Selina Gibb - Make your own mind up

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?

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act

The author of a recent message I posted referred to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. Here is the FAQ about the act.

Under this act, I cannot find any evidence that employers who receive a grievance about bullying that has already caused a period of stress related absence, are advised that senior management should lie in order to cover up that bullying, rather than act to remove the source of bullying. My view is that to act in that way, senior management may be guilty of gross negligence.

Where can I find the Act and any guidance?

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

When did the new Act come into force?

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was given Royal assent on 26 July 2007. The offence came into force on 6 April 2008 and is called corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland.

Provisions in the Act which relate to publicity orders (see section 10 of the Act ) will commence when sentencing guidelines are published. It is anticipated that this will be by Summer 2009.

Provisions in the Act which relate to the management of custody (see sections 2(1)(d) and 2(2) of the Act ) will also come into force at a later stage. It is expected that the implementation period will be between 3-5 years.

Are there any new duties or obligations under the Act?

There are no new duties or obligations under the Act, nor is the new offence part of health and safety law. It is, however, specifically linked to existing health and safety requirements.

What do companies and organisations need to do to comply?

Companies and organisations that take their obligations under health and safety law seriously are not likely to be in breach of the new provisions. Nonetheless, companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed or organised by senior management.

Where does health and safety legislation come in?

Under the Act, health and safety legislation means "any statutory provision dealing with health and safety matters" so it will include transport (road, rail, river, sea, air) food safety and workplace safety as enforced by HSE and local authorities.

Juries will be required to consider breaches of health and safety legislation in determining liability of companies and other corporate bodies for corporate manslaughter/homicide. Juries may also consider whether a company or organisation has taken account of any appropriate health and safety guidance and the extent to which the evidence shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within the organisation that were likely to have encouraged any such serious management failure or have produced tolerance of it.

Who will investigate and prosecute under the new offence?

The police will investigate suspected cases of corporate manslaughter/homicide. Prosecution decisions will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service (England and Wales), the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).

What is the role of health and safety regulators like HSE, local authorities etc?

As now, there will be a joint approach to work-related deaths between all the relevant regulatory authorities in line with the principles of the Work Related Deaths Protocol.

Will directors, board members or other individuals be prosecuted?

The offence is concerned with corporate liability and does not apply to directors or other individuals who have a senior role in the company or organisation. However, existing health and safety offences and gross negligence manslaughter will continue to apply to individuals. Prosecutions against individuals will continue to be taken where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.

Is there any advice or guidance for directors or board members on what they should be doing and what their responsibilities are under health and safety legislation?

In conjunction with the Institute of Directors, HSE has published guidance for directors on their responsibilities for health and safety - 'Leading health and safety at work: leadership actions for directors and board members’ (INDG417) [450KB] . The guidance sets out good practice for directors, addressing them in language and style they will find authoritative and convincing, informing Boards and their members in the public, private and third sectors, as to how to provide leadership in health and safety so as to help their organisation meet its legal obligations as an employer under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and gain the business benefits arising from effective, sensible health and safety management.

It should be borne in mind that HSE is only one of the health and safety regulators that might produce relevant health and safety guidance. Organisations and companies can also seek guidance from any regulators in their own industry or sector.

What penalties will a company or organisation face?

Penalties will include unlimited fines, remedial orders and publicity orders. A remedial order will require a company or organisation to take steps to remedy any management failure that led to a death. The court can also impose an order requiring the company or organisation to publicise that it has been convicted of the offence, giving the details, the amount of any fine imposed and the terms of any remedial order made. The publicity order provisions will not come into force until the Sentencing Guidelines Council has completed its work on the relevant guidance.

From here

Tribunal Updates

Regular updates to the goings on at the tribunal can be found in my Alcohol Diary page.

Just look for the following attractive indicator...

TE...TRIBUNAL UPDATE...TRIBUNAL UPDATE...TRIBUNAL UPDATE...TRIBUNAL UPDA

There's also all the latest stuff that was happening in the Northern Soul scene about 37 years ago. However, I don't have an attractive indicator for that information, so you may have to do a bit of searching.

Enjoy!

Fair dismissal, my arse!

I've spoken to a few people about the treatment I received from Stirling University. The general response is one of surprise that a university would behave that way. It's natural to think that a university comprises the smartest brains in the country, and that they would lead the way in employment matters. In reality, however, they are still in the dark ages where they believe that employees should have no rights and that they should be able to dismiss employees on a whim.

If their accounts department was run the way they run their Human Resources department, they would still be using books and quills instead of computers.

Fortunately, there are laws to protect employees from rogue employers like Stirling University. You need a genuine reason for dismissing someone, and it is not a genuine reason to dismiss an employee for whistleblowing. Of all employers, universities should be encouraging whistleblowers, not sacking them.

There is a test that Employment Tribunals use to decide if a dismissal for misconduct was fair or not.

1 The employer believed that the employee was guilty.

2 They had reasonable grounds on which to sustain that belief.

3 They carried out as much investigation as reasonable in the circumstances.

4 Where there was conflicting evidence, real attempts were made to determine what happened by locating independent witnesses and evidence.

The law does not allow an employer to perform a sham investigation and to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't help them achieve their aim to dismiss a whistleblower. The oppressive nature of my dismissal, and because the university generally shows contempt for employment law means that I am seeking an award of exemplary damages as well as the normal uplift applied to compensation when an employer fails to carry out grievance and disciplinary procedures appropriately. There is no upper limit to the compensation awarded for detriment caused by acts in response to making protected disclosures. Sex discrimination also attracts an award for injury to feelings. A person or persons may have to spend some time in jail for perverting the course of justice with the fraudulent document. Others who lie in court also risk a prison sentence. The publicity of justice may cause the university to reconsider its behaviour; alternatively it may become worse, but less obvious.

1 The university carried out an extremely contrived investigation, light years from the reasonable one that is required.

2 They did not believe I was guilty. Indeed, they absolutely knew I was innocent, and that was the motive for conducting such a contrived investigation.

