A company boss was jailed for four months after he faked evidence for an Employment Tribunal in Edinburgh. Story at Deadline News and Northgate Arinso Employer Services.
He would have been jailed for six months, but his sentence was reduced because he admitted his crime of perverting the course of justice.
What he did is similar to what Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark have done for the Employment Tribunal case that I have brought against University of Stirling.
Schofield and Stark faked evidence in order to fool the tribunal that, for a grievance I raised against Kathy McCabe, Schofield had formed her decision to reject my allegations based on evidence. However, evidence that they claim influenced her decision simply didn't exist when she made it. Details here.
Showing posts with label sham grievance procedure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sham grievance procedure. Show all posts
Wednesday
Stirling University to explain fraud
The Employment Tribunal has asked Stirling University to comment on my allegation of fraud. Link to details.
They will be required to explain how, in March 2010, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark were able to refer to a document that did not exist until June 2010. Furthermore, they will be required to explain how that document was able to influence the decision Mrs Schofield made in March 2010; that I had bullied my manager, Kathy McCabe, and that Mrs McCabe had not bullied me.
The apparent fraud supports my claim that I had been subjected to a sham grievance procedure immediately after I had made a Protected Disclosure informing the Principal that my allegations of bullying and sex discrimination were not being handled properly by management and HR.
To avoid admitting that the process was a sham, Stirling University tried to fool the Tribunal into believing they had investigated my allegations of bullying. They produced a ten page fraudulent document purporting to be details of an investigation and decision process that took place in March 2010.
I can't imagine how the university will be able to explain this; other than to admit that the grievance process was a sham, and that they have committed fraud. As well as Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark, this revelation also implicates University Secretary, Kevin Clarke who conducted the appeal hearing and said he saw no flaw in the grievance procedure.
Stirling University now requires snookers!
1 May 2011
Update
I received a copy of a letter that the university sent to the Tribunal in response to my letter to the tribunal informing them of the fraud.
Firstly, they criticise me for bringing the matter to the attention of the tribunal. Clearly they would prefer that the tribunal was not aware of their fraud. That is perfectly understandable.
Secondly, they misquote what I said in my letter, and then they say that what they misquoted was simply wrong. If they had quoted me correctly, they would have seen that what I said was simply correct.
Then there is a very long winded explanation of how the author of the document that was referred to in the fictitious investigation sent them a copy of it around 15 April 2010. They accept that this post dates Mrs Schofield's decision by roughly three weeks.
Then they say that the ten page document is an explanation of the findings made in the context of the general conclusion reached on the grievances.
They state that, because of the information received on 15 April 2010, an allegation I made in my grievance against Kathy McCabe's long term bullying behaviour was upheld.
But nowhere in their letter, which I have read very carefully several times, can I see any explanation of how information, that they accept didn't exist at the time of Mrs Schofield's decision, could have influenced that decision. And it certainly influenced her decision because, without it, my allegation would definitely not have been upheld.
The ten page fraudulent document states that neither I nor Kathy McCabe were given any further opportunity to provide further evidence before the decision was made as it was not thought to be necessary, proportionate or appropriate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that Mrs Schofield would think it was necessary, proportionate or appropriate to use further evidence at least three weeks after making her general decision to alter her decision on one allegation, especially when she knew that it would not change her general decision.
The process they describe in that document simply did not take place before the decision was made, because the decision was not based on any evidence, but was a response to me having made a protected disclosure to the Principal.
It took them five weeks to provide the information which they say was originally created within a week or two while they were carrying out the investigation. They should have been able to supply the information by the following day. In fact, they should have given it to me when the decision was announced. They didn't, because it never existed.
No one in their right mind would go through every allegation, and make a decision on each one, when the general decision is not based on any evidence. So, as you can imagine, the contents of that ten page document are not just fraudulent, they are the biggest pile of tosh ever written. It is hard to imagine that anyone from the university would actually want to appear at a tribunal hearing and, under oath and with a straight face, argue that it represents a fair and thorough grievance process.
