This is a link to the mp3 file (Selina and Una.mp3) that contains a conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth on 26 February 2010 immediately after my grievance hearing with Kathy McCabe. The transcript of the conversation is on my blog here.
Two months after this conversation took place, Selina was interviewed as part of the disciplinary investigation. She claimed that due to a private conversation she had with me in January that year, she was frightened, nervous and anxious around me. She had lied, claiming that I had gone wild with rage, and that I was red in the face and spitting on her desk.
The conversation begins as I'm about to go home early. Selina and Una Forsyth instigate the conversation by asking me why I'm going home. The both lied, claiming that neither of them got on with me. If I didn't get on with someone, I wouldn't talk to them as they are about to leave. I would just let them leave.
You will note that the volume of my voice lowers as I go over to them, and away from the exit. This was because we shared a room with about eleven colleagues. The private conversation I had with Selina in January 2010 also took place as I was about to leave the room, and again it was Selina who instigated it. However, that day I didn't move towards Selina because we were the only two people in the room at the time. So her claim that I was spitting on her desk in anger was false because I was nowhere near her desk. In fact, at one point, she had stood up from her desk to come over and stand beside me. She was giving the appearance of being genuinely concerned for my health. I now know that to be false.
In this February conversation, just as in the January one, there is no sign of anger from me; no going wild; no spitting with rage. Yet we are discussing my grievance with Kathy McCabe which was the subject that Selina alleged caused me to go wild.
In this conversation, Una raises a work issue which I begin to answer, when Selina interrupts to make jokes about my 'dancing shoes'. Hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious and nervous around me.
The reason the conversation is being recorded is because I had been recording the grievance hearing, and hadn't switched off my recorder.
Mark Toole, who dismissed me, says he believes Selina's unsubstantiated claims. Yet he criticised me because Ruth had sent him a letter in which she stated she had seen disciplinary investigator, Graham Millar, with his arm around Una Forsyth at works nights out. Mark says that Ruth's claims are unsubstantiated despite the fact that Graham did this in the presence of more than a dozen work colleagues, and on more than one occasion. He didn't even bother to ask Graham if it was true or not, such was his desire to substantiate Ruth's claims. Mark claims that Ruth made false claims in collusion with me because she was my partner, but he says he could not imagine that work colleagues would collude with each other.
Ruth's letter also stated that David Black had told her that Jackie O'Neil had shouted angrily at me just before I was suspended. Again, Mark says that he believed Ruth had made this up. David Black has confirmed it, though, so maybe Mark should have asked David before dismissing me. Isn't that what you would expect from someone who says they are going to carry out a thorough investigation? I had pleaded with him to speak to David, but my pleas were ignored. He obviously knew I was telling the truth. Why on earth would I lie about an incident that was witnessed by a dozen colleagues. Mark says he believed Jackie who denied shouting at me, even though she was unwilling to attend a meeting with me and Mark to discuss the incident. Despite knowing that I shared an office with 13 colleagues, Mark says he thought that only David and Jackie and I were present. That's why nobody else was asked about it, he said.
Does that sound genuine to you?
Showing posts with label selina gibb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label selina gibb. Show all posts
Sunday
Stirling University - How they conduct sham grievance and disciplinary procedures
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?
"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?
Saturday
Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
Thursday
The Transcripts
As part of my claim at the Employment Tribunal, I have submitted two audio recordings. Here are the transcripts of the recordings.
The first one is a brief conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth shortly after my grievance hearing on 26 February 2010.
In April 2010, Selina made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claims that a few weeks before this conversation, I had a private conversation with her in which I went wild with anger, my face went red with rage, and I was spitting on her desk in anger. Selina said that I had frightened her, and it meant that from then on she was nervous and anxious around me. Apart from this conversation there is other documentary evidence that Selina had lied.
Also in April 2010, Una made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claimed that, out of the twelve women in the team, I only got on well with two of them, neither of them being herself or Selina. Apart from this conversation, there is other documentary evidence that Una had lied.
Note that, even though we are discussing my grievance with Kathy, there is no display of anger. Note also that Una and Selina begin the conversation, just as Selina had begun the previous conversation as I was leaving the room.
Una: Are you away home?
Allan: Yes
Selina: How come?
Una: Because of the snow?
Allan: The snow? No.
Selina: What are you going home for?
Allan: I had my hearing with Kathy just now, and it just lasted two minutes. We were told we could go home if we wanted, because I'm a bit stressed out.
Selina: It's not long term?
Allan: What's not long term?
Selina: You going home.
Allan: No, I'll be back on Monday. It's just because it's a stressful thing.
Selina: Yeah. Did it go okay?
Allan: From my point of view it went okay, and the guy that was with me, the union guy, he said it went okay. It's up to management now to make a decision on dealing with this properly, or what to do.
Una: Is she going home as well?
Allan: Well she's got permission to go home, so she might.
Una: It's a carry on.
Allan: It IS a carry on.
Una then talks to Allan about a work problem. Allan begins to respond, and Selina interrupts.
Selina: You never had your dancing shoes on.
Allan: This IS my dancing shoes.
Selina jokes some more about Allan's shoes. Una laughs.
