvenient. Still, I managed to find lots, but could probably have found more if I'd had more time. The written evidence makes it absolutely clear that all of the complainants had lied.
For example, Una Forsyth had stated that she had avoided me for four years because I give her "the creeps". She also stated that she prefers to deal with my colleague, David, because he is more helpful than me, as I delay responding to her. She claimed that I had told Karen Eccleson that I had a soft spot for Una and hoped to get together with her five years ago while she was married, and that that was inappropriate. While giving that statement, she was reported to be "visibly upset". She claimed that I had made a certain female colleague's (LM's) life a misery and that I see women as being vulnerable. The picture she was intending to portray was that I was a woman hating monster, and this was to fit with the statements that the other complainants had given. It was obvious that the complainants had colluded.
I had stated at my interview that Una had recently cooked a meal for me. If that were true then it would render Una's evidence completely unreliable. The investigators and Mark didn't ask Una about this meal she had cooked for me, and I expect Mark was just going to say that he didn't believe me. However, I was able to submit emails that Una and I had sent each other about that meal she had cooked for me. It is clear from these emails that we were on very friendly terms, and that Una was eager to impress me with her culinary skills. She hadn't cooked a meal for David (or anyone else) with whom she claimed to get on better. It also throws doubt on the claim that I had said that I wanted to "get together" with her five years ago while she was married. Why would she be cooking for someone she believes has unwanted desires for her? Why would she wait five years to be "visibly upset" by this? Even more obvious though, I explained that Una's marriage broke up EIGHT years ago, and that shortly afterwards she had a four year relationship with another man. I even told them that she had relocated after her marriage broke up to be closer to her boyfriend and that this would be in HR's records. I was even able to give evidence that suggested that it was Una who had a soft spot for me, which was backed up by evidence submitted by my girlfriend who had suspected this too, and who had been living with me for more than 6 years.
I also submitted evidence that showed clearly that she would come to me, rather than David for assistance. Furthermore I showed evidence that she frequently came to me with matters that she knew wasn't my responsibility, and that she did this because I am very obliging. It's also possible that she came to me simply because she enjoyed being with me. I certainly felt she spent more time with me than was necessary when she was dealing with the lottery syndicate money. I also submitted an email she sent me telling me about a man who had his penis stuck in a metal pipe; hardly the sort of thing you do with someone who gives you the creeps. I also referred to an email she sent me (and just me) with two animated files that showed cartoon characters having oral sex. I also referred to a time when she had come to me first thing in the morning dressed provocatively, and that it had made me feel sexually intimidated, and that I felt she had done it deliberately. I also referred to occasions while she and I were both married, when she would tell me that she wished her husband was more like me. Also when we played squash, she would wear a very skimpy outfit, and when her marriage broke up, she told me that her husband thought she was having an affair with me.
I also showed Mark an email I'd sent to Una shortly after she had told me that she didn't like being line managed by Eileen MacDonald. She felt that Eileen was overly critical of her spending time collecting lottery money. She felt it was pointless being managed by Eileen as she learned nothing from her. She added that she learned far more from me. I had said in my statement that Una was very enthusiastic and keen to learn. Una replied to that email and highlighted that I have helped her a lot with her work.
Unknown to me, Una had been interviewed as part of my grievance against Kathy. She was asked about the occasion when she physically assaulted me 3 years earlier. She said that when she returned to our office following her interview, I looked at her gloating and smug because she'd been spoken to about the assault. Karen Stark confirmed that this was impossible because I was not told who was being interviewed or when. I had also written to Karen to protest that such interviews should not take place at all because they were irrelevant to my grievance, and would only cause bad feelings within the team. So even if I'd known she'd been interviewed, I wouldn't have been gloating about it. I hadn't expected Una would have been interviewed because when I referred to the assault in my grievance, I hadn't used her name.
Selina Gibb had given similar evidence about me. It was obvious that she had colluded with the others. She also made the claim that she preferred dealing with David rather than me. Yet again, I showed evidence that it was me she repeatedly came to. I even said that in the 6 years since David joined the University, I had never seen either Una or Selina go to David rather than me, despite the fact that they had to pass him in order to come to me. Selina had claimed that, following a conversation with me, she was anxious and nervous around me. I had told Mark that both Una and Selina were laughing and joking with me on the day of my grievance hearing. I also submitted a personal email that Selina had sent me in which she states that she is going to tell me "lots of funnies" about her skiing lessons in the tea room. That's not the action of someone who is anxious and nervous with me. She wasn't anxious or nervous because she had wholly misrepresented a private conversation I had with her, saying that I had frightened and alarmed her.
Selina had also claimed that I had asked her where she got her University degree, knowing that she didn't have a degree. She said that I did this to make myself feel superior. I denied saying that, and I told Mark that I had always been very supportive of Selina's education. She had taken a computing course some years ago, and she had asked me for some help with it. I also said that recently she had told me she was bored with her job, and that she wanted to do some technical work that Una does. I was able to prove that I had set Selina up with a training course and created space on a database for her to carry out the exercises, and I submitted an email she sent me saying that she was really enjoying the course. Neither Eileen nor Kathy had ever considered this for her.