There is a list of flaws a mile long. University Secretary, Mr Kevin Clarke may have to appear in order to explain how each one of those flaws is not a flaw. That should be interesting!
They will be required to explain how, in March 2010, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark were able to refer to a document that did not exist until June 2010. Furthermore, they will be required to explain how that document was able to influence the decision Mrs Schofield made in March 2010; that I had bullied my manager, Kathy McCabe, and that Mrs McCabe had not bullied me.
The apparent fraud supports my claim that I had been subjected to a sham grievance procedure immediately after I had made a Protected Disclosure informing the Principal that my allegations of bullying and sex discrimination were not being handled properly by management and HR.
To avoid admitting that the process was a sham, Stirling University tried to fool the Tribunal into believing they had investigated my allegations of bullying. They produced a ten page fraudulent document purporting to be details of an investigation and decision process that took place in March 2010.
I can't imagine how the university will be able to explain this; other than to admit that the grievance process was a sham, and that they have committed fraud. As well as Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark, this revelation also implicates University Secretary, Kevin Clarke who conducted the appeal hearing and said he saw no flaw in the grievance procedure.
Stirling University now requires snookers!
1 May 2011
Update
I received a copy of a letter that the university sent to the Tribunal in response to my letter to the tribunal informing them of the fraud.
Firstly, they criticise me for bringing the matter to the attention of the tribunal. Clearly they would prefer that the tribunal was not aware of their fraud. That is perfectly understandable.
Secondly, they misquote what I said in my letter, and then they say that what they misquoted was simply wrong. If they had quoted me correctly, they would have seen that what I said was simply correct.
Then there is a very long winded explanation of how the author of the document that was referred to in the fictitious investigation sent them a copy of it around 15 April 2010. They accept that this post dates Mrs Schofield's decision by roughly three weeks.
Then they say that the ten page document is an explanation of the findings made in the context of the general conclusion reached on the grievances.
They state that, because of the information received on 15 April 2010, an allegation I made in my grievance against Kathy McCabe's long term bullying behaviour was upheld.
But nowhere in their letter, which I have read very carefully several times, can I see any explanation of how information, that they accept didn't exist at the time of Mrs Schofield's decision, could have influenced that decision. And it certainly influenced her decision because, without it, my allegation would definitely not have been upheld.
The ten page fraudulent document states that neither I nor Kathy McCabe were given any further opportunity to provide further evidence before the decision was made as it was not thought to be necessary, proportionate or appropriate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that Mrs Schofield would think it was necessary, proportionate or appropriate to use further evidence at least three weeks after making her general decision to alter her decision on one allegation, especially when she knew that it would not change her general decision.
The process they describe in that document simply did not take place before the decision was made, because the decision was not based on any evidence, but was a response to me having made a protected disclosure to the Principal.
It took them five weeks to provide the information which they say was originally created within a week or two while they were carrying out the investigation. They should have been able to supply the information by the following day. In fact, they should have given it to me when the decision was announced. They didn't, because it never existed.
No one in their right mind would go through every allegation, and make a decision on each one, when the general decision is not based on any evidence. So, as you can imagine, the contents of that ten page document are not just fraudulent, they are the biggest pile of tosh ever written. It is hard to imagine that anyone from the university would actually want to appear at a tribunal hearing and, under oath and with a straight face, argue that it represents a fair and thorough grievance process.
There is a list of flaws a mile long. University Secretary, Mr Kevin Clarke may have to appear in order to explain how each one of those flaws is not a flaw. That should be interesting!
Eileen Schofield death threat
Eileen Schofield, Deputy Secretary
Eileen Schofield, who conducted a sham grievance procedure between myself and Kathy McCabe, appears to have upset a Postgraduate researcher to the point where he felt the need to threaten to slit her throat if she ever lied to him again.