Allan returns to the work issue, and says he'll resolve it on Monday.
Una: That's fine; I'll sit on it till Monday.
Allan: Okey cokey!
Una and Selina together: Have a nice weekend!
Allan: You too. Bye!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The second one is during a meeting with Kathy McCabe and David Black on 18 March 2010. I inform Kathy of an incident on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand and pen on her desk in anger. David was standing right beside us, and there were about 12 colleagues in the room. Jackie had wrongly thought that I'd made a mistake, when in fact, the mistake was her own. Note how Kathy is not surprised, but tries to justify Jackie's behaviour. Jackie had misinformed Kathy about this incident, just as I expect she had misinformed her about many things concerning me. And Kathy was eager to believe her.
Kathy: Unicode upgrade.
Allan: Yes, that's next week.
Kathy: Yes. Right, and are we all geared up for that?
Allan: Yes, I think so. We did QA last week, and I've got to tell you there was an incident last week where Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.
Kathy: Right, have you come to inform me about that?
Allan: I'm just letting you be aware of it, that's all.
Kathy: Ok. Cos I know that she ended up working till 10 o'clock on Wednesday night.
Allan: I don't know what she's working at 10 o'clock at night for.
Kathy: Because she had to kick the QA upgrade off again at lunchtime. Is that not.....?
David: I'm not sure, but I think the upgrade only took two hours. I don't know what she’d be doing at night.
Allan: I don't think that would cause her to work till 10 o'clock at night.
Kathy: Ok.... Right. We're all geared up for production on Thursday?
Allan: I hope so, yes.
The first one is a brief conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth shortly after my grievance hearing on 26 February 2010.
In April 2010, Selina made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claims that a few weeks before this conversation, I had a private conversation with her in which I went wild with anger, my face went red with rage, and I was spitting on her desk in anger. Selina said that I had frightened her, and it meant that from then on she was nervous and anxious around me. Apart from this conversation there is other documentary evidence that Selina had lied.
Also in April 2010, Una made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claimed that, out of the twelve women in the team, I only got on well with two of them, neither of them being herself or Selina. Apart from this conversation, there is other documentary evidence that Una had lied.
Note that, even though we are discussing my grievance with Kathy, there is no display of anger. Note also that Una and Selina begin the conversation, just as Selina had begun the previous conversation as I was leaving the room.
Una: Are you away home?
Allan: Yes
Selina: How come?
Una: Because of the snow?
Allan: The snow? No.
Selina: What are you going home for?
Allan: I had my hearing with Kathy just now, and it just lasted two minutes. We were told we could go home if we wanted, because I'm a bit stressed out.
Selina: It's not long term?
Allan: What's not long term?
Selina: You going home.
Allan: No, I'll be back on Monday. It's just because it's a stressful thing.
Selina: Yeah. Did it go okay?
Allan: From my point of view it went okay, and the guy that was with me, the union guy, he said it went okay. It's up to management now to make a decision on dealing with this properly, or what to do.
Una: Is she going home as well?
Allan: Well she's got permission to go home, so she might.
Una: It's a carry on.
Allan: It IS a carry on.
Una then talks to Allan about a work problem. Allan begins to respond, and Selina interrupts.
Selina: You never had your dancing shoes on.
Allan: This IS my dancing shoes.
Selina jokes some more about Allan's shoes. Una laughs.
Allan returns to the work issue, and says he'll resolve it on Monday.
Una: That's fine; I'll sit on it till Monday.
Allan: Okey cokey!
Una and Selina together: Have a nice weekend!
Allan: You too. Bye!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The second one is during a meeting with Kathy McCabe and David Black on 18 March 2010. I inform Kathy of an incident on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand and pen on her desk in anger. David was standing right beside us, and there were about 12 colleagues in the room. Jackie had wrongly thought that I'd made a mistake, when in fact, the mistake was her own. Note how Kathy is not surprised, but tries to justify Jackie's behaviour. Jackie had misinformed Kathy about this incident, just as I expect she had misinformed her about many things concerning me. And Kathy was eager to believe her.
Kathy: Unicode upgrade.
Allan: Yes, that's next week.
Kathy: Yes. Right, and are we all geared up for that?
Allan: Yes, I think so. We did QA last week, and I've got to tell you there was an incident last week where Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.
Kathy: Right, have you come to inform me about that?
Allan: I'm just letting you be aware of it, that's all.
Kathy: Ok. Cos I know that she ended up working till 10 o'clock on Wednesday night.
Allan: I don't know what she's working at 10 o'clock at night for.
Kathy: Because she had to kick the QA upgrade off again at lunchtime. Is that not.....?
David: I'm not sure, but I think the upgrade only took two hours. I don't know what she’d be doing at night.
Allan: I don't think that would cause her to work till 10 o'clock at night.
Kathy: Ok.... Right. We're all geared up for production on Thursday?
Allan: I hope so, yes.
Tuesday
The Questions
After 48 days, the Stirling University finally provided answers to my questions; or at least some of them.
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me? Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that it was just a coincidence?
6 Document C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement. But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke, Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
12 In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
2 I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me? Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that it was just a coincidence?
