A company boss was jailed for four months after he faked evidence for an Employment Tribunal in Edinburgh. Story at Deadline News and Northgate Arinso Employer Services.
He would have been jailed for six months, but his sentence was reduced because he admitted his crime of perverting the course of justice.
What he did is similar to what Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark have done for the Employment Tribunal case that I have brought against University of Stirling.
Schofield and Stark faked evidence in order to fool the tribunal that, for a grievance I raised against Kathy McCabe, Schofield had formed her decision to reject my allegations based on evidence. However, evidence that they claim influenced her decision simply didn't exist when she made it. Details here.
Saturday
Student newspaper prints my story
Brig, Stirling University's student newspaper has printed my story on page 4 of its May edition.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Monday
Secret Digital Recordings
A reader posted this message on my blog recently.
I'm a new reader of your blog.
Why didn't you make secret digital recordings (either audio only, or audio/video)?
Surely, recordings would prove how you were treated, who said and did what, etc.
The reader makes an excellent point.
If you are being bullied, sexually harassed, victimised, discriminated against or lied to, then it would certainly be useful to gather information in the way described. Of course, it raises the question of what you would record. People tend not to give you advance warning that they will do these things to you, or that they will be about to have a conversation with you that they will later claim to be completely different from what it actually was. The person you are about to have a conversation with may not be the person that is mistreating you. Would you record that?
For example, I had a very innocent conversation with Selina Gibb. I had no idea that Selina was a liar, or that she would ever do or say anything to harm me. We had always got on very well. I had absolutely no reason to think that she would later give a false account of that conversation in an attempt to have me dismissed. Apart from being my friend, and having known her for about ten years, I could never have imagined that she would take such steps in collusion with others, and turn up to a disciplinary interview and lie in an attempt to have anyone sacked. She took a great risk in doing what she did, and she may yet live to regret it. A recording of that conversation would be helpful, but luckily it was not essential.
I am an email hoarder. I keep emails that most people would delete as soon as they've read them. That was very lucky because I had lots of emails that refuted the very strange and false allegations that were made against me. Those people who decided on the spur of the moment that they would make those allegations hadn't thought it through. They were thinking about the future, and how their allegations would achieve their aim of getting rid of me. They share the same problem as Kathy; they are very bad liars. They gave no thought whatsoever to how their allegations were inconsistent with the facts. If you decide to create a fictitious world, you cannot escape the fact that it has to cohabit and be consistent with the real world; and that's not easy. To lie in collusion with others is to take a massive gamble. The overall lie is only as strong as the weakest and most obvious liar, or the liar who is first to admit that it's all a lie. None of these women I'm referring to are particularly clever. In fact, if they were, they would never have attempted such a stupid stunt. Each of them made allegations that were easily refutable with emails alone.
So I agree with my new reader, but it may actually require that you record everything; all of your working hours. Thankfully with digital recordings, it no longer requires a stack of cassette tapes, or rewinding the tape to find the conversation you are interested in.
One problem, however, is choosing the time to announce that you have a recording. For example, if I had let everyone hear a recording I had made of that conversation with Selina, they would all then know that I was recording everything, and that would cause them to change their behaviour around me. Would that be good or bad? No, you would have to wait until there was no other option but to make people aware of your recordings. When might that be? You might consider an Employment Tribunal would be an appropriate time.
My new reader justifiably asks why I didn't make secret digital recordings. Once he or she ploughs their way through all of my blog, they will see that I have neither confirmed nor denied that I made secret recordings. Furthermore, I will never deny that I have a secret digital recording of a conversation with Selina Gibb.
I'm a new reader of your blog.
Why didn't you make secret digital recordings (either audio only, or audio/video)?
Surely, recordings would prove how you were treated, who said and did what, etc.
The reader makes an excellent point.
If you are being bullied, sexually harassed, victimised, discriminated against or lied to, then it would certainly be useful to gather information in the way described. Of course, it raises the question of what you would record. People tend not to give you advance warning that they will do these things to you, or that they will be about to have a conversation with you that they will later claim to be completely different from what it actually was. The person you are about to have a conversation with may not be the person that is mistreating you. Would you record that?
