One of the reasons this blog exists is because it contains information I believe is in the public interest.
When I wrote to the then Principal of Stirling University, Professor Christine Hallett in February 2010, it wasn't because of a trivial matter. The IS department was being run in a manner that was hazardous to the health of employees. Sex discrimination and bullying was taking place so often that employees had just come to expect it. Not only that, but they expected that nothing would ever be done about it.
I stuck my neck out and made the Principal aware of it. It had to stop, and she seemed to be the person who had a mind to stop it. Just a few days earlier she wrote to every member of staff telling us how committed the university was to allowing us all to work free from bullying, sex discrimination and victimisation.
The email I sent her informed her that Stirling University was failing to comply with its legal obligations by not caring for employees' health properly and for turning a blind eye to sex discrimination. I was also suggesting that senior management were covering up these illegal acts by pretending they didn't happen. The information I gave her should have had her taking immediate steps to ensure that the university acted within the law.
Because of the contents of my email, I was protected under whistleblowing laws, namely the Public Interest Disclosures Act. What that means is that I was protected from the university taking any action that would be to my detriment because of that email to the Principal. Acts such as: victimisation, further bullying, ostracising, subjecting me to a sham grievance procedure, placing me under suspension for no good reason and for far too long, refusing to deal with my legitimate complaints, subjecting me to malicious complaints, subjecting me to a sham disciplinary procedure, unfair dismissal, all acts that were designed to cause further damage to my health.
The point I wish to make here was that I was doing the Principal and the university a favour. What I did was good for everybody concerned. It was in the public interest. However, when I say that it was good for everybody concerned, I mean that it was good for the honest and non corrupt members of staff; the vast majority. It was not seen as good for those members of staff who could not work under conditions where they are not allowed to bully or discriminate for illegal reasons. Unfortunately, there were more of these people than I had imagined possible at Stirling Uni.
And what thanks did I receive from Prof. Hallett in return? I got fired! I could have had no way of knowing it at the time, but the victimisation and bullying and sex discrimination was happening with her blessing. It genuinely never occurred to me that, in 21st century Britain, people get fired for blowing the whistle on illegal practices. Least of all; I did not expect it to happen in a university.
University of Stirling sees whistleblowers in a negative light. They view them as troublemakers. Of course, you won't find that written in any university policy document.
The policy documents that Stirling University publishes on its website are merely cosmetic. They are also traps. Any innocent employee hoping to make use of its published grievance procedures should be very wary of using them. To my cost, I found that the real procedures; the ones that they don't publish, are very different indeed.
They tell you that you will be given an opportunity to state your case. I never got that opportunity. And that's a fact that it took the university over a year to admit, after Eileen Schofield had said not once, but two times in her report that I was asked to present my case. They say that your grievance will be decided using the facts. The facts in my case were completely ignored. However, 'facts' that didn't exist were used instead.
Colleagues that you've worked alongside for many years will suddenly lose their memory when they are interviewed. It's as if a disease strikes your department. Why do they suddenly lose their memory? Fear! In some cases, it's fear of victimisation. In some cases it's fear of losing special privileges. It doesn't tell you about that in the grievance procedure. If you do have a colleague who is willing to back you up, their evidence will be ignored, and they will be victimised. It doesn't say that in the published procedures either.
The procedure is correct in saying that you have the right to appeal. However, you shouldn't put too much faith in the appeal. The same tactics that were used at the original grievance are used again. The Appeal Officer won't see the flaws in the process, even after you have pointed them out. There is one statement in the grievance procedure that I can find no fault with; the outcome of the appeal hearing will be final.
The grievance procedure also states that you can raise grievances within three months of you leaving. Well, that's what it says, but it's not what happens. I lodged thirteen formal grievances with Gerry McCormac within three months of leaving, and he replied saying:
I refer to your letter dated 23 September 2010.