6 Document C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement. But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke, Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
12 In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
2 I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
Saturday
When Mark Meets Selina
Those of you who read my Alcohol Diary will know that I'm currently writing to Stirling University's lawyer, Alun Thomas, in order to obtain additional information from them with regard to their defense against the claim I brought to the Employment Tribunal.
The information I'm seeking will be the answers to questions from certain witnesses, and I've been trying to imagine how the witnesses may react to receiving my questions. Naturally, one would expect that good, law abiding citizens would be only too happy to assist with the smooth course of justice, but how will the lying bastards at Stirling University react? Could it go something like this...?
Mark: Thanks for popping in Selina, this shouldn't take long. I know how very busy you are with your work. Can I introduce you to Alun Thomas; he's the university's lawyer. Alun, this is Selina Gibb. Selina is a vital cog in the university's wheel. Selina, do you remember a chap who used to work in your team who behaved inappropriately with you women?
Selina: You mean Allan?
Mark: Yes, terrible chap, if I remember rightly. Am I correct in saying that he raped half the women in your team?
Alun: There were no complaints of rape, Mark.
Mark: Still, a terrible chap all the same. I'm sure he would have raped them, given half a chance. Just as well I got shot of the bastard before he did then. Make a note of that, Alun, I should certainly bring that to the attention of the tribunal members.
Alun: Noted.
Mark: Now Selina, this terrible chap, Allan, is up to some mischief. He's gone and produced this fake audio file that he falsely claims demonstrates that you were joking with him shortly after the first time he raped you.
Alun: No, Mark. He didn't rape her. he scared her by behaving wildly, his face going red, spitting and that type of thing. Naturally, it made her nervous and anxious to be around him.
Mark: Now Selina, I've listened to this recording, and, to be perfectly honest, it sounds nothing like you. He has obviously employed some actress; one that wasn't nervous and anxious, to play your part in a fake conversation he has made up. And he has forced the actress to joke with him. He is obviously desperately trying to taint your character and to present you as a liar. Have a listen, and tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure you will agree with me...
Now that I've heard it again, Selina, I'm not even sure that the actress is of British origin. He's obviously hired a very cheap foreign actress who sounds nothing like you. It wouldn't surprise me if he raped her afterwards. Alun, make a note of that. When you cross examine him, ask him if he raped the actress. He'll probably deny it. His sort usually do. But at least it will be out in the open.
So, I'm sorry to put you to this trouble, Selina, but although it is obviously not you on the recording, I just need you to please confirm that to Alun. And then we can all go back to being a very happy team again, and we can forget all about that dreadful, dreadful man. Please, Selina. Please?
Selina: If I said it's not me, would I have to go to court and say under oath that it's not me?
Mark: I can absolutely assure you Selina that we do not want you to appear in court. You are far more valuable to us here, doing the work that you busily do for the university. What on earth would we do if there was an emergency, only to find that you couldn't deal with it because you were in court? No, Selina, I promise you we do not want you anywhere near the court. Isn't that true, Alun?
Alun: I assure you Selina, that we will not be calling you as a witness.
Selina: So there's no way I would have to repeat this in court?
Mark: Like I said, Selina. We do not want you in court. We need you right here.
Selina: But couldn't the tribunal force me to appear, even if you don't want me to be there?
Mark: I feel sure that, once we have explained to the tribunal how important you are to the running of the university, they will understand that it's not necessary for you to attend. We'll just tell them that you said it wasn't you in the recording.
Alun: It's possible the tribunal may require you to appear as a witness, Selina.
Selina: Then I'm sorry, but it is me on the recording.
Mark: How can you be so sure, Selina? Here, listen to it again. Turn the volume down a bit. Listen from over there. I'm sure you don't really think I'm wrong. Take your time. Don't make any harsh decisions that you may later regret.
Selina: I'm sorry, but it is me.
Mark: That's okay, Selina. Not to worry. That's not a problem. I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this. I expect you just temporarily forgot that you were nervous and anxious around him. That happens to me all the time. Yes, that's what happened, isn't it, Selina. You just forgot. Please say that's what happened Selina. You just forgot, didn't you.
Selina: I'm sorry, Mark. I wasn't nervous and anxious. I just made that up.
Mark: No, Selina. You don't know what you're saying. You don't look very well. Why don't you go home; come back tomorrow if you're feeling better and you remember that you just forgot. I'll understand. We'll have a good laugh about it, I bet.
Selina: There's no point. I lied. I wasn't nervous and anxious, because he hadn't made me nervous and anxious.
Mark: Well this isn't my fault. I genuinely believed you. My investigators were absolutely convinced.
Mark phones the investigators, and asks them to join the meeting.
Mark: Selina has just told me she lied in her statement about being nervous and anxious.
Graham: You don't look well, Selina. Maybe you should go home until you feel better and remember that you were anxious and nervous.
Mark: I've already tried that.
Gail: I told you she was lying, Graham. I told you they were all lying. It was obvious!
Mark: Is that true, Graham?
Graham: Wait a minute. Don't try and pin this on me, Mark. I was only following your instructions.