3 It immediately followed a sham grievance investigation which was so absurd that they had to invent an investigation a year later to make it look like there had been an investigation. But even the invented investigation is absurd.

4 It also followed malicious complaints from employees that I had already complained about. My complaints were basically ignored while they carried out their sham disciplinary process.

5 The malicious complaints arose as a direct result of an act by the university in response to my protected disclosure, and that equates to detriment.

6 Independent witnesses were avoided at all costs despite my pleas.

7 The university has a very poor track record with regard to employment law.

If Stirling University can convince the tribunal that my dismissal was fair, then we would be as well scrapping all of the law books and making everything legal. I doubt if I'd want to live in a world where the treatment I received is legal.

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?

The Never Ending Cover Up...

Jackie O'Neil, 42 Melloch Crescent, Tillicoultry, FK13 6QJ

Stirling University has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up an incident that happened on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand down on her desk in anger in an office containing about ten witnesses.

She had mistakenly thought that I had not carried out an instruction that she had given me before she began upgrading the student records system. Her upgrade failed, but not because of any error on my part, but due to her own error in not giving me another instruction from the instructions she was provided by the system suppliers, Tribal Group. My colleague, David Black and I quickly got the database back to a position where Jackie could restart the upgrade.

Jackie was supposed to ask me to increase the amount of space within the database, but didn't. She did ask me to ensure that the upgrade wouldn't cause the computer's disk to fill up with log files, and I did so, and I confirmed this in an email to her before she started her upgrade.

On 18 March 2010, in the presence of David Black, I informed our manager, Kathy McCabe about the incident. I then followed it up with an email to Kathy in which I indicate that the error was due to Jackie not giving me the instruction.

Kathy passed my email to Mark Toole. Mark said he would arrange a meeting for me and Jackie to discuss the matter, and I accepted. However, Mark decided instead to carry out a sham disciplinary process against me, and told me that Jackie didn't want to attend a meeting with me. A massive cover up had begun.

Jackie was interviewed on 21 April 2010 and gave a false account of the incident. She blamed me for the upgrade failure and denied screaming at me. Obviously she was lying, but Mark Toole knew that and ignored my pleas for him to ask David Black what happened. She also claimed that I hadn't replied to her request to ensure that log files wouldn't fill the computer disk.

At my disciplinary hearing on 17 June 2010, I told him about the instructions that would show him that Jackie hadn't given me the instruction to increase the size of the database. I also showed him my email to Jackie confirming that log files wouldn't be created by the upgrade. Of course, he ignored that too. On 25 June 2010, I was dismissed.

On 16 August 2010, I wrote to Karen Stark to request a copy of the instructions. I got no reply. On the same day, at my appeal hearing, I asked Martin McCrindle for a copy, and he said he'd send them on to me. He didn't.

On 6 September 2010, I wrote to McCrindle asking again for a copy. No answer.

On 22 November 2011, I asked the university again to provide me with a copy of the Unicode 8.3.0 upgrade instructions used by Jackie O'Neil. On 16 December 2011, I received the wrong instructions. He sent me the SITS:VISION 8.3.0 upgrade instructions instead. The unicode instructions are a supplement to those instructions, and contain the instruction that Jackie omitted to send me.

On 19 December 2011, I phoned Tribal Group at Hessle to obtain a copy. A couple of days later, I phoned again, and was told that HE Director, John Gledhill had given instructions to his staff that I was not to receive a copy of the document I required without a court order.

On 21 December 2011, I asked the tribunal to issue them with an order to disclose that document. The university now objects to any order saying "We believe that we have complied with the claimant's request, in that we have furnished him with the copy of the instructions used."

Stirling University is claiming that my dismissal was fair. The lying bastards are determined that I don't even get a fair hearing at the tribunal.

The Answers To My Questions

After 48 days, Stirling University has finally provided answers to my questions, or at least, some of them. There are an awful lot of porky pies. I thought the delay may have been due to someone insisting that they tell the truth. Sadly not!

Some of these people may have been misled into thinking that the case won't go to court, and that some eleventh hour incident will save them. Unlikely, methinks.

Some of my former colleagues who read this will recognise some of the lies because they witnessed certain incidents that people have lied about. Off the top of my head, two witnesses are David Edgar and Lynn McDonald who witnessed Kathy McCabe, in the presence of Mark Toole and Karen Stark, proudly announce that she had told me she was not interested when I told her about Jackie O'Neil's "our useless DBA" incident. Somebody must have told her that a proper manager doesn't do that, because she is now denying it. "I expect my staff to deal with such matters between themselves", was what she said.

Karen Stark is on this lie too, because she attended that meeting as the note taker. I didn't receive her notes until I asked for them while I was suspended, more than a year later. All reference to this was omitted. I asked for her handwritten notes, but they were destroyed, she said. Two other note takers took part in the grievance and disciplinary procedures. Karen was the only one who destroyed their handwritten notes. Also missing from the notes was all reference to the assault. Karen Stark is addicted to fraud. But the biggest fraud is not going to persuade the tribunal that a proper grievance process took place.

The tribunal will have lots of experience of attempts to fool them with fake documents. They won't be fooled by these. They don't make sense, you see.

Whatever happened to "Honesty goes to the core of my very being", Kathy?

Una Forsyth is also being a bit shy about backing up her impossible allegation. I will have to ask her about it in court. Is she going to lie to the tribunal and say that she was still living with her husband in 2005? Will she tell another great big fat lie and claim she doesn't know of any Ricky from Edinburgh? Well, I'll let you know on here that same day. What a service! Do you think that the blog is the invention which will eventually make lying obsolete? That and digital recorders and little video recorders. A world where nobody lies, like in the Ricky Gervais film.

We have to keep in mind that, theoretically, the university actually believes all of the allegations against me. So why wouldn't they be anxious to investigate Una's allegations? HR and management were quite happy that Una had told the truth, so why should they object to me making a fool of myself by claiming she lied, when she had been telling the truth all along? It's bound to help their case, is it not?

Selina Gibb too, doesn't want to answer my questions. Selina should have thought about that before getting involved in the gossip that she then went on to make formal.