I write to confirm that all internal mechanisms within the University that were available to you as an employee have now been exhausted. Accordingly, there is no grievance procedure available to you. I confirm, therefore, that all correspondence between you and the University on this matter is now regarded as closed.
Yours sincerely
PROFESSOR GERRY McCORMAC
Principal and Vice Chancellor
Gerry is the current Principal. My letter to Gerry also informs him of substantial corrupt practices at the university, including its failure in its duty to care for my health. Can you see anything in Gerry's response that suggests that he intends to rid Stirling University of its corrupt practices? I don't see it.
Something else that it doesn't say in the grievance procedure, is that you can end up sacked. That's what happened to me. The only way I have of resolving this now is via the Employment Tribunal Services. I made my claim to the tribunal in September 2010. The hearing hasn't begun yet. These things clearly take time.
I opened this post by saying that this blog exists partly because it contains information that I believe is in the public interest. I am aware that the contents of this blog are causing embarrassment to some employees at Stirling University, and they would like the blog to be removed. They even paid their lawyer to send pages of my blog to the Employment Tribunal judge to support their assertion that I should be denied my legal rights to cross examine witnesses; witnesses they know to be liars; particularly Mrs Kathy McCabe who said several times during mediation that 'Honesty goes to the core of my very being'. We will see at the hearing just how honest Mrs McCabe is.
I acted in the public interest by blowing the whistle to two Stirling University Principals. It amazes me that the university should now expect that, after having unfairly sacked me, I should suddenly stop blowing the whistle and keep my mouth shut. That just doesn't make sense to me. It's as if they are asking me to reward them for unfairly dismissing me, by allowing them to continue to mistreat staff without the general public getting to know about it. They want to be able to continue with their bullying and unfair dismissals and sham procedures, but they would prefer it was not widely known. They don't want to have a reputation for corruption, they just want to be corrupt on the quiet. Sorry, but no can do!
To those people who are embarrassed by their own actions, I'd say that if they had behaved appropriately, they would have nothing to be embarrassed about. Furthermore, I have said this many times before; if there is anything I've said in my blog that is not true, then I would be the first person to want it removed. It would not be in the public interest for me to publish any untruths. So please tell me if you spot anything that is not true. I should also point out that in the 14 months that it has been on public view, I have not received one single notice of anything in my blog being inaccurate. May I suggest that that is because it is all true.
Once the hearing begins, I hope whenever possible, to report on what's happening on my blog. Tribunal hearings are open to the public as well as the press. There are no restrictions that I am aware of that prevent anyone from reporting events on their blog. And unless I'm officially told otherwise; that's what I will do. If a witness was to lie under oath, I will report that here, and if possible I will also publish the evidence that shows that they lied. The fact that it will prove embarrassing to the liars is merely a bonus. My recommendation would be; don't lie!
Each time I'm told by the uni that their corrupt employees don't like my blog, it fills my heart with joy. I do so hope they keep telling me!
I can't make my mind up about who I'm most looking forward to cross examining. I'm like a kid in a sweetshop. High on the list has to be Kathy McCabe. I genuinely thought that it would never happen, but that will be a very special day. Karen Stark is well up there too. Then the investigators, Gail Miller and Graham Millar; what on earth could they possibly say in defense of their investigation? I never thought I'd be allowed to cross examine Eileen MacDonald either. I thought she was on the protected list, but I guess not. That will be a special day too. She doesn't know what she's got coming yet. Mark Toole is obviously another I can't wait to question. Eileen Schofield too. I can't wait to go through the fraudulent document with her. What will Jackie O'Neil be like? Will she start shouting at me and the tribunal members? Will she slam her fist down and insist she never shouts at people? What will Christine Hallett have to say for herself? And Peter Kemp too! What can he possibly say? Then I get to go through Una Forsyth's and Selina Gibb's statements with a fine tooth comb too. I hope to receive their answers to my questions soon.
I look forward to the day that my blog is seen by an even greater audience. That might be triggered by some action that the university may be about to take. Go ahead; make my day! You declared war on the wrong bloke.