Mark: What instructions? I told you I wanted a fair and thorough investigation. If you have any written instructions that are different, I would like to see them please. This is terrible. An innocent man has lost his job because of your incompetence and dishonesty. I will have to reinstate him right away; it's the least I can do after all you've done to him. I'm shocked. I'm very shocked! Obviously, I'm blameless, but I'm really shocked.
Mark: Can you all see just how shocked I am by this? There's no way I could possibly look more shocked. You are watching maximum shock!
Alun: Erm... Allan has also given me questions for you, Mark; and you Gail; and you too Graham.
The information I'm seeking will be the answers to questions from certain witnesses, and I've been trying to imagine how the witnesses may react to receiving my questions. Naturally, one would expect that good, law abiding citizens would be only too happy to assist with the smooth course of justice, but how will the lying bastards at Stirling University react? Could it go something like this...?
Mark: Thanks for popping in Selina, this shouldn't take long. I know how very busy you are with your work. Can I introduce you to Alun Thomas; he's the university's lawyer. Alun, this is Selina Gibb. Selina is a vital cog in the university's wheel. Selina, do you remember a chap who used to work in your team who behaved inappropriately with you women?
Selina: You mean Allan?
Mark: Yes, terrible chap, if I remember rightly. Am I correct in saying that he raped half the women in your team?
Alun: There were no complaints of rape, Mark.
Mark: Still, a terrible chap all the same. I'm sure he would have raped them, given half a chance. Just as well I got shot of the bastard before he did then. Make a note of that, Alun, I should certainly bring that to the attention of the tribunal members.
Alun: Noted.
Mark: Now Selina, this terrible chap, Allan, is up to some mischief. He's gone and produced this fake audio file that he falsely claims demonstrates that you were joking with him shortly after the first time he raped you.
Alun: No, Mark. He didn't rape her. he scared her by behaving wildly, his face going red, spitting and that type of thing. Naturally, it made her nervous and anxious to be around him.
Mark: Now Selina, I've listened to this recording, and, to be perfectly honest, it sounds nothing like you. He has obviously employed some actress; one that wasn't nervous and anxious, to play your part in a fake conversation he has made up. And he has forced the actress to joke with him. He is obviously desperately trying to taint your character and to present you as a liar. Have a listen, and tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure you will agree with me...
Now that I've heard it again, Selina, I'm not even sure that the actress is of British origin. He's obviously hired a very cheap foreign actress who sounds nothing like you. It wouldn't surprise me if he raped her afterwards. Alun, make a note of that. When you cross examine him, ask him if he raped the actress. He'll probably deny it. His sort usually do. But at least it will be out in the open.
So, I'm sorry to put you to this trouble, Selina, but although it is obviously not you on the recording, I just need you to please confirm that to Alun. And then we can all go back to being a very happy team again, and we can forget all about that dreadful, dreadful man. Please, Selina. Please?
Selina: If I said it's not me, would I have to go to court and say under oath that it's not me?
Mark: I can absolutely assure you Selina that we do not want you to appear in court. You are far more valuable to us here, doing the work that you busily do for the university. What on earth would we do if there was an emergency, only to find that you couldn't deal with it because you were in court? No, Selina, I promise you we do not want you anywhere near the court. Isn't that true, Alun?
Alun: I assure you Selina, that we will not be calling you as a witness.
Selina: So there's no way I would have to repeat this in court?
Mark: Like I said, Selina. We do not want you in court. We need you right here.
Selina: But couldn't the tribunal force me to appear, even if you don't want me to be there?
Mark: I feel sure that, once we have explained to the tribunal how important you are to the running of the university, they will understand that it's not necessary for you to attend. We'll just tell them that you said it wasn't you in the recording.
Alun: It's possible the tribunal may require you to appear as a witness, Selina.
Selina: Then I'm sorry, but it is me on the recording.
Mark: How can you be so sure, Selina? Here, listen to it again. Turn the volume down a bit. Listen from over there. I'm sure you don't really think I'm wrong. Take your time. Don't make any harsh decisions that you may later regret.
Selina: I'm sorry, but it is me.
Mark: That's okay, Selina. Not to worry. That's not a problem. I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this. I expect you just temporarily forgot that you were nervous and anxious around him. That happens to me all the time. Yes, that's what happened, isn't it, Selina. You just forgot. Please say that's what happened Selina. You just forgot, didn't you.
Selina: I'm sorry, Mark. I wasn't nervous and anxious. I just made that up.
Mark: No, Selina. You don't know what you're saying. You don't look very well. Why don't you go home; come back tomorrow if you're feeling better and you remember that you just forgot. I'll understand. We'll have a good laugh about it, I bet.
Selina: There's no point. I lied. I wasn't nervous and anxious, because he hadn't made me nervous and anxious.
Mark: Well this isn't my fault. I genuinely believed you. My investigators were absolutely convinced.
Mark phones the investigators, and asks them to join the meeting.
Mark: Selina has just told me she lied in her statement about being nervous and anxious.
Graham: You don't look well, Selina. Maybe you should go home until you feel better and remember that you were anxious and nervous.
Mark: I've already tried that.
Gail: I told you she was lying, Graham. I told you they were all lying. It was obvious!
Mark: Is that true, Graham?