Eric Hall has been working in Kathy's team for about twelve years. He has been close friends with David Gardiner since his schooldays. He says he doesn't know if Kathy McCabe is close friends with David and his ex wife, Suzie Law. He also claims to never have said "I hate the fucking bitch" when referring to Kathy. Lynn McDonald was with us when he said that. He also denies lying when giving feedback for Kathy while she was enrolled on a Future Leaders training course, and saying he gave her better feedback than she deserved "for a quiet life". Jaana Stewart and Deana Jamieson, who both also provided feedback, witnessed him say that proudly in the tea room. Jaana was quite annoyed with him because she felt it was a waste of time if they weren't honest with their feedback. Eric also denies ever insisting that fraud had been used to produce his grade from the role evaluation process. Again, Lynn McDonald witnessed this as well as most of the team, I expect. Ironically, at the time, I didn't think there was any chance that the uni would use fraudulent means to grade roles. I now think Eric was probably right. And I think Peter Kemp, who was initially very critical of the process, was told to cover up the fraud. That's why he had to act as though he was thick and couldn't understand my concerns.

Eileen Schofield has a very good tactic. She must have read the piece I wrote, for comedy effect, in which Eric advises his colleagues to keep saying that they didn't hear the question. Eileen has used a slightly different version by saying that she doesn't understand the questions. For a little variation, she says that she would prefer not to answer the question. I bet she does. That's why I asked it.

I can just imagine Eileen sitting in her office for 48 days and 48 nights staring at my questions, scratching her head, and the rest of her work piling up on her desk, almost touching the ceiling. She's the Deputy Secretary of Stirling University, and she never thought of going to a colleague and asking them to explain the questions to her. Absolutely no initiative! She'll be on about 70 grand a year too. Can I have a job like hers please? 48 days, then "I don't understand the questions." You're having a laugh, Eileen!

As expected, David Black has talked himself into knots. He's all over the ship, man. He really needs to grow himself a spine and a couple of balls, because he is fast becoming the comedy act among the witnesses. He's now saying that Jackie shouted at me angrily, but she somehow managed to do it in a respectful manner. "Mr Black, would you please demonstrate how Mrs O'Neil shouted angrily at me whilst slamming her hand on her desk and maintaining respect for me." Where the hell is he going with his story? He used to talk himself into corners when I worked with him. Then he'd start to get aggressive when he realised I knew he was talking shit, and change the subject. He won't be able to change the subject in court. He's going to have to stew in his own juices long after he's made it obvious he's lying. And here's an interesting one; he thinks the transcript of my recording isn't accurate, but Kathy thinks it is.

Jackie was supposed to provide me with a copy of the Unicode upgrade instructions that she used that day. She conveniently provided the SITS:VISION upgrade instructions instead. It's the unicode instructions that contain the instruction to increase the size of the database. The instruction that she didn't give me that day which resulted in her upgrade failing, followed by Jackie respectfully screaming at me. David estimates 10 colleagues were in the room at the time, which I think is about right. None of them were interviewed by the investigators though. Funny that!

Jackie said she was advised by HR not to meet with me and Mark Toole to discuss the screaming incident. How convenient! That's another act that followed my protected disclosure that caused me detriment. How the hell do Karen Stark and Mark Toole think they are going to explain this away? They must be expecting the tribunal to be blind or something. Mark didn't tell me that he and Karen Stark had set that up.

Here are the answers I received to my questions

Selina Gibb
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
Mrs Gibb would prefer not to respond to questions in advance of the tribunal hearing. She denies making any false statements or being involved in any collusion during the course of the grievance or disciplinary investigations.

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.
n/a

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
n/a

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?
see above

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.
see above

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.
see above

7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
see above

8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
see above

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.
see above

Una Forsyth
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
True

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.
N/a

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No

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?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.

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.
The witness spoke to you because you were part of the conversation, she would partake in such a conversation as anyone would. She was just making chat. She felt she was being professional and should respond. The fact that she did so does not contradict the comments made in her statement.

6 Please give approximate dates when you:
The Witnesses does not wish to respond to these questions. They relate to personal matters the relevance of which is not accepted.

Separated from your husband, Harry. see above
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn. see above
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. see above
Relocated to Bo’ness see above
Ended your relationship with Ricky see above
Married for any second time. see above

Jackie O'Neil
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
True

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.
N/a

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
The witness states that she did not conspire with anyone.

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?
Yes this is true. The witness declined the meeting and the reason she gave Mark Toole was as follows:-‘I have been advised by HR that I should not discuss any issues with Allan at this time. I am quite happy to meet with you at any time but not with Allan present.’ The witness felt that she could not go into a meeting with AG & MT to discuss ‘the DBA’s mistake / pen slamming incident’ in isolation (given that at this point she was now aware he had made a number of other allegations about her to management ).

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.
The witness does not recall anyone asking to see them until recently. She has now made them available

Eileen MacDonald
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
True

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.
N/A

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
No

David Black
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?
No

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?
Yes

3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Millar about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
No

4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
No

5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a
telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
Yes

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?
No

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?
The witness states "I didn't consider it to be a significant incident. I would not use the word "disrespectful" to describe the incident."

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?
No

9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
No

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?
No

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)?
The witness states " I may have, but I don't see its relevance to my statement, especially when Allan didn't ask Kathy to take any action over "the incident."

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?
Around 10

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?
Yes

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?
Yes

Kathy McCabe
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.
The grievance was genuine and in no way vexatious. The witness states that no one encouraged her to make it.

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?
It is accepted that the transcripts (C2) are reasonably accurate representations of the conversations recorded in the MP3 files, which bear to relate to them.

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?
Yes

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?
The witness states that she tried hard to stay calm during the course of this meeting. They were difficult meetings generally. She accepts that she didn’t sound surprised. Her reaction was not so much a lack of surprise but more that she didn't know how to react. She knew something had gone on and she wanted to know if the Claimant wanted the issue to be dealt with as a formal complaint which would have been passed to MT.