For example, I had a very innocent conversation with Selina Gibb. I had no idea that Selina was a liar, or that she would ever do or say anything to harm me. We had always got on very well. I had absolutely no reason to think that she would later give a false account of that conversation in an attempt to have me dismissed. Apart from being my friend, and having known her for about ten years, I could never have imagined that she would take such steps in collusion with others, and turn up to a disciplinary interview and lie in an attempt to have anyone sacked. She took a great risk in doing what she did, and she may yet live to regret it. A recording of that conversation would be helpful, but luckily it was not essential.
I am an email hoarder. I keep emails that most people would delete as soon as they've read them. That was very lucky because I had lots of emails that refuted the very strange and false allegations that were made against me. Those people who decided on the spur of the moment that they would make those allegations hadn't thought it through. They were thinking about the future, and how their allegations would achieve their aim of getting rid of me. They share the same problem as Kathy; they are very bad liars. They gave no thought whatsoever to how their allegations were inconsistent with the facts. If you decide to create a fictitious world, you cannot escape the fact that it has to cohabit and be consistent with the real world; and that's not easy. To lie in collusion with others is to take a massive gamble. The overall lie is only as strong as the weakest and most obvious liar, or the liar who is first to admit that it's all a lie. None of these women I'm referring to are particularly clever. In fact, if they were, they would never have attempted such a stupid stunt. Each of them made allegations that were easily refutable with emails alone.
So I agree with my new reader, but it may actually require that you record everything; all of your working hours. Thankfully with digital recordings, it no longer requires a stack of cassette tapes, or rewinding the tape to find the conversation you are interested in.
One problem, however, is choosing the time to announce that you have a recording. For example, if I had let everyone hear a recording I had made of that conversation with Selina, they would all then know that I was recording everything, and that would cause them to change their behaviour around me. Would that be good or bad? No, you would have to wait until there was no other option but to make people aware of your recordings. When might that be? You might consider an Employment Tribunal would be an appropriate time.
My new reader justifiably asks why I didn't make secret digital recordings. Once he or she ploughs their way through all of my blog, they will see that I have neither confirmed nor denied that I made secret recordings. Furthermore, I will never deny that I have a secret digital recording of a conversation with Selina Gibb.
Wednesday
Stirling University to explain fraud
The Employment Tribunal has asked Stirling University to comment on my allegation of fraud. Link to details.
They will be required to explain how, in March 2010, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark were able to refer to a document that did not exist until June 2010. Furthermore, they will be required to explain how that document was able to influence the decision Mrs Schofield made in March 2010; that I had bullied my manager, Kathy McCabe, and that Mrs McCabe had not bullied me.
The apparent fraud supports my claim that I had been subjected to a sham grievance procedure immediately after I had made a Protected Disclosure informing the Principal that my allegations of bullying and sex discrimination were not being handled properly by management and HR.
To avoid admitting that the process was a sham, Stirling University tried to fool the Tribunal into believing they had investigated my allegations of bullying. They produced a ten page fraudulent document purporting to be details of an investigation and decision process that took place in March 2010.
I can't imagine how the university will be able to explain this; other than to admit that the grievance process was a sham, and that they have committed fraud. As well as Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark, this revelation also implicates University Secretary, Kevin Clarke who conducted the appeal hearing and said he saw no flaw in the grievance procedure.
Stirling University now requires snookers!
1 May 2011
Update
I received a copy of a letter that the university sent to the Tribunal in response to my letter to the tribunal informing them of the fraud.
Firstly, they criticise me for bringing the matter to the attention of the tribunal. Clearly they would prefer that the tribunal was not aware of their fraud. That is perfectly understandable.
Secondly, they misquote what I said in my letter, and then they say that what they misquoted was simply wrong. If they had quoted me correctly, they would have seen that what I said was simply correct.
Then there is a very long winded explanation of how the author of the document that was referred to in the fictitious investigation sent them a copy of it around 15 April 2010. They accept that this post dates Mrs Schofield's decision by roughly three weeks.
Then they say that the ten page document is an explanation of the findings made in the context of the general conclusion reached on the grievances.
They state that, because of the information received on 15 April 2010, an allegation I made in my grievance against Kathy McCabe's long term bullying behaviour was upheld.
But nowhere in their letter, which I have read very carefully several times, can I see any explanation of how information, that they accept didn't exist at the time of Mrs Schofield's decision, could have influenced that decision. And it certainly influenced her decision because, without it, my allegation would definitely not have been upheld.