Graham: Wait a minute. Don't try and pin this on me, Mark. I was only following your instructions.
Mark: What instructions? I told you I wanted a fair and thorough investigation. If you have any written instructions that are different, I would like to see them please. This is terrible. An innocent man has lost his job because of your incompetence and dishonesty. I will have to reinstate him right away; it's the least I can do after all you've done to him. I'm shocked. I'm very shocked! Obviously, I'm blameless, but I'm really shocked.
Mark: Can you all see just how shocked I am by this? There's no way I could possibly look more shocked. You are watching maximum shock!
Alun: Erm... Allan has also given me questions for you, Mark; and you Gail; and you too Graham.
Thursday
The Danger of Gossip
Selina Gibb, Riverbank Lodge, Auchinlay Rd, Dunblane, FK15 9BF
In earlier posts I spoke of Selina Gibb's involvement in having me sacked. I had assumed that somehow Eileen MacDonald had forced Selina to make up stories about me to help in her attempt to get rid of me. On reflection, I think I may have given Selina too much credit as being an innocent person being forced against her will. Having thought about it, I don't think that is realistic.
When interviewed for the disciplinary investigation, Selina gave false accounts of two separate conversations I had with her; one in private and one which was witnessed by about seven colleagues. Selina and I had always got on very well, and it seemed bizarre that she would do that voluntarily. It didn't make sense, so I thought she must have been forced. But I now think that is unlikely. I now believe it is far more likely that Selina found herself in an awkward position due to her own stupidity.
There was a strong gossip culture in the team, and it seems that for years colleagues were being drip fed gossip about me by Eileen who I knew had been jealous of me. Selina knew that Eileen hated me and loved gossip. I think that following each of those conversations, Selina has sought to ingratiate herself with Eileen by misrepresenting them to her, and making them sound sinister. She was feeding the gossip monster. Selina would not at that stage have been planning to have me fired. She was just playing the game of gossiping about me.
Later when Eileen saw an opportunity for getting rid of me, she would have asked Selina for her help by reporting these 'sinister' conversations. That put Selina in an awkward position, because she either had to tell Eileen that she had lied to her, or she does the unthinkable, and formally repeats her lies.
Immediately before she gave her statement, Selina had been on holiday for about three weeks; plenty of time to weigh up her options. As a mother to three babies, Selina definitely made the wrong choice by deciding to repeat her lie in order to end a man's career. What began as a game of gossip, could end in disaster.
Selina claimed that, because of these conversations, she was frightened and anxious when with me. I have audio and documentary evidence that proves this to be a laughable lie. Selina's luck couldn't have been much worse. I mean, what were the chances of me accidentally recording her joking with me, and that the recording would even include an indication that it followed those allegedly sinister conversations? And what were the chances of her emailing me to invite me to hear 'lots of funnies' while she was allegedly frightened and anxious to be around me, and that I'd still have that email? The University has heard the recording and seen the email. The email and the recording, along with a transcript of its contents have been submitted to the tribunal. The university accepts that the transcript accurately describes what is said in the recording.
It shows that Selina had begun the conversation with me, and it shows her interrupting a work discussion I was having with another colleague. She interrupted in order to joke with me. Selina does not sound frightened or anxious, and I don't sound as though I would expect her to be frightened or anxious. We sound as though we are two colleagues who got on very well. Selina does not sound as though she is so frightened of me that she could no longer work with me.
To lie about someone in this manner in order to have him lose his livelihood represents serious defamation for which Selina is personally responsible. In her defense, she may claim that it was so obvious she was lying that the University should have known, and not fired me. I don't think that would stand up to scrutiny though. Her intention was to be believed that she could no longer work with me because she was so frightened. And officially, her story was so convincing that I was sacked. She has also had the opportunity to right her wrong since April 2010, but chose to continue with it. Judging by how happy she appears when she is out and about with Eileen, my situation doesn't seem to be causing her conscience too much trouble.
Bearing in mind that it is obvious that she lied, and that there were so many witnesses as well, I think the responsible thing for Selina to do would be to come forward and tell the truth. I wouldn't leave it too long though. I hope she fully understands the seriousness of her situation.
Last month, a student was jailed for six months when he pleaded guilty to stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. Selina's premeditated crime is infinitely worse, in my view. Her crime has cost me tens of thousands of pounds, has caused me very serious mental injury, and has possibly ended my career, and may even cause the end of my life. Needless to say, I'm very angry with Selina. VERY angry!
Lets consider Selina's thought process when she did this.
1 A complete lack of integrity. She knew that what she was doing was wrong and wicked, but she just went ahead and did it anyway. What a role model for her kids!
2 Totally selfish. No concern about what would happen to me. No concern about embarrassment to her family and to the university.
3 No consideration given to the fact that there were witnesses. She didn't expect the witnesses to find out about her false allegations.
4 No consideration given to the fact that there may be evidence that would show she lied.
5 No concern that she didn't have a single piece of evidence to support her allegations.
6 No consideration given to the fact that her partners in crime would be found out or admit to colluding with her. They must all have thought their stories were air tight.