To put some sense of perspective on this; just a few weeks before I was suspended, Selina came to me for the second time, to tell me about an issue that was upsetting her. About 5 times a year, there was a requirement for someone to phone HR to obtain a small piece of information. It would have taken no more than two minutes to do this. However, Selina was upset because she felt that EB should be the person to phone for it, and she felt that EB was being a bit bossy with her by telling her that she has to phone for it. To solve the problem, I spent roughly half a day, including my lunch hour and some time after hours, writing a program that would automatically provide Selina with that piece of information. So it could be said that I spent roughly four hours in order to save Selina about ten minutes work each year. That's not why I did it though. I did it to stop her feeling upset. I wouldn't have upset Selina for the world. She was one of my closest friends in the team. This is the email I sent her the first time the information was sent to her automatically.
I also showed Mark an email that Jackie claimed in her statement that I didn't send her. I also referred to a document that he should look at to see that her story was untrue. He chose not to look at that document.
The complainants had also colluded to claim that I delay responding to their work requests. My most recent appraisal form signed by my manager confirms that I respond quickly to requests for work in order to prevent my colleagues being held up. I showed Mark that appraisal which is extremely positive and contains nothing that supports the allegations.
It was abundantly clear that the complainants had lied and that they had colluded to arrive at their lies. Not only that, with the evidence I was giving it was clear that I was someone who went out of my way to help my colleagues, especially the ones who were complaining. At this point, if Mark had been genuine, he would have apologised and said that these were malicious complaints. Instead, Mark has said that he believes them. That's not a mistake in my view; it's a lie. If he genuinely believed the complaints, then he would surely try to explain the enormous inconsistencies between their statements and the facts. However, in his report in which he dismisses me, he once again does not refer to the facts. It's as though they don't exist.
He should explain how it is that Una came to cook me my favourite meal in order to impress me when she says she avoided contact with me. He should explain how I was able to add her as a friend on Facebook without her asking me to. He should explain the sexually explicit emails she sent me, when she claims I give her the creeps. He should explain how Selina is anxious and nervous around me, yet keen to tell me "lots of funnies" face to face. He should explain how Jackie claims not to have received an email from me, when I was able to show him it, and show that she had acted on it. He should explain the great many more examples where the complainants' statements are inconsistent with the facts. He can't explain any of that, and he hasn't even asked those individuals to explain it, because he knows that they can't either. He knows that they were lying, and he knew that long before he saw any evidence from me.
I raised a grievance against Eileen MacDonald more than two years ago. Kathy refused to deal with it, and passed it to Peter Kemp. Peter said he would deal with it, but didn't. It was then passed to Mark when he joined the university. He asked me if I still wanted to pursue it, and I said yes. More than a year later, in the presence of my union rep, I asked him when it was going to be processed. He falsely claimed that I had withdrawn it. I confirmed that I hadn't, and that I still wanted it to be processed. He never processed it, and still falsely claims that I withdrew it.
About a week before these complaints were made, I made a complaint against Jackie. Mark said he'd deal with it, then changed his mind. I had already made a complaint to Kathy about Jackie, but she never processed it, and said that she wasn't interested because she felt that her employees should sort such things out between themselves.
Although I hadn't made a complaint against Una, she had physically assaulted me at a work's night out in December 2006. Kathy, in the presence of Mark, admitted that she had known about it, but hadn't acted on it because it didn't happen in her presence. As part of my grievance, Una was asked about it (against my wishes), and took the huff. This undoubtedly led to Una colluding with Eileen and Jackie to make up these bogus complaints about me.
The biggest shock was discovering that Selina had taken part in the collusion. She was one of the last people I would ever have suspected would involve herself in a conspiracy to deprive me of my livelihood. You really cannot trust anyone.
Before the Disciplinary Hearing, I wrote to Mark offering to undertake a polygraph test along with the complainants. I even offered to pay for the testing. Needless to say, my offer wasn't taken up.
In total, five employees have made malicious complaints against me - all very obviously false. It is a very serious disciplinary matter to make malicious complaints, yet Stirling University has rewarded those individuals with my dismissal. Can you imagine how that makes me feel?
At the beginning of the hearing, Mark announced that the hearing would finish by 4pm, and that it would not be continued another day. This basically confirmed that he had already reached his decision and wasn't interested in hearing the evidence. I attempted to explain the background to events and referred to documents to support what I was saying, but we were running out of time. So I had to ask Mark to refer me to any allegations that he considered serious enough to dismiss me for, so that I could respond to it. He wasn't able to answer that, and said that we had to look at the picture as a whole. So I responded to every single allegation. No evidence was submitted that supported any of the allegations apart from two emails I'd sent Una Forsyth. Una collected the lottery syndicate money for me to buy the tickets. She emailed the syndicate to say that she didn't want to do it anymore. I replied and jokingly asked "Was it something I said?" Over the next couple of days I began to wonder if she was blanking me. This was something she had done a few years previously, and I didn't know why she had done it. Then I noticed that she had deleted me as a friend from Facebook. This confirmed my suspicion that she was blanking me again. I still didn't know why she was blanking me, but the previous time she had done it led to her physically assaulting me. So I emailed her to suggest that if there was a problem that she either speak with me or Mark Toole about it, so that we could have it sorted out. I was pretty sure I hadn't done anything to have caused it. Later I discovered the reason she wasn't speaking to me was that she had been interviewed about the assault as part of the grievance investigation.
I also submitted an email she sent me on another occasion when she had snapped at me and snatched a piece of paper from my hands. I couldn't understand why she had done it because I had just been helping her with a piece of work. She explained that it was something unrelated to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)