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?
No

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.
The Claimant never reported formally or informally any abuse from female team members. No action was taken because none was required to be taken. There is accordingly no documentary evidence available of this sort.

6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
No - The witness does not accept this. The only communication she can recall which prompted such a response was following a conversation in the corridor when he asked about rumours about his girlfriend at dance classes.

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?
The witness accepts that she may have used such a phrase in the context that she was not interested in matters outside of work. The Claimant never came to her with problems about colleagues.

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?
Nothing was reported and accordingly the witness didn't take any action.

9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
See above

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.
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format and will be happy to do so at the tribunal hearing.

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?
The witness wasn't aware until years after the incident that the Claimant viewed the incident as being a matter upon which she might have taken action or be required to take action. No formal complaint has ever been submitted

Graham Millar
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
The witness states "I was asked by the director of information services to investigate recent events that may have affected the state of relationships within the BSDS team". It was not a sham.
If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a

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, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a

Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a

Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham.
Please describe how you became aware.
n/a

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?
The investigations were carried out in accordance with the university support
staff disciplinary procedure.

Wasn’t it obvious to you that the interviewees were lying?
no

Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no

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.
The statements referred to and included with the report are a reasonably
accurate account of the discussions held

The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The report was based on a draft template that the witness was informed was being considered by the university HR department and staff union representative. The format reflects the template that he had been given.

Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes

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?
The witness states "Both accounts were included in the notes from the interviews and the differences could be explored should the disciplinary process be taken further forward."

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?
During the interviews both AG and SG were asked if they could describe any recent events that had any effect on, and the current state of, working relationships with other team members. The report reflects the comments made during our investigation

Mr Kevin Clarke
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
Yes
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Yes

Eileen Schofield
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
They were handled completely and genuinely

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.
N/a

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.
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing

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?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing

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 is was just a coincidence?
The witness understands that a mistake was made in the preparation of the document C3

6 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 an clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
see above

7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
The witness doesn’t understand the question and would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing

8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
The witness would prefer not to answer this question in this format but will do so at the tribunal hearing

9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
see above

10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
see above

11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
see above

12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
see above

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.
The witness states that she does not believe there was an 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?
The witness does not share your belief

Christine Hallett
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?
The witness states that she cannot recall this e-mail

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.
The witness states " the University Secretary briefed me orally on your grievance, which was being handled in accordance with the grievance procedure for support staff. Matters such as those you mention were always taken seriously and handled in accordance with the relevant procedures for the staff group concerned."

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.
No

Dr Peter Kemp
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
When the witness was interviewed in March 2010 he stated that he would be working from recall of events that occurred two years ago and that his memory might be selective. That said his statement was a truthful recollection of matters as he recalled them at the time.

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.
N/a

Gerry McCormac
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.
If AG is referring to his letter of 23 September, this contained assertions considered in the already concluded grievance, disciplinary and appeals procedures and the witness' decision was therefore that he had exhausted the procedures available to him.

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?
This is an assertion raised in the context of AG’s current Employment Tribunal action, and a matter to be considered in that setting.

Eric Hall
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
Tony Osborne (Chair), Brian Sharp (Finance Office), Kathy McCabe, Suzie Law

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?
yes

3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
It was appropriate for her to be on the panel as she was the out-going post holder.

4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
The witness states "I don’t know"

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?
The witness states "I did not receive favourable treatment. I do not know how much AG was allocated from the staff development fund."

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?
The witness was surprised by her low scores

7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
yes

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?
The witness recalls that Mrs McCabe did speak to them. She seemed surprised and upset by the scores. She was not intimidating

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”?
No

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.
The witness states "I did not lie, nor did anyone encourage me to lie"

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?
The witness states "I made these comments believing them to be true"

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?
The witness states "I found the framework process irritating and frustrating and did occasionally have a rant about it. I do not believe that the process was fraudulent"

13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
No

Gail Miller
Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
It was genuine

If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
n/a
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, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
n/a

Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
n/a

Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
n/a

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?
no

Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
no

Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
no

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.
Refer to statements

The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
The witness points out "The procedure actually states – “The report should detail the facts established by the investigation and no recommendations or judgements should be made.”"

Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
yes

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?
The witness states "The statement captures the feelings experienced by the interviewee."

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?
The statement was signed as being truthful by the interviewee

To be continued...

My Letter to Gerry McCormac

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.

What protection does the union offer against a corrupt management?

The short answer to that question, is not much.

I had been a member of the Universities and Colleges (UCU) union for several years. I paid around £15 per month. I always assumed that the union would protect you against unfair practices by your employer, but sadly I found to my cost that that just isn't the case.

The UCU provided a representative to accompany me to grievance and disciplinary hearings, and the representatives did that very well, and they knew without a shadow of doubt that I was being victimised by management. However, at the end of the day, they didn't stop it. If a corrupt management decides to victimise you and get rid of you for any bogus reason, they'll do it, and there's nothing that the union will do to stop it.

Even worse than that, my union was in fact working against me. When I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, she was accompanied at her hearing by a union representative who announced during the hearing that my written grievance was disturbing and riddled with misrepresentations and used inflammatory language. She said that my submission made extremely serious allegations relating to gender and equality, and that there appeared to be a worrying trend of unprofessional behaviour from me, most of which related to female colleagues. She said she was surprised that I was allowed to continue to be like this and that my behaviour should not be tolerated.

She had never met me, and was only going by what Kathy had told her. It's sickening to read this from a representative from a union that you are paying towards each month.

One of the women who had abused me over the years, and who Kathy refused to manage properly was Jackie O'Neil. About two weeks before I was suspended, Jackie had screamed at me in front of about twelve witnesses, and she slammed her hand on her desk in anger at me because she thought I had made a mistake. I complained to Mark Toole who said he would arrange a meeting for us to discuss the issues. However, Jackie said she wouldn't attend a meeting with me. Along with three other women, she made malicious complaints against me.

Jackie is a member of the UCU committee at Stirling. I recently complained to the UCU about Jackie's inclusion in the committee and asked that she be removed. I even suggested that they could have a brief investigation that would show conclusive proof that Jackie had lied in order to have me unfairly dismissed. However, the UCU plans to take no action.