7 No concern about what action I may take in response, even without evidence that she lied.
8 No concern that making false allegations is a sackable offence.
9 No concern about how difficult it would be to get a new job, having a record of making false allegations. Who would want to work with someone who makes false allegations?
10 No concern that she may have to testify under oath at a tribunal.
11 No concern about the laws of defamation.
12 No concern at all that I had thought of her as a friend, and had bent over backwards to help her.
13 No concern that the world would find out who the real Selina is.
14 No concern that it may eat at her conscience later, because she has no conscience.
Selina was interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller at 3pm on 21 April 2010. She officially must have been extremely convincing, because at 9am the following day when they interviewed me, they didn't even mention Selina to me. But they felt so strongly about her evidence that they felt it merited a deviation from normal disciplinary procedure, and they included conclusions in their report; one of which highlighted their serious concerns about my conversation with Selina which had left her "uncomfortable and frightened and as a consequence is now nervous and anxious around him". Selina will have to explain how she went from frightened and anxious to laughing and joking, then back to frightened and anxious. Does she have a mental disorder perhaps?And Mr Toole will have to explain how he was at least 50% sure that she was telling the truth. Does he have a mental disorder perhaps?
Gail and Graham will also have to explain their performance as investigators. How can two investigators both perform so badly? You would think that if one was making a mistake, the other would point it out and correct it. These are both Grade 9 managers. Yet neither of them thought it was important to ask me for my account of the conversations I had with Selina. How convenient!
Selina's defamatory evidence could and should have been caught and stopped long before that point, but Selina now has them, Karen Stark and Mark Toole to thank for the nightmare in which she now finds herself. Not forgetting herself, of course!
The investigator's report is so malicious in its description of me, that I believe it is also defamatory. Mark Toole had promised me a fair and thorough investigation. So why does it not refer to Selina frequently laughing and joking with me? That is an indisputable fact. The investigator's report is only supposed to contain FACTS. But the facts are conspicuous by their absence. Why did the investigators include conclusions when they were not supposed to, and when they were in no position to, not having gathered the facts?
Selina is a bully. She is a special type of bully who bullies a certain type of individual. She targets people who are already targets of other bullies. This is called mobbing. She attacks people who are already weakened by the damage caused by other bullies.
People can be categorised by how they react to witnessing someone being attacked; for example a rape or assault victim. Some people will walk on by because they don't want to get involved. Some people will try to rescue the victim, even though it may put themselves in danger. They might not have thought it through before acting, but their instinct tells them that they should rescue the victim. Selina belongs to the third group. She 'smells blood' and wants to join in on the kill.
I can understand the first two types of people, but for the life of me, I can't understand the third. And apparently they are not rare. It frightens me. But it makes me wonder how these people would feel if they or their loved ones were being attacked, and passers by joined in on the attack. Would they think that was normal and to be expected?
I strongly believe that bullies and people who take part in mobbing must be punished in order to deter the next set of would be bullies. It is probably one of the most important things in the world today. Ideally it should be covered by systems of justice. If not, then what options do victims of bullies have?
Maybe that's a question we should ask Selina. What would she see as an appropriate and proportionate punishment for her behaviour that would deter others from copying her behaviour?
Alternatively, we could ask the victim what would be an appropriate and proportionate punishment.
However, the bully and the target are both emotionally involved, and are possibly not the best judges of appropriate punishment. Perhaps an independent judge could consider the punishments suggested by both the target and the bully, and decide which one of the two is more justified.
I spoke of how I considered Selina to be a friend, because that's how she presented herself to me face to face. Ironically, it was during our private conversation around January or February 2010 that I confided in her the toll that Kathy's bullying had taken on my health. She appeared sympathetic and genuinely concerned about my health, saying that I needed to look after myself. It was all an act. She was simply gathering and making up dirt on me to feed to her bully buddy.
The very last time I was with Selina, we were laughing and joking together when she came to talk to me about her skiing lessons. That was just a few days before I was suspended in March 2010. The next time I will be with Selina, we won't be laughing and joking. I will be cross examining her at the employment tribunal about the statement she gave for the disciplinary investigation, and comparing it with the irrefutable facts that show she lied. Ironically, I expect she will be frightened and anxious.
What I find fascinating about Selina's predicament is how other people have reacted to it. How have our colleagues reacted to it, and in particular, the witnesses? Bullying, scapegoating and mobbing had made the team become dysfunctional. But in a team of 16, you would expect some 'normal' people not to be effected by it. What are their thoughts on this? What about Selina's husband? Has she told him? Did she lie to him too? What about her parents and her sister? What will she tell her kids when they come home from school having learned from their friends that she is a bully who lied to get an innocent man sacked?