Showing posts with label protected disclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protected disclosure. Show all posts
Wednesday
Saturday
Employment Tribunals and Interim Relief
I expect that most, but probably not all employees in the UK know that they are legally protected from unfair dismissal, and that they can make a claim to an Employment Tribunal within three months of their dismissal.
However, I'm pretty sure that most people will be completely unaware of the fact that, under certain circumstances, they can make a claim for the Employment Tribunal to order their employers to continue to pay their salary until the Employment Tribunal makes its judgement.
If you claim that you were unfairly dismissed for certain reasons, including whistleblowing, not only is it possible for you to continue to receive your pay (called interim relief), but you will be placed on a fast track for speedy justice.
However, you can only claim interim relief within seven days of your dismissal. That is a huge disadvantage, particularly if, like me, you had never heard of this law. I would imagine that very few people have ever heard of it, and by the time they do learn of it, the seven day period is likely to have passed. Seven days is not long, particularly if you have to consult a lawyer. At the time you are dismissed, you may also be suffering from depression, and not able to act at your normal level of efficiency.
A common criticism of Employment Tribunals is that employees can often make hopeless claims. Employers also make hopeless defenses against genuine claims. In 2009, Stirling University turned up at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and didn't defend a hopeless case which they had previously told the Tribunal they would defend. Like other unscrupulous employers, they were dragging out the process in the hope that the employee would tire and give up. The effect of this is that Tribunals get clogged up with cases that are never heard, and the days that have been scheduled for cases that are eventually cancelled cannot be used for other cases that are waiting to be heard. Another common practice is for the employer to wait until the day of the hearing, and make the employee an offer to settle out of court.
My guess would be that very few people will ever gain any benefit from interim relief, simply because they won't have known about it, and because it has to be claimed in such a short period of time.
Like me, many employees may have learned that Employment Tribunals frown upon claims made before disciplinary procedures, including any appeal procedures, have been exhausted. By that time, the right to interim relief is likely to have lapsed.
One solution to this would be for there to be a legal requirement for letters of dismissal to inform the employee of their right to claim unfair or wrongful dismissal and interim relief, and to indicate the time limits for those claims.
A further useful law would be for employers like Stirling University, who have been found guilty of unfairly dismissing employees, to be banned for a period of time from dismissing any further employees without ACAS conducting an investigation to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This would have saved me and all of the other employees that Stirling Uni unfairly made redundant recently. It would also result in fewer cases being brought to Tribunals.
Finally, in cases where it is found that an employee was unfairly dismissed, Employment Tribunals should have the power to dismiss any individual employees whose misconduct led to the unfair dismissal. Under those circumstances, I doubt if Mark Toole and others would have acted in the way they did to get rid of me. There is no disincentive for arse lickers like Graham Millar from acting dishonestly to deprive an innocent employee of their livelihood just to benefit his own corrupt career.
However, I'm pretty sure that most people will be completely unaware of the fact that, under certain circumstances, they can make a claim for the Employment Tribunal to order their employers to continue to pay their salary until the Employment Tribunal makes its judgement.
If you claim that you were unfairly dismissed for certain reasons, including whistleblowing, not only is it possible for you to continue to receive your pay (called interim relief), but you will be placed on a fast track for speedy justice.
However, you can only claim interim relief within seven days of your dismissal. That is a huge disadvantage, particularly if, like me, you had never heard of this law. I would imagine that very few people have ever heard of it, and by the time they do learn of it, the seven day period is likely to have passed. Seven days is not long, particularly if you have to consult a lawyer. At the time you are dismissed, you may also be suffering from depression, and not able to act at your normal level of efficiency.
