I wrote to Stirling University Principal and Vice Chancellor, Gerry McCormac recently to find out from him what action the university has taken with regard to the fraudulent document they sent to Glasgow Employment Tribunal. I also asked him who gave instructions for that fraudulent document to be created.
On 6 December 2011, I received the following letter from Kevin Clarke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Principal has passed your correspondence of 25 November 2011 for me to reply.
It is the policy of the University not to correspond on matters whilst they are the subject of proceedings of the Employment Tribunal which have yet to be concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is a policy that the university has published anywhere, or if it's one they've made up on the spur of the moment. What surprises me, if this is a university policy, is that it is a policy they are actually working to, unlike their policies on bullying, grievances and disciplinary matters. What is their policy on committing fraud and perverting the course of justice?
I would hope that if PC Plod comes knocking at their door, they may have to consider letting him in on their secret.
Gerry is to appear as a witness at the tribunal hearing. Will he refuse to answer my questions then, I wonder? Will he say that he hasn't bothered to investigate a possible crime that has been reported to him? How does this compare with my own experience of being suspended from work in a flash to accommodate a sham investigation? Even if I was guilty of everything that I was accused of, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans compared to criminal fraud. If there's an innocent explanation for this, then why not tell us? Why leave everybody thinking that there's a possibility that Stirling University has perverted the course of justice? Surely the only reason he would want a criminal to retain their job at the university would be that the criminal is one of the untouchables or was following instructions from one of the untouchables.
His secrecy also offers little confidence to staff and students who are considering raising grievances. Surely he should be shouting loud and clear that the university will take swift action to remove the criminal element that carries out sham grievance and disciplinary processes. If he doesn't, staff and students would have every right to believe that he is somehow involved in it.
It began with bullying and sex discrimination by the Finance Director's wife, Kathy McCabe; then we had a sham grievance process to cover that up; then we had a sham disciplinary process to get rid of me for blowing the whistle on the bullying and sex discrimination; then we had criminal fraud to cover up the sham grievance process. And now we have the Principal of Stirling University covering up criminal fraud by his staff. Where will it end?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25 November 2011
Dear Professor McCormac
I wrote to you on 23 September 2010 with a list of thirteen formal grievances I have with Stirling University employees. You replied saying that mechanisms had been exhausted, and my grievances were not processed.
Would you please explain why my grievances were not processed in accordance with the university’s grievance policy which states that an employee may raise grievances up to three months after leaving the university.
I now refer you to the very serious matter of criminal fraud. In relation to the claim I lodged with Glasgow Employment Tribunal, I asked Stirling University to provide details of how my grievance against Mrs Kathy McCabe resulted in all of my allegations against her being rejected. The university responded five months later with a ten page document. I attach the first page of that document.
I refer you to the first allegation [1] our useless DBA. It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark referred to former colleague, Mr F’s statement between 5 and 24 March. In their findings they state that Mr F recalled an incident when Mrs O’Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards me when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone. The document then goes on to state that my allegation was upheld, but that it was not considered to be material.
However, Mr F’s statement, which I have attached, makes no reference to my allegation. The simple reason for this is that Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked him about that, or any other allegation I had made. So when Ms Schofield referred to his statement, she could not have seen what she said she had seen that persuaded her that my allegation should be upheld.
Since Ms Schofield and Ms Stark had not asked Mr F about this allegation, there is no valid reason for them to have referred to his statement in order to attempt to come to any conclusion for this allegation. However, the document that Stirling University sent to the tribunal is a fraud. It is an amateurish attempt to persuade the tribunal that the grievance process, which I described as a sham, was conducted appropriately.
Three weeks after Ms Schofield had concluded her investigation and produced her report for the grievances between me and Mrs McCabe, I contacted Mr F. He clearly remembered the incident with Mrs O’Neil and wrote to me about it. He also informed Ms Stark about it. However, Ms Schofield could not possibly have known about that when she came to her conclusion. She hadn’t asked Mr F or Mrs McCabe or me about the incident. From the sham method that Ms Schofield used to investigate this allegation, she could only conclude that it didn’t happen.
It is now more than seven months since this fraud was committed by Stirling University. Would you please tell me what action you or anyone else at Stirling University has taken in that time in relation to this criminal act. Would you please tell me if you instructed employees to create this fraudulent document? Did University Secretary, Kevin Clarke give instructions for this fraudulent document to be produced?
Since I wrote to you in September 2010, matters have got much worse for Stirling University and I firmly believe it was unwise for you to have simply ignored my letter. To carry out sham internal grievance and disciplinary procedures is very serious, but Stirling University has gone a step further and attempted to pervert the course of justice by committing criminal fraud to deny me justice at the tribunal hearing.
I look forward to your reply.
Showing posts with label sham grievance investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sham grievance investigation. Show all posts
Wednesday
Colin Sinclair - A great disappointment!
I first got to know Colin through playing football. We were team mates in the intramural 6-a-side competition for a few years. He also took part in the IS mile races that I organised every couple of months. I'd met his wife and kids at Kathy McCabe's home a couple of times. The Sinclairs and the McCabes are close friends and neighbours. Colin was someone that everybody immediately warmed to. He was a devout family man with a great sense of humour. Like Kathy, he also managed a team in Information Services. I dated a woman from his team for a few months, and she thought the world of him. Ruth had met Colin a couple of times at social events, and she too took a shine to him.
It was a great disappointment to discover that Colin is a liar.
In 2008, Kathy and I attended mediation. Colin attended in support of Kathy, and Ruth attended to provide support for me. The mediator had instructed us to prepare a statement that we were to read to each other, followed by questions we were to ask each other. We both read our statements. In my statement I mentioned that Kathy had been dishonest with me at work. She didn't like that. She demanded that I withdraw it. I wouldn't. I asked her if she would like examples of her dishonesty. She didn't. She went on and on and on about how honest she was. She said that honesty went to the core of her very being. Colin chipped in and said that Kathy was one of the most honest people he had ever known. I genuinely believed that he meant it.
The mediator instructed us to start asking questions. Kathy refused to ask questions, and she refused to allow me to ask questions. She said that if I asked any questions, she would leave the mediation. She could tell from my statement that she was going to have to face some difficult questions.
Colin was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation. He was asked if Kathy answered my questions, and he said she did. At the end of his interview he falsely states that whenever he asked me for help, I would tell him I was too busy. His library computer system was running at snail pace for a while. He had been in regular contact with the suppliers who were contracted to fix such problems, but they didn't fix it. When he told me about it, I fixed it right away in my own time, even though it wasn't my job to do so.
You can see from the correspondence between the mediator and me just three weeks after the mediation that Kathy neither asked nor answered questions. Colin's statement is below. There's also an email from his colleague thanking me for fixing his system just two days before mediation.
Sunday
Stirling University's Fictitious Grievance Investigation
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the powers that be met to discuss what they should do in response to my request for the details of the alleged grievance investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)