The ten page fraudulent document states that neither I nor Kathy McCabe were given any further opportunity to provide further evidence before the decision was made as it was not thought to be necessary, proportionate or appropriate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that Mrs Schofield would think it was necessary, proportionate or appropriate to use further evidence at least three weeks after making her general decision to alter her decision on one allegation, especially when she knew that it would not change her general decision.
The process they describe in that document simply did not take place before the decision was made, because the decision was not based on any evidence, but was a response to me having made a protected disclosure to the Principal.
It took them five weeks to provide the information which they say was originally created within a week or two while they were carrying out the investigation. They should have been able to supply the information by the following day. In fact, they should have given it to me when the decision was announced. They didn't, because it never existed.
No one in their right mind would go through every allegation, and make a decision on each one, when the general decision is not based on any evidence. So, as you can imagine, the contents of that ten page document are not just fraudulent, they are the biggest pile of tosh ever written. It is hard to imagine that anyone from the university would actually want to appear at a tribunal hearing and, under oath and with a straight face, argue that it represents a fair and thorough grievance process.
There is a list of flaws a mile long. University Secretary, Mr Kevin Clarke may have to appear in order to explain how each one of those flaws is not a flaw. That should be interesting!
They will be required to explain how, in March 2010, Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark were able to refer to a document that did not exist until June 2010. Furthermore, they will be required to explain how that document was able to influence the decision Mrs Schofield made in March 2010; that I had bullied my manager, Kathy McCabe, and that Mrs McCabe had not bullied me.
The apparent fraud supports my claim that I had been subjected to a sham grievance procedure immediately after I had made a Protected Disclosure informing the Principal that my allegations of bullying and sex discrimination were not being handled properly by management and HR.
To avoid admitting that the process was a sham, Stirling University tried to fool the Tribunal into believing they had investigated my allegations of bullying. They produced a ten page fraudulent document purporting to be details of an investigation and decision process that took place in March 2010.
I can't imagine how the university will be able to explain this; other than to admit that the grievance process was a sham, and that they have committed fraud. As well as Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark, this revelation also implicates University Secretary, Kevin Clarke who conducted the appeal hearing and said he saw no flaw in the grievance procedure.
Stirling University now requires snookers!
1 May 2011
Update
I received a copy of a letter that the university sent to the Tribunal in response to my letter to the tribunal informing them of the fraud.
Firstly, they criticise me for bringing the matter to the attention of the tribunal. Clearly they would prefer that the tribunal was not aware of their fraud. That is perfectly understandable.
Secondly, they misquote what I said in my letter, and then they say that what they misquoted was simply wrong. If they had quoted me correctly, they would have seen that what I said was simply correct.
Then there is a very long winded explanation of how the author of the document that was referred to in the fictitious investigation sent them a copy of it around 15 April 2010. They accept that this post dates Mrs Schofield's decision by roughly three weeks.
Then they say that the ten page document is an explanation of the findings made in the context of the general conclusion reached on the grievances.
They state that, because of the information received on 15 April 2010, an allegation I made in my grievance against Kathy McCabe's long term bullying behaviour was upheld.
But nowhere in their letter, which I have read very carefully several times, can I see any explanation of how information, that they accept didn't exist at the time of Mrs Schofield's decision, could have influenced that decision. And it certainly influenced her decision because, without it, my allegation would definitely not have been upheld.
The ten page fraudulent document states that neither I nor Kathy McCabe were given any further opportunity to provide further evidence before the decision was made as it was not thought to be necessary, proportionate or appropriate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that Mrs Schofield would think it was necessary, proportionate or appropriate to use further evidence at least three weeks after making her general decision to alter her decision on one allegation, especially when she knew that it would not change her general decision.
The process they describe in that document simply did not take place before the decision was made, because the decision was not based on any evidence, but was a response to me having made a protected disclosure to the Principal.
It took them five weeks to provide the information which they say was originally created within a week or two while they were carrying out the investigation. They should have been able to supply the information by the following day. In fact, they should have given it to me when the decision was announced. They didn't, because it never existed.