STV report here.
The report describes emails sent to Mrs Schofield with subjects 'You're an ignorant piece of sh*t' and 'C*nt'. One email said 'Your disciplinary procedures are a lot of sh*te. Mess with me again and I will kill you.'.
The report does not say whether, despite his threat, Mrs Schofield intends to continue with her corrupt practices.
BBC report here.
The report describes Mrs Schofield as "responsible for staff discipline". However, my own experience of Mrs Schofield is that she is corrupt, and she deliberately ignored evidence and came up with the dishonest decision that I had not been bullied by my manager to the detriment of my health, but that I had in fact bullied Mrs McCabe.
Since 15 November 2010, Stirling University has refused to provide me with the facts that Mrs Schofield used to arrive at her ridiculous decision. At first they claimed that these facts were irrelevant to the claim I brought to the Employment Tribunal. They now say that it is because I will "think about them", and that they are not sure whether I want them for the Tribunal, or for my blog which, despite its increased viewing figures, they say is not popular with certain members of staff.
It is unclear why the University thinks I would publish facts that would allow the public to see proof that I bullied my allegedly completely innocent manager who treated the team fairly and consistently. It is also unclear why the University would be opposed to me publishing these facts. One would have thought they would insist I publish them.
Sunday
Gerry McCormac - Corrupt or What?
Gerry McCormac
Gerry McCormac became Stirling University's Principal in May 2010. He described the university as one of the most respected in the UK. He said his focus would be on providing leadership and "getting the best out of people".
In accordance with the university's grievance procedures, I wrote to Professor McCormac in September 2010 and sent copies of my letter to Alan Simpson, Chair of the University Court, and Dr James Naughtie, University Chancellor. I alerted them to the widespread corruption that exists within the university's senior management.
You might expect that someone who agreed to take up such a responsible position, and who accepts around a quarter of a million pounds a year to perform his duties, would be horrified to learn of this and would be eager to rid the university of corruption as a matter of priority. You might also expect that he would be eager to speak with me to obtain as much information as possible in order for him to fully understand and deal with the very serious problem at Stirling University.
However, you would be wrong. Professor McCormac decided that it would be best to sweep the issue under the carpet.
It is ironic that a university Cleaner earning around £15,000 a year would probably be sacked for sweeping dirt under the carpet. Cleaners are expected to work with integrity; Principals and senior management are not.
Corrupt or what? I see no evidence to suggest that Gerry is anything but corrupt.
Shame on you, Gerry!
Oh dear! Hot off the press; Gerry has been appointed by Education Secretary, Mike Russell to head up a review of teachers' pay and conditions. Labour and Liberal Democrats are worried that the review may be a sham, and that this is just a cost cutting exercise. With Gerry at the helm, I believe they have good reason to be worried.
Gerry is aware that Mark Toole had decided that I should be dismissed because he couldn't deal properly with my grievance against Kathy McCabe's bullying behaviour. It is likely that Kathy's husband, Liam, being the Finance Director was also a factor. I had made protected disclosures about the university's failure to comply with its legal obligations, so the heat was on for the Uni. Mark's lack of integrity caused him to call in well known 'arse licker', Graham Millar, to carry out a sham investigation which was to produce a report recommending a disciplinary hearing be held. Mark would have told Graham not to allow the facts to get in the way of the required report.
Despite all of the evidence that made it obvious I was innocent, Mark dismissed me, and other corrupt directors upheld his decision.
Immediately prior to this, Mark had arranged for Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield to carry out a sham investigation relating to my allegations that I had been bullied by my manager, Kathy McCabe, for several years, including bullying that took place in Mark's presence. Amazingly, despite all of the evidence, Eileen produced a report stating that I had not been bullied, but that I had bullied my manager. At appeal, University Secretary, Kevin Clarke upheld her incredible decision.
Gerry knew about all of this when he shrugged off my complaints of corruption. Interestingly, he offered no evidence to refute my claims that senior management is corrupt.