The investigators' performance in the process was horrendous. It will look terrible to the tribunal who will not be fooled for a second that it was ever meant to be genuine, especially since there were two of them at such a senior level. Even worse for the uni is that when I received their report, I wrote to Mark Toole several times saying that it was obviously a sham, and I pleaded with him to carry out a proper investigation. He simply ignored my pleas which I copied to the Occupational Therapy doctor. He knew that I was already suffering from stress and that this was making it a whole lot worse. And remember, I had just a few weeks earlier made a protected disclosure to the Principal informing her that the uni was failing in its duty of care. And Mark will have to explain how he could possibly have been happy with the investigation, such as it was. All of this means that it is likely to greatly increase the compensation I receive, and it will draw attention to the corrupt nature of senior management. The uni wishes to challenge my reinstatement. It might be that they won't be able to afford not to reinstate me. Their lawyer drew the tribunal's attention to their limited resources on Wednesday. To top it all, the university had known that their actions had caused me to become suicidal. I had discussed it with Occupational Therapy. It couldn't look much worse for the uni. I would be surprised if it didn't make the national news. This could even become one of the UK's landmark cases.
Then I may also have to seek damages from the individuals who chose to defame me. This may include Gibb, MacDonald, O'Neil, Forsyth, McCabe, Stark, Schofield, Toole, Kemp, Millar and Miller.
From Selina's statement, I now see that she said that she had told a colleague about the alleged frightening conversation. It was her colleague who informed Eileen MacDonald.
To be continued...
Wednesday
Digital Recordings
I have sent Stirling University's lawyers sound recordings that support my assertion that a number of colleagues have told porky pies.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
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
Selina Gibb
Selina Gibb, Riverbank Lodge, Auchinlay Rd, Dunblane, FK15 9BF
This is the statement that Selina made to Investigators Graham Millar and Gail Miller. Later, when they interviewed me, they made no reference to anything she had said. Nor did they tell me that she had been interviewed.
Section 3. Selina, to her shame, has completely misrepresented a private conversation we had in the office.
He came over to my desk at the other end of the office, which I found very strange as we don't have a close working relationship, and asked if I'd heard about the KM situation. I was on my way to fetch drinking water from the tea room which means exiting through a door acrosss the room from where Selina sits. She asked me why I wasn't at the Developers' meeting. I said that I was working on my grievance against Kathy. Selina said she hadn't known about it and asked if it was because of the email that Kathy had sent the team about conference attendance. I said that was part of it. She asked if it was true that I had emails that I'd sent Kathy asking to attend. (Kathy had falsely claimed in her email that I'd never asked to attend a conference). I said yes. Selina said that was weird. I added that I also had some of her acknowledgements. Selina said that was really weird. I said that Kathy had been ill treating me for years, and then I left the room to get some water. When I returned, Selina asked how it all began. I said I wasn't sure but I suspected that Eileen was involved because I knew that she had misrepresented my performance in an email she sent Kathy. I also told Selina that I'd raised a grievance against Eileen because of this. I said that I thought Eileen was probably the root of the problem. I referred to a time about two weeks earlier when Selina and I were talking as we climbed the stairs together. Selina had noticed that when we reached the top that I was out of breath. She had joked that I was like "an old man". I explained that that was a symptom of the stress caused by bullying. I told her that I drink far too much alcohol and can no longer take exercise. By now Selina had stood up and crossed the room to where I was standing. She said two times, "You need to look after yourself, Allan". She was still standing there as I returned to my seat saying "That's probably the correct thing to say, but it's not that simple." I felt she was genuinely concerned for my health.
He started talking about EM and lost control. I hadn't lost control in any way. This is pure fiction.
His facial expression changed and became very red in the face and really angry and irate. His demeanour seemed quite wild. He was calling her names and said she was the ring leader behind the deterioration of his relationship with KM, was not to be trusted and was malicious and a trouble maker. Pure fiction again. Interestingly, I had never considered that Eileen was a ring leader, however since the orchestrated complaints emerged, I now believe that to be true.
He didn't mention her by name, he just kept pointing at her chair and saying 'her'. The first time I mentioned Eileen's name I pointed at her desk in order to clarify which Eileen I was referring to. There are two Eileens in the team.
I felt really uncomfortable and tried to indicate I wasn't interested by my body language. I would turn to my computer and continue with my work. False. Selina had instigated the conversation twice, and had stood up and crossed the room to get closer to me. As I walked away, she was still standing there. I was mainly responding to her questions.
I didn't want to say anything in case I made him even angrier. He was so angry that he was spitting on my desk. He seemed to be going around in circles in the actual content of what he was saying. Selina hadn't said anything to make me angry, and I wasn't angry. I had no reason to be angry with Selina. There was no going around in circles. The conversation was fairly brief, and I wanted to get back to what I was doing. I didn't spit on her desk. We were at the other side of the room, and I wasn't angry.
Section 12. Does this sound like someone who is nervous, frightened and anxious around me? Selina came to me one day soon after that conversation to ask me about skiing lessons, and we laughed as I described my own experience as a beginner and being the only adult in the class. The reason she is not anxious and nervous is because she misrepresented our conversation.
Even on the day of the grievance hearing (26 Feb), Selina and Una were both laughing and joking with me as I left the office to go home early. Selina was joking about me wearing what she refers to as my "dancing shoes".
Sections 6 and 7 are also false and are explained in the Disciplinary Investigation post. LINK.
Section 8. I do feel he enjoys upsetting people. He may have issues with females and tries to pull you down. False, and clear collusion with the other complainants. For 13 years there's no complaint about me having issues with females, then suddenly there's a batch of them immediately following three of them being spoken to about their ill treatment of me, and one of them being spoken to about having screamed at me a few days before. As described elsewhere, there's no way in the world I'd have upset Selina.