I think the UCU has damaged its reputation by allowing Jackie O'Neil, who may well become the subject of a defamation claim, to continue as a committee member knowing that she lied and conspired with others in order to end a colleague's career.

Shame on you, UCU!

Stirling Uni Tries to Silence Wikipedia

Professor David Donaldson

Stirling University doesn't like bad publicity. However that hasn't stopped them from using their corrupt practices to destroy people's lives. Instead, they try to hide their devious ways from the public gaze. Their lawyer obsessively raises the matter of my blog with judges because it is causing the university and several of its employees considerable embarrassment.

Since 2009, Wikipedia has displayed the story of David Donaldson, who in 2007 was a senior researcher at Stirling University. He removed a colleague's name from her research grant application, and replaced it with his own, attempting to make it look like it was his work. His act of piracy, which required swapping names eleven times, was discovered and he eventually wrote a letter of apology to his colleague, Dr. Rhodes. However, he later unfairly forced her out of her job at the university. She won her unfair dismissal claim at Glasgow Employment Tribunal in February 2009. Stirling University awarded Donaldson a Professorship shortly after he admitted to stealing Dr. Rhodes' work.

A number of attempts have been made to remove the article from Wikipedia. It is bound to be a source of embarrassment to the University. In the talk section for Wikipedia's Stirling University page, a discussion refers to a legal representative for the university asking for the Donaldson article to be removed. The request was rejected.

Times Higher Education carries a more detailed account of what happened.

Of course you must be wondering how an academic gets pushed out of a University by another academic. Dr. Rhodes was subjected to the same sham grievance procedure as I was. HR Director, Martin McCrindle conducted an investigation into her grievance and concluded there was no case to answer. He was backed by Principal, Christine Hallett. When Dr Rhodes told Martin McCrindle that she would prove what happened in court, McCrindle replied saying that she had 'no basis' to make a claim to the tribunal. As soon as she submitted her complaints to the tribunal, which she did as she had no other way of addressing what happened, they declared they wouldn't contest her claims! She won the case before it even got to court!

Their lawyer agreed with the judge when he said that not resisting her claims amounted to agreeing with them. Her claims included the fact that Donaldson's theft of her research had led to her dismissal (the theft for which she had a letter of apology) and a sham grievance procedure to investigate what happened when she found herself forced out. The university changed their reason for dismissing Dr. Rhodes three times. Each time she informed them that the reason was not valid in her case, so they just invented another false reason each time.

Similarly, in my own case, at my appeal hearing against dismissal I advised Martin McCrindle that my dismissal would prove embarrassing to the university and to several of its employees. He replied saying that that was only my opinion. Well, of course it was only my opinion, but I think it was a correct opinion. If my blog isn't causing anyone any embarrassment, then why is the university paying their lawyer to keep going on about it like a broken record? And if they weren't embarrassed by their sham grievance procedure, why would they risk a jail sentence by committing fraud in an attempt to cover it up, Martin?

Will Stirling University ever learn that they can't treat people like this?

The Problem With Women

One of the problems that Stirling University faces in defending the tribunal case is that after I made my protected disclosure, a large number of colleagues were encouraged to report that I had "a problem with women". This included Kathy McCabe, Eric Hall, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb And Jackie O'Neil.

I had informed Christine Hallett that my manager, Kathy McCabe discriminated on the basis of gender, but rather than deal with that genuine issue, management performed a switch to make it appear that I was the one who discriminated based on gender. First, Karen Stark caused bad feelings between me and my colleagues by interviewing them about old incidents when they had abused me. Then word was passed down that they should suggest that I had "a problem with women".

The problem they have is that, despite all of these people saying this, there will be no documentary evidence that exists of this prior to my protected disclosure. There will be no record of me having been reprimanded or spoken to or informed in any way about my alleged "problem with women" during my thirteen years of service. How could there be? It hadn't been invented yet. So this is another dilemma the university has. Should they create a few helpful documents that refer to this alleged "problem with women", or do they admit that there is none? All of the allegations of my "problem with women" comes from those colleagues within days of each other. And it is obviously false. It's worse than none!

I have asked the university to produce all documents that refer to me having this "problem with women".

At the hearing in June, we discussed my request for the university to produce the questionnaires that the women, who allege that I had bullied them over several years, had completed about two months before I made my protected disclosure. The questionnaire included questions about bullying, and asked if you were being bullied. I knew that none of them would have said that they were being bullied. I would have been the only member of the team who said I was being bullied. The university's lawyer objected to my request. Clearly he knows it's all a pack of lies. The employment judge said that the questionnaires would not be necessary as the university would be expected to show documentary evidence of me bullying women over time.

What will the university do? It won't be able to produce anything that is timestamped, so will they try and create something that's not timestamped? Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to mention my alleged "problem with women" in my appraisal reports, because I have already seen them. That's a big disadvantage for them. I had an appraisal about nine months before I made my protected disclosure, but of course it doesn't refer to something that wasn't to be invented until nine months later.

So each of these people who referred to my alleged "problem with women" will have to explain why there is no evidence of them having reported it. Going by the number of times it is mentioned in their statements, you would expect there to be a big bundle of documents that refer to it. More importantly, the tribunal will expect there to be evidence of it. There would be lots of emails inviting me to attend meetings to discuss my alleged "problem with women". There would be an audit trail which shows that my alleged "problem with women" was being monitored and reassessed. There would be massive reports written up about all the occasions I had trapped women in the office and went wild with them. There would be plans that show that I was to be separated from women for fear that my alleged "problem with women" escalated.

So when the university responds to my requests for documents, it will be interesting to see all of the evidence of my alleged "problem with women". Will the uni feel that it is still worthwhile to create some more fraudulent documents?

Will Gerry McCormac go for broke, and order some more fraudulent documents to be created? If he does, he should ask them to be more careful this time, and not make it obvious that it's a fraud. By failing to take any action over the fraudulent document, Gerry is making it look like he was involved in it.