No one in their right mind would go through every allegation, and make a decision on each one, when the general decision is not based on any evidence. So, as you can imagine, the contents of that ten page document are not just fraudulent, they are the biggest pile of tosh ever written. It is hard to imagine that anyone from the university would actually want to appear at a tribunal hearing and, under oath and with a straight face, argue that it represents a fair and thorough grievance process.
There is a list of flaws a mile long. University Secretary, Mr Kevin Clarke may have to appear in order to explain how each one of those flaws is not a flaw. That should be interesting!
Sunday
Stirling University's Fictitious Grievance Investigation
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the powers that be met to discuss what they should do in response to my request for the details of the alleged grievance investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
Tuesday
People can only take so much.
I wonder if that guy learned a lesson.
It's a pity nobody decked Kathy when she was a school bully, but I wonder if she now wishes she hadn't bothered picking on me.
Sunday
What now for Stirling University?
The revelation that Stirling University has sent fraudulent evidence to the Employment Tribunal places them in a very awkward position; and that is putting it mildly.
The term 'nip it in the bud' means nothing to the uni management. What was once a manageable problem of bullying has escalated firstly to widespread corruption at the highest level, and now fraud. Rather than deal appropriately with a bully, they have tried to cover it up to the point where Stirling University, once associated with ducks swimming on a peaceful loch, is now known to Googlers, Bloggers and Facebookers all over the world to be associated with employees and students that are sitting ducks for a corrupt management. (And late offers to potential students!)
One Postgraduate Researcher was so exasperated by management's dishonesty that he was compelled to threaten to kill one of them. I know exactly how he felt. Ironically, the same management that has clearly opted out of living by rules, chose to go to the police to get them to uphold the rules.
The new Principal, Gerry McCormac said he knows how to get the best out of people, but his chair was still lukewarm when we discovered that he thought that it would be a good use of their time for the Deputy Secretary and an HR Partner to spend five weeks fraudulently creating a document in an attempt to fool the Employment Tribunal that they had spent a week carrying out an investigation a year earlier. Maybe he should have asked them to spend another ten minutes making sure it wasn't bleeding obvious that it was a fraud. Or better yet, he might have done what he was paid to do, and nipped the problem in the bud. I think Gerry should maybe change his motto to 'I know how to get the best people out!'
The situation is now that I am scheduled to attend a Tribunal to defend myself against false allegations of gross misconduct which, even if they were true, are about one gazillionth as gross as the misconduct of the people I will be defending myself against. Karen Stark is meant to be there to represent the uni; but any reasonable person would expect she would be sacked before then.
The funny thing is that they probably still don't think the hole they've dug themselves into is deep enough yet. To hell with a spade, lets get a JCB.
The term 'nip it in the bud' means nothing to the uni management. What was once a manageable problem of bullying has escalated firstly to widespread corruption at the highest level, and now fraud. Rather than deal appropriately with a bully, they have tried to cover it up to the point where Stirling University, once associated with ducks swimming on a peaceful loch, is now known to Googlers, Bloggers and Facebookers all over the world to be associated with employees and students that are sitting ducks for a corrupt management. (And late offers to potential students!)
One Postgraduate Researcher was so exasperated by management's dishonesty that he was compelled to threaten to kill one of them. I know exactly how he felt. Ironically, the same management that has clearly opted out of living by rules, chose to go to the police to get them to uphold the rules.
The new Principal, Gerry McCormac said he knows how to get the best out of people, but his chair was still lukewarm when we discovered that he thought that it would be a good use of their time for the Deputy Secretary and an HR Partner to spend five weeks fraudulently creating a document in an attempt to fool the Employment Tribunal that they had spent a week carrying out an investigation a year earlier. Maybe he should have asked them to spend another ten minutes making sure it wasn't bleeding obvious that it was a fraud. Or better yet, he might have done what he was paid to do, and nipped the problem in the bud. I think Gerry should maybe change his motto to 'I know how to get the best people out!'
The situation is now that I am scheduled to attend a Tribunal to defend myself against false allegations of gross misconduct which, even if they were true, are about one gazillionth as gross as the misconduct of the people I will be defending myself against. Karen Stark is meant to be there to represent the uni; but any reasonable person would expect she would be sacked before then.
The funny thing is that they probably still don't think the hole they've dug themselves into is deep enough yet. To hell with a spade, lets get a JCB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)