Section 10. This paragraph describes another symptom of poor management in IS Services at Stirling, and particularly my own team. It is also a perfect example of how I am seen as the scapegoat. Let me try to explain this. Selina's background is in clerical work. She worked in our team in a clerical role. Then Kathy McCabe created a new job as a System Assistant which requires a level of technical skills. The role evaluation form that Kathy signed states that five years Oracle experience is required for the job. Firstly, that in itself is nonsense because it is a fairly junior role which doesn't require anything like that. Secondly, when Selina took up the post, she had no Oracle experience. Selina is on friendly terms with Eileen MacDonald and Kathy McCabe, and I was told that she got the job for that reason, and that employees from other teams who were interested in the job were prevented from applying. Thirdly, at the time of the incident that Selina is referring to (albeit incorrectly), she still had no Oracle experience. Selina was in the job for five or six years when I recently set her up with some Oracle training materials. So although she is in a Grade 6 role which has potential full time earnings over £28,000, she is basically carrying out a clerical role. There are employees in other teams on Grade 6 with specialist skills and who can work on their own initiative. Try finding a clerical job in the real world that pays over £28,000.
I have 15 years Oracle experience. On the one hand my colleagues recognise that experience by constantly coming to me for help. However, I felt I was constantly under suspicion as someone who didn't know what I was talking about. At times I'd explain something to a Programmer, and they wouldn't accept what I was saying because they were thinking that I was in some way being devious or difficult. So I'd have to call over another senior member of staff to get them to confirm that what I said was correct. This example with Selina is even more stark. She has somehow learned through gossip, probably from Eileen MacDonald (who is also very weak technically and a saboteur), that I'm difficult and that I'm a nitpicker. So a very inexperienced, completely non technical, clerical worker makes a judgement that I, a Database Administrator with 15 years experience and responsibility for the security of the University's databases am just nitpicking.
Let me describe what happened. As I said, Selina had no technical experience at all, but somebody gave her a technical task to do. Since it was the first time she had attempted this, I would have expected her to have been supervised because the consequences of what she was doing were potentially very serious. She was requesting me to run programs in the live student records database which would delete some records. We have a procedure in place for this for efficient and secure completion of work.
1 Requester writes the programs using SQL. As I said, Selina had no knowledge of SQL.
2 Requester runs the programs in test database to ensure it works. I'll explain later how I know that Selina couldn't have done this.
3 Requester completes a form giving the DBAs instructions for running the programs.
4 Requester sends email to DBAs with a link to those instructions.
5 Requester places programs in specific folder for DBAs to run them.
6 DBA runs programs
7 DBA records in form that program has been run.
8 DBA moves programs to another folder
And here's what happened.
4 Selina created three forms when only one was required.
She sent me the email with three links. The links didn't work, I asked her to fix them, and copied to her more experienced colleague. Instead she sent the forms as attachments to the DBAs. This is a problem because it now means there are two copies of each form.
5a The programs were not where they should have been. So Selina had another go.
5b This time two of the programs were in place, but one was still missing.
6 I checked the programs, and only half of each program was there. For example, a program should say "DELETE FROM students WHERE student = 1". Selina's programs said "WHERE student = 1". If she had sent the other half "DELETE FROM students" instead, and I had run it, all of the records in the table would have been deleted. That would be very serious because the software suppliers don't like us deleting records unless we use the application they have supplied us, and they've told us they won't provide any support if we mess up. Obviously these programs couldn't have been run in the test database because they wouldn't have worked and would have produced an error. Eventually we got that sorted out, but then there were more problems because the other DBA began running and moving the programs too because he had separate forms.
I emailed Selina saying "Sorry Selina but the files don't seem to be there. Can you maybe ask Una or Eileen to help". She replied calling me "patronising". I reply "Not patronising at all. I was merely concerned that after three attempts, we were still having difficulties." Selina again says that I was patronising, to which I take offense.
We were in a complete mess, but she thinks I'm nitpicking and patronising! And again, her story has grown arms and legs.
Compare that with Kathy who criticised me in the presence of Mark Toole and others for not having replied to an email (that I hadn't seen) within 23 minutes. Her email invited me to a meeting which I attended when a colleague pointed it out to me on her way to the meeting. When we arrived, we had to hang around waiting for someone else who hadn't seen Kathy's email. THAT is nitpicking!
It's really sickening that someone I loved like a daughter could make up lies to take away my livelihood. She did it in collusion with others, not realising that there was evidence to show that they were lying. Selina had everything she could wish for; a husband and three beautiful daughters that she adored; a big house; a very good salary for easy work. Everybody loved her. If anybody was to carry out research into mobbing, then they should definitely interview Selina to find out why she did this after seeming to be genuinely concerned for my health.
I'd be happy for Selina and me to undertake polygraph tests to determine which of us is being honest. However, emails that I've published demonstrate Selina's dishonesty.
As at 22 June 2011, this is the most frequently visited post on my blog.
Please see my post that relates to the dangers of gossip which features Selina.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)