A common criticism of Employment Tribunals is that employees can often make hopeless claims. Employers also make hopeless defenses against genuine claims. In 2009, Stirling University turned up at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and didn't defend a hopeless case which they had previously told the Tribunal they would defend. Like other unscrupulous employers, they were dragging out the process in the hope that the employee would tire and give up. The effect of this is that Tribunals get clogged up with cases that are never heard, and the days that have been scheduled for cases that are eventually cancelled cannot be used for other cases that are waiting to be heard. Another common practice is for the employer to wait until the day of the hearing, and make the employee an offer to settle out of court.
My guess would be that very few people will ever gain any benefit from interim relief, simply because they won't have known about it, and because it has to be claimed in such a short period of time.
Like me, many employees may have learned that Employment Tribunals frown upon claims made before disciplinary procedures, including any appeal procedures, have been exhausted. By that time, the right to interim relief is likely to have lapsed.
One solution to this would be for there to be a legal requirement for letters of dismissal to inform the employee of their right to claim unfair or wrongful dismissal and interim relief, and to indicate the time limits for those claims.
A further useful law would be for employers like Stirling University, who have been found guilty of unfairly dismissing employees, to be banned for a period of time from dismissing any further employees without ACAS conducting an investigation to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This would have saved me and all of the other employees that Stirling Uni unfairly made redundant recently. It would also result in fewer cases being brought to Tribunals.
Finally, in cases where it is found that an employee was unfairly dismissed, Employment Tribunals should have the power to dismiss any individual employees whose misconduct led to the unfair dismissal. Under those circumstances, I doubt if Mark Toole and others would have acted in the way they did to get rid of me. There is no disincentive for arse lickers like Graham Millar from acting dishonestly to deprive an innocent employee of their livelihood just to benefit his own corrupt career.
Me v University of Stirling
Happy Christmas to all my readers. And thank you to those of you who find my blog so interesting that you copy some of my posts and send them to others, regardless of any copyright laws you may be infringing! :)
Weather permitting, St Johnstone travel to Celtic Park on Boxing day. The bookies estimate there's a probability of roughly seven per cent that they'll win. Hardly fair, is it?
Maybe they should suggest to the Premier League that they bend the rules in their favour to give them a fighting chance. How about Derek McInnes, the Saints' manager being allowed to select the Celtic team, and how about making Celtic play with just seven players, and any goals Celtic score in the first half don't count towards the final score. That should just about do it, but just to make sure, allow St Johnstone to make eleven substitutions.
I think the Premier League would give their suggestions short shrift, and rightly so.
Stirling University see themselves as having little hope in successfully defending my claim at the Employment Tribunal. So they've made some suggestions to the Tribunal that, if accepted, would give them a bit more of a chance. Of course, they're not suggesting that it's for that reason, but for honourable reasons, like saving time in a case they say I have little hope of winning, and even if I did win, it would be of little value to me.
When you make a claim to a Tribunal, the employer has to respond stating the grounds on which they resist the claim. The Uni put all their effort into trying to convince the Tribunal that my claim should just be dismissed, by saying it's unreasonable and misconceived. They said that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were handled fairly and appropriately, and that my complaints were all investigated and rejected. There was no sex discrimination, they said, apart from the sex discrimination they allege I displayed. They said that I was the major contributor in the breakdown of my working relationship with Kathy McCabe and two other colleagues. They also said that they didn't accept that I made a protected disclosure, and that, even if I did, I didn't receive any detrimental treatment. They failed to convince the Tribunal to dismiss my claim, and a hearing was scheduled to take place over January, February and March 2011.
I'm allowed to ask the Uni for written answers to questions. I asked them for the reasons why they don't accept that I made a protected disclosure. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. I asked them for the facts that Eileen Schofield relied upon when deciding to reject the allegations in my grievance and to uphold Kathy's grievance. They refused to answer, saying that it's irrelevant. I asked them if they now accept that I wasn't given an opportunity to present my case at my grievance hearing. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. If these issues are irrelevant, then they shouldn't have included them in their grounds of resistance! However, they are very relevant, and if they are as concerned about time as they say they are, the sooner they answer my questions, the better.