Not satisfied with being paid £250,000 a year and ruining an innocent man's career, Gerry will be hoping to be recommended for inclusion in the honours list for carrying out this review. In my opinion, he should be in jail.
Gerry has a wife and three sons. I suppose he is 'lucky' not to have a conscience.
I suppose it's unfortunate from Gerry's and other corrupt people's point of view, that we now have the internet. The world is becoming more transparent. Corrupt dinosaurs, like Gerry, will hopefully become a feature of the past.
My parents were born more than 70 years before most people had even heard of the internet, but that didn't stop them from raising me to be honest, hard working and ethical. Gerry is the type of person they warned me not to mix with.
I feel sorry for his sons who have been deprived of a normal non corrupt life in which they could achieve their goals based on their own genuine desires and honest abilities.
15 April 2011
He's not been in charge for a year yet, but as well as bullying and corruption, Gerry is now proud to add fraud to his list of skills.
Friday
Legal Action Imminent?
A little bird tells me that a Stirling University employee is considering legal action against me and my blog.
I can confirm that I have received no correspondence from anyone claiming that my blog contains any inaccuracies. I confirm also that I have written to certain individuals asking if there is anything I've said that they dispute, and to date this has not brought any response.
I hereby extend my offer to anyone who thinks there may be something inaccurate in my blog. Please let me know what it is, and if you can support your claim with evidence, then that would be useful to have.
For example, if you are University Secretary, Kevin Clarke and you think I've unfairly criticised you for having dismissed my appeal against Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield's handling of my grievance, then it would be useful if you were to respond to my questions dated 15 November 2010, when I asked for the facts on which Ms Schofield allegedly based her decision. I also asked if Ms Schofield, who was administratively supported by HR Partner, Karen Stark, gave me the opportunity to state my case. You described Ms Stark as "highly professional".
The University's Grievance Procedure states: At the grievance hearing, both sides i.e. the employee raising the grievance and the party against whom the grievance has been raised, will be given the opportunity to state their case.
It also states: Once all the details of the case have been heard, the chair of the hearing will decide on the outcome based on the facts of the case made available to them.
What's very clear and uncontested is that THEORETICALLY, Karen Stark is highly professional. There can be no doubt that she fully understands the university procedures to such an extent that she is prepared to communicate them in what could be regarded as a highly condescending manner to a less expert employee who seeks clarification on just how thorough the procedure is intended to be. There can be no doubt that Ms Stark definitely knows that the procedure is required to be carried out EQUITABLY and that allegations are to be investigated THOROUGHLY.
Although I do not dispute Ms Stark's knowledge of the requirements of the grievance and disciplinary procedures, I very strongly dispute that she ensured that those procedures were carried out in accordance with that knowledge. I can confidently say that Ms Stark's approach to these procedures was as totally corrupt. This would mean that all employees and former employees who have suffered at the hands of both yourself and Ms Stark should have their individual cases reviewed.
Both my representative and I had indicated to you that procedures had not been carried out equitably or thoroughly, and we gave several examples of this. Therefore I would like you to answer my questions from November 2010, and I would also like you to explain how your claim that there is no evidence of procedural flaw can be consistent with what was described to you in my letter of appeal as well as what was described to you during the hearing.
Here's a helpful reminder of the questions I would like you to answer.
You told the Employment Tribunal that the allegations I made in my grievance were investigated and rejected. For each allegation in my grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) The facts used in deciding to reject the allegation.
(f) Before the allegation was rejected, please state whether or not I was given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support the allegation, and if not, why not?
You also told them that Ms Schofield upheld Ms McCabe's grievance against me. For each allegation in her grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) Was it decided the allegation was true or was it rejected.
(f) The facts used to come to that decision.
(g) If it was decided that the allegation was true, was I given an opportunity to provide evidence to refute the allegation, and if not, why not?
