At the Employment Tribunal hearing, Karen Stark gave evidence, and the university's lawyer, Alun Thomas asked her how often HR has to deal with grievances. She replied that there are not many. The impression they were hoping to give was that HR and management take great care to ensure that staff and students are happy, and that therefore I am unusual, and perhaps the type of person who complains for no good reason. It would perhaps have provided the tribunal with a more accurate impression if Mr Thomas had asked how many grievances are taken seriously, and how many people who raise grievances end up sacked. However, in this case, it's not Mr Thomas' job to present the tribunal with the whole truth, but to persuade it that I am the problem, and that the university acts in a highly professional manner. That means he has to create barriers to prevent the tribunal from learning the whole truth.
In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.
In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.
Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.
By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.
Showing posts with label whistle blowing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whistle blowing. Show all posts
Saturday
Employment Tribunals and Interim Relief
I expect that most, but probably not all employees in the UK know that they are legally protected from unfair dismissal, and that they can make a claim to an Employment Tribunal within three months of their dismissal.
However, I'm pretty sure that most people will be completely unaware of the fact that, under certain circumstances, they can make a claim for the Employment Tribunal to order their employers to continue to pay their salary until the Employment Tribunal makes its judgement.
If you claim that you were unfairly dismissed for certain reasons, including whistleblowing, not only is it possible for you to continue to receive your pay (called interim relief), but you will be placed on a fast track for speedy justice.
However, you can only claim interim relief within seven days of your dismissal. That is a huge disadvantage, particularly if, like me, you had never heard of this law. I would imagine that very few people have ever heard of it, and by the time they do learn of it, the seven day period is likely to have passed. Seven days is not long, particularly if you have to consult a lawyer. At the time you are dismissed, you may also be suffering from depression, and not able to act at your normal level of efficiency.
A common criticism of Employment Tribunals is that employees can often make hopeless claims. Employers also make hopeless defenses against genuine claims. In 2009, Stirling University turned up at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and didn't defend a hopeless case which they had previously told the Tribunal they would defend. Like other unscrupulous employers, they were dragging out the process in the hope that the employee would tire and give up. The effect of this is that Tribunals get clogged up with cases that are never heard, and the days that have been scheduled for cases that are eventually cancelled cannot be used for other cases that are waiting to be heard. Another common practice is for the employer to wait until the day of the hearing, and make the employee an offer to settle out of court.
My guess would be that very few people will ever gain any benefit from interim relief, simply because they won't have known about it, and because it has to be claimed in such a short period of time.
Like me, many employees may have learned that Employment Tribunals frown upon claims made before disciplinary procedures, including any appeal procedures, have been exhausted. By that time, the right to interim relief is likely to have lapsed.
One solution to this would be for there to be a legal requirement for letters of dismissal to inform the employee of their right to claim unfair or wrongful dismissal and interim relief, and to indicate the time limits for those claims.
A further useful law would be for employers like Stirling University, who have been found guilty of unfairly dismissing employees, to be banned for a period of time from dismissing any further employees without ACAS conducting an investigation to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This would have saved me and all of the other employees that Stirling Uni unfairly made redundant recently. It would also result in fewer cases being brought to Tribunals.
Finally, in cases where it is found that an employee was unfairly dismissed, Employment Tribunals should have the power to dismiss any individual employees whose misconduct led to the unfair dismissal. Under those circumstances, I doubt if Mark Toole and others would have acted in the way they did to get rid of me. There is no disincentive for arse lickers like Graham Millar from acting dishonestly to deprive an innocent employee of their livelihood just to benefit his own corrupt career.
However, I'm pretty sure that most people will be completely unaware of the fact that, under certain circumstances, they can make a claim for the Employment Tribunal to order their employers to continue to pay their salary until the Employment Tribunal makes its judgement.
If you claim that you were unfairly dismissed for certain reasons, including whistleblowing, not only is it possible for you to continue to receive your pay (called interim relief), but you will be placed on a fast track for speedy justice.
However, you can only claim interim relief within seven days of your dismissal. That is a huge disadvantage, particularly if, like me, you had never heard of this law. I would imagine that very few people have ever heard of it, and by the time they do learn of it, the seven day period is likely to have passed. Seven days is not long, particularly if you have to consult a lawyer. At the time you are dismissed, you may also be suffering from depression, and not able to act at your normal level of efficiency.
A common criticism of Employment Tribunals is that employees can often make hopeless claims. Employers also make hopeless defenses against genuine claims. In 2009, Stirling University turned up at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and didn't defend a hopeless case which they had previously told the Tribunal they would defend. Like other unscrupulous employers, they were dragging out the process in the hope that the employee would tire and give up. The effect of this is that Tribunals get clogged up with cases that are never heard, and the days that have been scheduled for cases that are eventually cancelled cannot be used for other cases that are waiting to be heard. Another common practice is for the employer to wait until the day of the hearing, and make the employee an offer to settle out of court.
My guess would be that very few people will ever gain any benefit from interim relief, simply because they won't have known about it, and because it has to be claimed in such a short period of time.
Like me, many employees may have learned that Employment Tribunals frown upon claims made before disciplinary procedures, including any appeal procedures, have been exhausted. By that time, the right to interim relief is likely to have lapsed.
One solution to this would be for there to be a legal requirement for letters of dismissal to inform the employee of their right to claim unfair or wrongful dismissal and interim relief, and to indicate the time limits for those claims.
A further useful law would be for employers like Stirling University, who have been found guilty of unfairly dismissing employees, to be banned for a period of time from dismissing any further employees without ACAS conducting an investigation to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This would have saved me and all of the other employees that Stirling Uni unfairly made redundant recently. It would also result in fewer cases being brought to Tribunals.
Finally, in cases where it is found that an employee was unfairly dismissed, Employment Tribunals should have the power to dismiss any individual employees whose misconduct led to the unfair dismissal. Under those circumstances, I doubt if Mark Toole and others would have acted in the way they did to get rid of me. There is no disincentive for arse lickers like Graham Millar from acting dishonestly to deprive an innocent employee of their livelihood just to benefit his own corrupt career.
Wednesday
Bad employers hate whistleblowers. Good employers love them.
The University of Gloucestershire invested in excess of £150,000 of public money in order to defend a claim brought by Jan Merrigan at an Employment Tribunal. She claimed that she suffered a detriment after blowing the whistle on the state of finances at the university. After hearing the case over four days, the Tribunal upheld her claim and awarded Jan, who still works at the university, £6,000.
The university, which was recently reported to be in danger of going bankrupt, is considering spending more public money by appealing the decision. They have also expressed their disappointment that Mrs Merrigan decided to make her views public.
You couldn't make this stuff up!
http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2010/11/merrigan-versus-university-of.html
The university, which was recently reported to be in danger of going bankrupt, is considering spending more public money by appealing the decision. They have also expressed their disappointment that Mrs Merrigan decided to make her views public.
You couldn't make this stuff up!
http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2010/11/merrigan-versus-university-of.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)