Both sides are allowed to call witnesses. The Uni has decided not to call their star witness, Kathy, even though she was allegedly able to point to evidence that persuaded Eileen Schofield that she hadn't bullied me or discriminated against me on the basis of my gender, and that I had in fact bullied Kathy. The reason they are not calling her as a witness is because she couldn't possibly have done that. This means that I have to call Kathy as a witness for cross examination in order to see that evidence she pointed to. The Uni has suggested to the Tribunal that I shouldn't be allowed to cross examine her, because they say I am "an aggrieved employee with a difference of view". That would surely describe every claimant at a Tribunal.
They are not calling the other four women, (Eileen, Selina, Jackie and Una) on whose evidence they allegedy based their decision to dismiss me. So I've called them as witnesses. I suspect the Uni realises that those women won't be able to convince the Tribunal that I should have been dismissed. I also suspect there are other, even more important reasons why the Uni will not want them to be cross examined.
They are not calling Eileen Schofield, despite her being convinced that I was the cause of the breakdown in my working relationship with Kathy. I need to call her as a witness to hear how she arrived at that decision.
They are not calling Kevin Clarke who said he couldn't see any flaws in the
grievance procedure. I'm calling him as a witness too, because I want him to explain to the Tribunal how the flaws I described to him aren't flaws.
They are not calling the two managers (Graham and Gail) who carried out the disciplinary investigation, but I need to find out from them why their investigation was so flawed. Who knows, they might tell me the truth, as they are required under oath!
The Uni is asking the Tribunal to restrict me, or my representative, to cross examining only those who made the decisions, claiming that they are the only ones with relevant evidence. They cannot possibly think that's true, especially when they are being advised by a lawyer.
They don't stop at that though. There are other advantages they want too. Normally, in a case like mine where there are elements of discrimination and victimisation as a result of protected disclosures, it is the employee who presents their case first, followed by the employer. The reverse is true when it's only unfair dismissal. I think that makes sense because the party that has to refer to the earliest incidents should go first. The Uni has decided that it would be best for them if they present their case first.
They also wish to treat my claim as if it was just one of unfair dismissal. That's their comfort zone. They want to force the Tribunal to decide if I was dismissed for a fair reason before they've heard from me about any victimisation and discrimination. They probably still wouldn't win, but their chances would be significantly greater, especially if, as they suggest, the Tribunal doesn't get to hear the very dodgy evidence from those five women and others, and they don't get to hear about the flawed grievance procedure or any of the mistreatment I had been subjected to for several years.
They were offered an opportunity to have the matter of the protected disclosures decided first. I'd imagine that wouldn't take very long because there is a clear definition of what qualifies as a protected disclosure, and the Uni is struggling to find a reason to argue my protected disclosures don't qualify. However, they rejected that offer, and I suspect that's because the natural thing to decide after that would be whether or not I suffered detriment (from which I was protected) as a result of the grievance procedure, and they wish to avoid that subject like the plague. The Tribunal would also have the protected disclosures at the forefront of their minds while listening to evidence on my dismissal.
So far, they haven't insisted that I be blindfolded and have my hands tied behind my back; but it's still early days...
Weather permitting, St Johnstone travel to Celtic Park on Boxing day. The bookies estimate there's a probability of roughly seven per cent that they'll win. Hardly fair, is it?
Maybe they should suggest to the Premier League that they bend the rules in their favour to give them a fighting chance. How about Derek McInnes, the Saints' manager being allowed to select the Celtic team, and how about making Celtic play with just seven players, and any goals Celtic score in the first half don't count towards the final score. That should just about do it, but just to make sure, allow St Johnstone to make eleven substitutions.
I think the Premier League would give their suggestions short shrift, and rightly so.
Stirling University see themselves as having little hope in successfully defending my claim at the Employment Tribunal. So they've made some suggestions to the Tribunal that, if accepted, would give them a bit more of a chance. Of course, they're not suggesting that it's for that reason, but for honourable reasons, like saving time in a case they say I have little hope of winning, and even if I did win, it would be of little value to me.