You referred to the report produced by Ms Schofield. The report states that I was asked at the hearing to present my case. Do you now accept that I was asked to present a brief summary of my case only?
Any reputable employer would be only too happy to provide this information. Ms Stark of Chisholm Avenue, Stirling, was aware of her obligation to investigate my allegations thoroughly, but deliberately failed to fulfil her obligation. Instead she used the process to cause bad feeling between me and my colleagues. She was also aware that I was entitled to present my case, but she attended the hearing and knew that I was only allowed to briefly summarise my case. She saw Eileen Schofield's report which falsely states I was asked to present my case. She was aware that Kathy McCabe had presented a pack of lies at her hearing, but just allowed it. She attended interviews with colleagues who supported my case, but none of their statements were reflected in the report. She avoided interviewing important witnesses, including current employees, one of whom I had written to her with their name. All of the irrefutable evidence I presented was completely ignored, and Kathy wasn't even asked to respond to my allegations. The report also falsely states that Kathy was able to point evidence that supported her allegations and refuted mine. Yet Mr Clarke says he sees no flaw in the procedure.
Ms Stark then ensured that the disciplinary procedure was equally biased. She has absolutely no self respect. While she did all of this, she was fully aware that I had been suffering from stress for several years due to Kathy's bullying, and she knew some of the effects the stress was having on me. She also knew that my work was one of the few things that helped to reduce the stress. She also knew how Kathy's behaviour had damaged another employee's health. She is a moral vacuum. God knows what motivates her. She is pure evil!
I intend to have the corrupt bully supporter, Mr Clarke removed from his £150,000 a year job, and replaced by someone with integrity.
By achieving this, it is my sincere hope that, long after I'm dead, people in positions of power will think more carefully before abusing their power in order to protect bullies and to abuse innocent individuals. No doubt Mr Clarke never gave the slightest thought to any personal risk he may have been taking. As far as he was concerned, there was none. He probably still thinks that! He had managed to get rid of Kathy McCabe's previous victim without suffering any personal consequences. He certainly didn't give a damn what would happen to me. I was just an extremely dedicated, hard working employee; easily disposable.
My blog is possibly causing him some discomfort because it makes it fairly clear that he is corrupt, and I've been reliably told that, away from the university, his acquaintances had no idea what he's really like. His name is one of the most common Google searches that lead to my blog.
Watch this space...
Stirling Uni guilty of serious fraud
I can confirm that I have received no correspondence from anyone claiming that my blog contains any inaccuracies. I confirm also that I have written to certain individuals asking if there is anything I've said that they dispute, and to date this has not brought any response.
I hereby extend my offer to anyone who thinks there may be something inaccurate in my blog. Please let me know what it is, and if you can support your claim with evidence, then that would be useful to have.
For example, if you are University Secretary, Kevin Clarke and you think I've unfairly criticised you for having dismissed my appeal against Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield's handling of my grievance, then it would be useful if you were to respond to my questions dated 15 November 2010, when I asked for the facts on which Ms Schofield allegedly based her decision. I also asked if Ms Schofield, who was administratively supported by HR Partner, Karen Stark, gave me the opportunity to state my case. You described Ms Stark as "highly professional".
The University's Grievance Procedure states: At the grievance hearing, both sides i.e. the employee raising the grievance and the party against whom the grievance has been raised, will be given the opportunity to state their case.
It also states: Once all the details of the case have been heard, the chair of the hearing will decide on the outcome based on the facts of the case made available to them.
What's very clear and uncontested is that THEORETICALLY, Karen Stark is highly professional. There can be no doubt that she fully understands the university procedures to such an extent that she is prepared to communicate them in what could be regarded as a highly condescending manner to a less expert employee who seeks clarification on just how thorough the procedure is intended to be. There can be no doubt that Ms Stark definitely knows that the procedure is required to be carried out EQUITABLY and that allegations are to be investigated THOROUGHLY.