It's time you spoke out, Gerry. Did you order the fraudulent document to be created? If not, then please explain why you have taken no action to root out the criminal element in Stirling University.

One problem the university will face if they do decide to produce fraudulent documentary evidence of my alleged "problem with women" is that they are bound to be asked why they didn't produce that very important evidence before the hearing began in June 2011. Mark Toole claims that he dismissed me because I bullied women over time. Why would they not have included all of the documents (that the judge said they would expect to see) at that time?

What did the university tell their lawyer when he asked to see all the documentary evidence of me bullying women? Maybe I should call him as a witness and ask him. He can't produce any genuine evidence of my alleged "problem with women", but he desperately wants to show the tribunal my blog; my blog which didn't exist until after my unfair dismissal and would never have existed had it not been for that unfair dismissal. That can't possibly justify dismissal. He is focusing on my blog because he doesn't have a scrap of evidence that I was guilty of gross misconduct. There's plenty of evidence of gross misconduct by others though.

Where was the evidence that allegedly persuaded Mark Toole that I had a "problem with women"? Why did he not expect that there would be lots of documentary evidence of this? Mark will need answers to questions like those if he is to have any chance of fooling the tribunal that the dismissal was genuine. Mark said he could see no evidence that the complainants had conspired.

What action has Gerry taken over Mark's deliberate unfair dismissal, and Martin McCrindle's sham appeal process? What action has he taken over Eileen Schofield's sham grievance process? What action has he taken over Kevin Clarke's sham grievance appeal process?

If he takes no action over corrupt colleagues, then he is just as corrupt as they are.

That's Gerry McCormac for you; the man who claims to know how to get the best out of people. My arse, Gerry!

The Plan

I've sent the university a list of documents I require ahead of the tribunal hearing.

Item 12 on my list reads: Please provide a copy of the investigation plan produced by Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark before they began investigating the allegations contained in the conjoined grievances. Please also demonstrate that this document existed before the investigation began, by providing emails to which it was attached, etc.

In April, after some considerable length of time, Stirling University sent a document which describes how Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield arrived at the decision for each allegation made by me and Kathy McCabe in our grievances. The document, which I have alleged to be a fraud, doesn't actually deal with every single allegation we made, so I have also asked how a decision could have been reached without considering those allegations.

Under normal conditions, any investigation requires a plan. You can't just start investigating. You need to know what that investigation is going to consist of. For example, who are you going to interview? What documents and other data holding tools are you going to refer to? What questions do you need to ask whom? That plan must already exist because the investigation was carried out by means of following it. There will be no need for Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield to hastily create one. It's just a matter of popping it in the post.

At least, that's the theory. I am particularly interested in one item on this plan. What will it say about the allegation that somehow led to Eileen Schofield seeing weeks into the future?

How will Eileen Schofield describe how she planned to look at a witness's statement in order to come to a decision for a specific allegation when she hadn't even planned to ask that witness anything about the allegation?

I suppose they could try saying that they had planned to ask him about it, but forgot. Then when they were about to make their decision, they referred to his statement having forgotten that they had previously forgotten to ask him about it. Then Karen Stark made an enormous typing error. That's about their most sensible option. Or at least, it would have been, but for at least half a dozen other problems they have.

Personally, I don't see them defending this case in court at all. They would have to be mad. The fake investigation is obvious. The tribunal would definitely want to know why they subjected me to a fake grievance process. And their house of cards falls on its face. They have no case at all.

They should have thrown in the towel long ago, but they are playing with the public's money. It would be different if it was their own.

It will be fascinating to see whether, after having already produced at least two fake documents, they go and create another one. Will they come clean, or will they go for broke? I wonder what Gerry McCormac will advise they do.

Stirling University's management is now turning into a farce. It would be excellent to see them on the TV news programmes running from the cameras. Excellent! Maybe that bloke Naughty could give them a spot on his radio show! He could call them all a bunch of Jeremy Hunts! cough, cough!

Kathy McCabe - "Honesty Goes to the Core of my Very Being"

"Honesty goes to the core of my very being."
Kathy McCabe 6 June 2008

During mediation with Kathy, she came out with this line about three times. Kathy must think that the more times you repeat something, the truer it becomes.

The mediator informed Kathy and me in advance of the meeting, that we were to prepare and read out a statement to each other, and then we were to begin asking questions of each other.

Kathy read out her statement. It was full of nonsense about me. I read out my statement. Kathy didn't like it because I had mentioned that she had been dishonest with me. Kathy flipped her lid. She made one almighty fuss. She demanded that I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty. I couldn't. The best I could say was to change it to "Sometimes you have been dishonest with me." She still didn't like it.

Then when it came time for me to ask questions, Kathy said she wasn't going to answer any of my questions, and that if I even asked her a question, she would walk out of the mediation. I offered to wait until we were alone to ask questions, because I thought she was maybe embarrassed to answer my questions in the presence of her friend, Colin Sinclair, who she had brought along for support. But she wasn't going to answer my questions any time or anywhere.

At his interview for the grievance process, Colin said Kathy did answer my questions. Well, in that case, she won't mind answering them again at the tribunal.

I intend to show you at least one example of Kathy's dishonesty on here. It is a very special example, because it also shows Kathy's disrespect for me, even though I was one of the oldest and most senior members of the team. She wanted to show off to the team just how disrespectful she was of me. I was too stupid to deserve respect. That was the image she wanted the team to have of me. She was encouraging them to be disrespectful too. Is it any wonder that Eileen MacDonald would then ignore any advice I gave her? Eileen was at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Kathy respected her when she didn't even have the basic knowledge for her job. Yet Eileen would arrogantly complain about my performance and integrity. Not only had I explained to Eileen that she was wrong, but I had explained to Kathy that Eileen was wrong. But two years later, Eileen was still making the same mistakes. Mistakes that even a student programmer would think were absurd.