When you make a claim to a Tribunal, the employer has to respond stating the grounds on which they resist the claim. The Uni put all their effort into trying to convince the Tribunal that my claim should just be dismissed, by saying it's unreasonable and misconceived. They said that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were handled fairly and appropriately, and that my complaints were all investigated and rejected. There was no sex discrimination, they said, apart from the sex discrimination they allege I displayed. They said that I was the major contributor in the breakdown of my working relationship with Kathy McCabe and two other colleagues. They also said that they didn't accept that I made a protected disclosure, and that, even if I did, I didn't receive any detrimental treatment. They failed to convince the Tribunal to dismiss my claim, and a hearing was scheduled to take place over January, February and March 2011.
I'm allowed to ask the Uni for written answers to questions. I asked them for the reasons why they don't accept that I made a protected disclosure. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. I asked them for the facts that Eileen Schofield relied upon when deciding to reject the allegations in my grievance and to uphold Kathy's grievance. They refused to answer, saying that it's irrelevant. I asked them if they now accept that I wasn't given an opportunity to present my case at my grievance hearing. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. If these issues are irrelevant, then they shouldn't have included them in their grounds of resistance! However, they are very relevant, and if they are as concerned about time as they say they are, the sooner they answer my questions, the better.
Both sides are allowed to call witnesses. The Uni has decided not to call their star witness, Kathy, even though she was allegedly able to point to evidence that persuaded Eileen Schofield that she hadn't bullied me or discriminated against me on the basis of my gender, and that I had in fact bullied Kathy. The reason they are not calling her as a witness is because she couldn't possibly have done that. This means that I have to call Kathy as a witness for cross examination in order to see that evidence she pointed to. The Uni has suggested to the Tribunal that I shouldn't be allowed to cross examine her, because they say I am "an aggrieved employee with a difference of view". That would surely describe every claimant at a Tribunal.
They are not calling the other four women, (Eileen, Selina, Jackie and Una) on whose evidence they allegedy based their decision to dismiss me. So I've called them as witnesses. I suspect the Uni realises that those women won't be able to convince the Tribunal that I should have been dismissed. I also suspect there are other, even more important reasons why the Uni will not want them to be cross examined.
They are not calling Eileen Schofield, despite her being convinced that I was the cause of the breakdown in my working relationship with Kathy. I need to call her as a witness to hear how she arrived at that decision.
They are not calling Kevin Clarke who said he couldn't see any flaws in the
grievance procedure. I'm calling him as a witness too, because I want him to explain to the Tribunal how the flaws I described to him aren't flaws.
They are not calling the two managers (Graham and Gail) who carried out the disciplinary investigation, but I need to find out from them why their investigation was so flawed. Who knows, they might tell me the truth, as they are required under oath!
The Uni is asking the Tribunal to restrict me, or my representative, to cross examining only those who made the decisions, claiming that they are the only ones with relevant evidence. They cannot possibly think that's true, especially when they are being advised by a lawyer.
They don't stop at that though. There are other advantages they want too. Normally, in a case like mine where there are elements of discrimination and victimisation as a result of protected disclosures, it is the employee who presents their case first, followed by the employer. The reverse is true when it's only unfair dismissal. I think that makes sense because the party that has to refer to the earliest incidents should go first. The Uni has decided that it would be best for them if they present their case first.
They also wish to treat my claim as if it was just one of unfair dismissal. That's their comfort zone. They want to force the Tribunal to decide if I was dismissed for a fair reason before they've heard from me about any victimisation and discrimination. They probably still wouldn't win, but their chances would be significantly greater, especially if, as they suggest, the Tribunal doesn't get to hear the very dodgy evidence from those five women and others, and they don't get to hear about the flawed grievance procedure or any of the mistreatment I had been subjected to for several years.