Although I do not dispute Ms Stark's knowledge of the requirements of the grievance and disciplinary procedures, I very strongly dispute that she ensured that those procedures were carried out in accordance with that knowledge. I can confidently say that Ms Stark's approach to these procedures was as totally corrupt. This would mean that all employees and former employees who have suffered at the hands of both yourself and Ms Stark should have their individual cases reviewed.
Both my representative and I had indicated to you that procedures had not been carried out equitably or thoroughly, and we gave several examples of this. Therefore I would like you to answer my questions from November 2010, and I would also like you to explain how your claim that there is no evidence of procedural flaw can be consistent with what was described to you in my letter of appeal as well as what was described to you during the hearing.
Here's a helpful reminder of the questions I would like you to answer.
You told the Employment Tribunal that the allegations I made in my grievance were investigated and rejected. For each allegation in my grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) The facts used in deciding to reject the allegation.
(f) Before the allegation was rejected, please state whether or not I was given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support the allegation, and if not, why not?
You also told them that Ms Schofield upheld Ms McCabe's grievance against me. For each allegation in her grievance, please state
(a) The allegation
(b) The date the allegation was investigated.
(c) The name(s) of the investigator(s)
(d) The form of the investigation, including the names of any witnesses interviewed, documents referred to, etc.
(e) Was it decided the allegation was true or was it rejected.
(f) The facts used to come to that decision.
(g) If it was decided that the allegation was true, was I given an opportunity to provide evidence to refute the allegation, and if not, why not?
You referred to the report produced by Ms Schofield. The report states that I was asked at the hearing to present my case. Do you now accept that I was asked to present a brief summary of my case only?
Any reputable employer would be only too happy to provide this information. Ms Stark of Chisholm Avenue, Stirling, was aware of her obligation to investigate my allegations thoroughly, but deliberately failed to fulfil her obligation. Instead she used the process to cause bad feeling between me and my colleagues. She was also aware that I was entitled to present my case, but she attended the hearing and knew that I was only allowed to briefly summarise my case. She saw Eileen Schofield's report which falsely states I was asked to present my case. She was aware that Kathy McCabe had presented a pack of lies at her hearing, but just allowed it. She attended interviews with colleagues who supported my case, but none of their statements were reflected in the report. She avoided interviewing important witnesses, including current employees, one of whom I had written to her with their name. All of the irrefutable evidence I presented was completely ignored, and Kathy wasn't even asked to respond to my allegations. The report also falsely states that Kathy was able to point evidence that supported her allegations and refuted mine. Yet Mr Clarke says he sees no flaw in the procedure.
Ms Stark then ensured that the disciplinary procedure was equally biased. She has absolutely no self respect. While she did all of this, she was fully aware that I had been suffering from stress for several years due to Kathy's bullying, and she knew some of the effects the stress was having on me. She also knew that my work was one of the few things that helped to reduce the stress. She also knew how Kathy's behaviour had damaged another employee's health. She is a moral vacuum. God knows what motivates her. She is pure evil!
I intend to have the corrupt bully supporter, Mr Clarke removed from his £150,000 a year job, and replaced by someone with integrity.
By achieving this, it is my sincere hope that, long after I'm dead, people in positions of power will think more carefully before abusing their power in order to protect bullies and to abuse innocent individuals. No doubt Mr Clarke never gave the slightest thought to any personal risk he may have been taking. As far as he was concerned, there was none. He probably still thinks that! He had managed to get rid of Kathy McCabe's previous victim without suffering any personal consequences. He certainly didn't give a damn what would happen to me. I was just an extremely dedicated, hard working employee; easily disposable.
My blog is possibly causing him some discomfort because it makes it fairly clear that he is corrupt, and I've been reliably told that, away from the university, his acquaintances had no idea what he's really like. His name is one of the most common Google searches that lead to my blog.
Watch this space...
Stirling Uni guilty of serious fraud
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)