October 29, 2007

A special place in our hearts...

University of Arts, London:
  • 36 Employment Tribunal cases launched against the university since August 2001.
  • including 16 for unfair dismissal
  • 4 on sex discrimination
  • 4 on race discrimination
  • 3 on unspecified discrimination
  • 4 for unlawful deduction of wages
  • 13 cases settled out of court (with appropriate confidentiality clauses)
  • 1 case upheld at the tribunal stage for unlawful deduction.
OK, UCU, do you see a problem here? OK, minister in charge, do you see a problem here? OK, HEFCE, do you see a problem here? OK, HEA, do you see a problem here?

Let us guess, you voiceless agencies, you say: Universities are self-governing bodies and they can look after their own affairs! Obviously they can't! The University of Arts in London is a serial offender, there are others too. Where does one go, and what does one have to do to get justice?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what do you reckon Sally?

Worth doing anything about it or NOT?

Aphra Behn

Anonymous said...

UAL will be getting two more cases to add to this list of shame that I know of in the next few weeks!!

They are not too concerned...they in their own words simply spend public funds hiring "rottweiller hot shot lawyers" to savage those that are brave enough to raise their heads to complain!

PS - In spite of these figures they will not hear a disability discrimination grievance as "they see no material benefit" as the disabled person was sacked 4 months after telling them of their condition!!

Anonymous said...

My employer also refused to hear my disability discrimination grievance saying that the issues were already addressed at my disciplinary hearing. Nonsense! They're required to hear the case whether they like it or not. But since they didn't, they get to pay between 10-50% premium in compensation when I win at Tribunal.

Stuart said...

If you search the online Employment Appeals database (http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/) then you will not find a single case for the University of (the) Arts London or for UAL. But of course you would also need to check all of: London College of Fashion, Wimbledon College of Art, Camberwell College of Arts, (Central) Saint Martins College of Art and Design, Chelsea College of Art and Design, London College of Communication, all the acronyms and all the re-orderings (e.g. "College of Fashion", "Fashion College"). And "London Institute", as some parts were formerly called. Even so, I couldn't find any through EAT online - although some do show up in BAILII (http://www.bailii.org/).

I intend an update to the league listing with a more comprehensive search for these variants, sometime before the winter break.

Anonymous said...

You ask where does one go to for justice. It seems to us that institutions which are corrupt in one area, are usually as bad in a number of areas (eg teaching, research etc etc). What we are trying to build is a body of evidence (of which bullying is part of larger university malaise)which will be impossible to ignore.

If you would like to find out more e-mail: rothkovitch@ (no gap ) hushmail.com and join us.

Anonymous said...

You are right rothkovitch

Some of those institutions are receiving funding because they are focusing on HOT research topics: ENERGY and WASTE and because they can meet certain deadlines , irrespective of the number of times the research has been replicated and irrespective of the fact that the know-how was developed outside these institutions.

The money allows them to employ high calibre researchers. They wont employ lecturers directly (they chose those from the select researchers who were found to conform). This allows the old guard to stay in place and in control.

Problems start when the postdoc's work philosophy conflicts with theirs.

Problems also start when they try to maximise the transfer of the postdoc's knowledge: Excessive teaching and supervising stagnent PhD theses.

The postdoc is asked to fix the theses of their PhD students, theses with problems that have been ongoing for 2 -3 years, evidence of the incompetence of the supervisers.

To enable the PhD to pass, the postdoc's contribution is marginalised.

I know of a recent publication where the postdoc was listed as a sixth auther. The publication discussed a replica of his work carried out at another institution. The PhD student was listed first, his army of supervisors followed and the postdoc last.

The research assessment excercise does not directly reward innovation.