In her grievance document, Kathy talks about the mediation process: "Fundamental problem is that Allan said I was dishonest. I stated that questioning my honesty and integrity was a serious personal attack and that if this was the basis from which he was working then I could not see how we could establish a proper working relationship and that we would have to recognise that mediation had failed. Allan's interpretation of this was that I was breaking the mediation process. He had to be told several times by Liz, and I had to repeat my words, but he did not accept the premise. I stated that he needed to moderate the statement. He moderated it to a statement that I was sometimes dishonest. After a 5 min timeout I stated that I acknowledged that he had made a slight moderation but that this still wasn't enough. This was ignored.

It's interesting that this particular document was a document she wrote for herself originally two days after the mediation. Yet she couldn't even bring herself to tell the truth to herself. Fascinating!

She then says "On reflection this was the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life. I am not convinced that Allan is prepared to move forward, but rather he will still want to go through every detail of the grievance point by point. I could do this but am not convinced that Allan would accept my explanations. I believe that his views are so deeply entrenched that this is the only view he will accept. I believe that the mediator found his doggedness rather frustrating and she had to pull him up on more than one occasion because his interjections were pejorative and unhelpful, or both."

Basically, she is admitting that she refused to answer my questions. But she puts her own spin on the actual events.

In May 2009, I had my appraisal with Kathy. I told her that I wanted to attend the Oracle conference which is held annually at the end of the year. It's a conference that is attended predominately by Database Administrators (DBAs) like myself. When I first became DBA, Kathy said I would attend the conference every year. But she changed her mind. Instead she used the staff development fund mainly for her friends who were mostly all women. So, for about six years on the trot, she wouldn't let me go. That is bullying as well as sex discrimination. At my appraisal she was very dismissive of my request. She abruptly said "Noted." I reminded her that I hadn't attended for several years. Again, she abruptly said "Noted." In fact she put exactly that on the appraisal form. "Noted."

I talked to several colleagues about his later on. Everybody knew that Kathy had been bullying me by preventing me from attending that conference. They all said that she was bound to let me attend that year. I said I got the feeling she wasn't going to let me go just from her attitude at my appraisal.

Sure enough, I wasn't selected to attend the conference. Kathy had again chosen others to attend conferences, though. Eric and Jackie wrote to the team to inform us that they would be out of the office to attend a conference. I emailed Jackie and copied to the team. I said I wouldn't be out of the office because I hadn't been chosen again. I jokingly asked her what the secret was to making a successful request because each year my request was rejected.

Kathy replied to me and the team pointing out that she is not a mind reader, and that if I wanted to attend a conference, I should have asked. Then she added that I hadn't asked to attend that year or any previous year.

That's what I mean when I say that Kathy is likely to come out with any stupid lie on the spur of the moment. Honesty wasn't at the core of her very being when she sent that email. Kathy had shown her true colours. And this was less than a year after Mark Toole told her that criticism was to be delivered privately and should be evidence based.

I calmly replied to Kathy's email saying that it was not appropriate language and that it was an attempt to publicly humiliate me. I told her that I still had copies of some of my written requests.

She had nowhere to go. She had basically called me a liar publicly. She had tried to publicly humiliate me by suggesting that I was stupid to think that she could read minds. And to top it off, she was lying to the whole team, and I could prove it.

It didn't end there though. It was still simmering away in her head. She came up with a plan to clear her from her own stupidity. Days later, I received an email from her inviting me to meet with her to talk about the appropriate way to request attendance at a conference. At first I didn't understand what she was meaning. It didn't make sense. Then it suddenly hit me. The reason she was inviting me to meet with her was because it made her email visible to team members who regularly looked at her calendar. It was devious bullying. She wanted to give the impression to colleagues, that although I had requested attendance, I had used an inappropriate method. She was trying to get herself off the hook.

I wrote to her and asked her to remove the email from public display. I quoted part of the university's bullying policy to her. She briefly made it private, and then she made it public again.

Eventually, Mark Toole had to tell her to remove the email from public display. He also told her to rephrase her email to make the meeting sound as though it had a more positive purpose. She wrote again and said that the meeting was to find a better procedure for requesting attendance at conferences.

There was no changing Kathy. And now she has got herself in knots.

And, of course, Eileen Schofield didn't consider any of this to be bullying behaviour. Apparently every allegation I made was rejected, yet most of Kathy's vexatious allegations were upheld. Funny that! Is it any wonder that Eileen Schofield receives death threats?

Then that muppet, Kevin Clarke said he saw no flaw in the process.

Gerry McCormac - Get Your Own House In Order

Gerry McCormac
I'm reliably informed that if you Google Gerry McCormac, my blog is currently displayed on page one and position one. It's above Stirling University's website, and it's above the sites that relate to the teachers' review. It's also above the site where he is interviewed about his favourite teacher. Thanks to Gerry, my site is getting busier and busier, and more people are becoming familiar with Gerry's corrupt practices.

Gerry has the gall to tell teachers how to work better. He should get his own house in order before he starts telling other people where they are going wrong.

Why does he keep giving these interviews that make him out to be everybody's favourite uncle? Why does he not address the subject that google knows him best for? Why not have an open meeting, Gerry; invite me along and you can tell your audience what you've done to rid Stirling University of corruption? I'm sure you'd be able to make mincemeat of me, Gerry. I've been reduced to a wreck by Stirling University for being dedicated, hard working and conscientious. It happened under your watch, Gerry. Have a real interview where you don't agree in advance the safe, cutesy questions that you are allowed to be asked.

Questions like: What are you doing to reduce corruption at Stirling University? Where's the evidence? Why didn't you just sack Kevin Clarke and his cohorts? You say you know how to get the best out of people, how? Corruption? Where's the evidence of this? Why didn't you handle my grievances, Gerry? Are you a coward, Gerry? Did you give instructions for Stirling University to pervert the course of justice by producing a fraudulent document, Gerry? If not, what have you done about it in the seven months since it happened under your watch?

A whole load of google users will be wondering, Gerry.

Stirling University's grievance procedure states that, within three months of leaving the university, employees can still raise grievances against employees. I sent Gerry formal grievances on 23 September 2010 against 13 (thirteen) employees within three months of leaving the uni on 25 June 2010. He replied with a very curt letter saying that all mechanisms were exhausted.