They were offered an opportunity to have the matter of the protected disclosures decided first. I'd imagine that wouldn't take very long because there is a clear definition of what qualifies as a protected disclosure, and the Uni is struggling to find a reason to argue my protected disclosures don't qualify. However, they rejected that offer, and I suspect that's because the natural thing to decide after that would be whether or not I suffered detriment (from which I was protected) as a result of the grievance procedure, and they wish to avoid that subject like the plague. The Tribunal would also have the protected disclosures at the forefront of their minds while listening to evidence on my dismissal.
So far, they haven't insisted that I be blindfolded and have my hands tied behind my back; but it's still early days...
Monday
Message to the Principal
See Timeline and Personnel
Christine Hallett
On the same day that I lodged my formal grievance against my manager, I emailed the Principal to alert her to the seriousness of the situation which had been on going for several years but didn't seem to be taken seriously. The Principal holds the most senior role in a University, and I was making a desperate plea for help in the hope she would ensure that the issue would be handled properly.
Here's the email I sent to CH. Despite the alarming contents and attached grievance statement, I received no response from the Principal. Days earlier, she had sent all staff a message to say that the University was strongly committed to ensuring that we could all work free from such behaviour. The impression I received was that her statement was false and hypocritical, and that she was part of the problem.
Below is the message that the Principal would have had us all believe. However, the reality is that there is no real commitment to protect staff from bullies. My union reps are aware that Stirling University has one of the worst records for bullying in the UK.
Towards the end of 2009, staff were asked to complete a survey on several issues which included bullying. It was interesting that this survey followed soon after two rounds of Voluntary Severance whereby certain members of staff were offered a year's salary to give up their jobs. KE is one of roughly seven Programmers, which means she represented about 14% of the programming resource. She was desperate to take VS, but she was told by MT that no IS employees outwith the COLT team would be offered VS. Later, I registered an interest in VS, and was duly offered it. KE was furious with MT for having misled her. I was a full time DBA and had a colleague who worked part time as a DBA. This meant that I represented 67% of the DBA resource. Auditors had strongly recommended that the DBA role be covered by more than one person for security reasons. It made no logical sense to offer me a year's salary to leave. There is no doubt that I was being offered VS as a means to cover over my manager's bullying. It is also likely that other targets of bullies were offered VS and that that would have made the results of the survey give the impression that the University's record on bullying is much better than it really is.
Christine Hallett
On the same day that I lodged my formal grievance against my manager, I emailed the Principal to alert her to the seriousness of the situation which had been on going for several years but didn't seem to be taken seriously. The Principal holds the most senior role in a University, and I was making a desperate plea for help in the hope she would ensure that the issue would be handled properly.
Here's the email I sent to CH. Despite the alarming contents and attached grievance statement, I received no response from the Principal. Days earlier, she had sent all staff a message to say that the University was strongly committed to ensuring that we could all work free from such behaviour. The impression I received was that her statement was false and hypocritical, and that she was part of the problem.
Below is the message that the Principal would have had us all believe. However, the reality is that there is no real commitment to protect staff from bullies. My union reps are aware that Stirling University has one of the worst records for bullying in the UK.
Towards the end of 2009, staff were asked to complete a survey on several issues which included bullying. It was interesting that this survey followed soon after two rounds of Voluntary Severance whereby certain members of staff were offered a year's salary to give up their jobs. KE is one of roughly seven Programmers, which means she represented about 14% of the programming resource. She was desperate to take VS, but she was told by MT that no IS employees outwith the COLT team would be offered VS. Later, I registered an interest in VS, and was duly offered it. KE was furious with MT for having misled her. I was a full time DBA and had a colleague who worked part time as a DBA. This meant that I represented 67% of the DBA resource. Auditors had strongly recommended that the DBA role be covered by more than one person for security reasons. It made no logical sense to offer me a year's salary to leave. There is no doubt that I was being offered VS as a means to cover over my manager's bullying. It is also likely that other targets of bullies were offered VS and that that would have made the results of the survey give the impression that the University's record on bullying is much better than it really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)