He didn't explain why. Had I misunderstood the grievance procedure or something? I'm left wondering. I asked him the following question on 2 November 2011:
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.

That's been 17 days, but I've still not heard. Maybe if I'd asked him what his favourite teddy was, I would have got an answer instantly.

Here's my letter that Gerry couldn't be bothered dealing with.

Formal Grievances
I worked at the University from 7 May 1997 until I was dismissed by Mark Toole on 25 June 2010. My dismissal immediately followed a formal grievance I lodged against my manager, Kathy McCabe.

I now wish to raise formal grievances against a number of employees. The grievance procedure says that I should send the grievances to Human Resources Services, but two of my grievances are against employees from that department. My grievances are against the following employees:

Kathy McCabe
I would now like my grievance to be processed properly with integrity. A decision should be based on the facts.

Eileen MacDonald
Eileen gave false evidence during an investigation held as part of my grievance against Kathy McCabe. She also gave false evidence during the disciplinary investigation that led to my dismissal. She also colluded with colleagues who gave similar false evidence. I submitted a grievance against Eileen in June 2008 which was never processed. That grievance was a result of Eileen sending an email to our manager in which she made offensive comments about me and provided misleading information about my performance.

One example of her dishonesty is her claim that I treated Programmers inconsistently with regard to database security procedures. This was a topic which was fully discussed with the team (BSDS) at a meeting in which I was heckled by Eileen who had made this claim. Database security procedures were agreed with all team members and were applied consistently by myself and the part time Database Administrator, David Black. There is ample evidence of me having corresponded with Eileen in attempts to discover why she couldn’t work within the agreed procedures, and that my attempts were ignored.

Una Forsyth
Una also gave false evidence during those two investigations and colluded with others. One example is that she falsely stated that she had not physically assaulted me. Another example is that she gave the strong impression that we didn’t get along and that she avoided any contact with me, and that I generally didn’t get along with the women in the team. She did this because this was the story that the employees with whom she had colluded had invented. Ample evidence shows that we got along very well, and that she had even recently cooked me a meal.

Jackie O’Neil
Jackie also gave false evidence during those two investigations and colluded with others. One example is in relation to an incident when she shouted at me while slamming her hand on her desk. There is clear evidence that her account of this incident is false.

Selina Gibb
Selina also gave false evidence during the disciplinary investigations and colluded with others. One example is that Selina claimed to be anxious and nervous around me, when ample evidence showed that this clearly was not the case.

Eileen Schofield
Eileen chaired my grievance hearing and deliberately produced a dishonest report. The very least that I would expect when raising a grievance is that Eileen should have asked Kathy McCabe to respond to my allegations, but she did not. She has not acted in good faith, and has deliberately attempted to cover up my manager’s bullying behaviour for which I submitted irrefutable evidence.

Kevin Clarke
Kevin chaired my appeal against Eileen’s decision. He failed to dismiss Eileen’s dishonest report and arrange for my grievance to be processed properly.

Graham Millar and Gail Miller
Graham and Gail carried out the Disciplinary Investigation dishonestly. Their role was to establish facts and not to make judgements or come to conclusions. They did precisely the opposite by deliberately ignoring the facts and by making judgements and coming to conclusions. They did this because the facts did not match the conclusions they were determined to come to. Examples of this is that they did not check out conflicting evidence and did not interview someone I’d said witnessed the incident with Jackie O’Neil. The conclusions are highly offensive towards me, even though it would have been clear to them that they had been given false statements. Mark Toole said he chose Graham to carry out a “fair and thorough” investigation because he is an experienced investigator. This confirms my view that the investigation was carried out dishonestly.

Mark Toole
Mark failed to process my grievance against Eileen MacDonald since he joined the university in Occtober 2008. He continues to falsely claim that I had withdrawn that grievance despite me having confirmed in the presence of my union representative in 2009 that I had not. He also failed to process my complaint against Jackie O’Neil. He also failed to take my grievance against Kathy McCabe seriously, and failed in his duty to care for my health. His own actions have caused my health to deteriorate further. His decision to dismiss me was made dishonestly. I presented ample proof that the complainants had lied and that they had colluded. He failed to ensure that the Investigators produced a report that established the facts. He has failed to discipline employees who have made malicious complaints. He has dishonestly stated that he sees no evidence that the complainants had lied and colluded and that he sees no motive for such a conspiracy. The motive was clear that two of the complainants were facing complaints made by me, another had just been interviewed about having physically assaulted me, and the other admitted to being a close friend of her line manager. He speaks of gross misconduct over a number of years, yet there is no record of any of this prior to me lodging my formal grievance against my manager. He makes no attempt to explain the staggeringly conflicting evidence. Mark also witnessed Kathy McCabe bullying me during two meetings.

Karen Stark
Karen failed to ensure that these procedures were carried out honestly and in good faith. Karen’s actions were consistently to support a bullying manager. She worked very closely with Eileen Schofield and could see that her report did not reflect the facts available to her. She did not ensure that my grievance was processed properly. She deliberately avoided interviewing an employee I told her was a witness to a specific incident. She was also aware that the Disciplinary Investigators had avoided interviewing David Black. She even announced during the Disciplinary Hearing that I was “drunk”. I also saw an email from Kathy McCabe to Karen in which Kathy thanks her for her support in this matter. Karen also witnessed Kathy McCabe bullying me during two meetings.

Martin McCrindle and Karen Plouvier
Despite the obvious flaws in the Disciplinary Procedure, Martin and Karen failed to overturn the decision to dismiss me, and arrange for the matter to be properly investigated without bias. They also failed to explain how the evidence given by the complainants conflicts so staggeringly with the facts presented.

It is clear that the university suffers from wide spread corruption which in this instance has been used to protect bullies and dismiss a dedicated member of staff. I hope that you will be as shocked as I am that this type of behaviour exists in a university in the 21st century, and that you will take appropriate action to resolve these very serious issues.

Yours sincerely