Commission for Racial Equality censures University of Birmingham

PRESS RELEASE from Birmingham University and College Union - Tuesday 26th June 2007 - For immediate release

Commission for Racial Equality censures University of Birmingham

The University of Birmingham is now the first university in England to be reported to the Department for Education for failing in its legal Race Equality Duty. Last week the Birmingham University branch of the University and College Union received a copy of a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Michael Sterling, from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The letter states that the University has failed to show it has met its legal Race Equality Duty and that it has failed to respond to previous letters from the CRE. Six pages of damning criticism detail the failures of the University Senior Management to meet their legal duty to promote race equality.

Vice Chancellor "running out of time" to comply

The Vice Chancellor was given a 21-day ultimatum to meet a series of demands, or further action may follow from the CRE. He must now:

* agree to revise the University's Race Equality Policy and Action Plan and give details of how the University will meet the CRE's requirements;

* disclose the CRE's criticisms to the University's supreme body, the Council, which meets on July 4th;

* agree a compact with the UCU over proposed course closures.

The letter is dated June 6th, but as yet the University has failed to approach the UCU to begin discussions that could lead to a compact. Dr. William Edmondson, Vice-President of BUCU, said "The University now has only a few days left to comply with the CRE letter. They are running out of time."

"Institutional racism" in targeting black academics for redundancy

Last November the UCU accused the University of Birmingham of "institutional racism" for disproportionately targeting ethnic minority academic members of staff in the School of Education for redundancy. The University decided to withdraw from long-established courses in Community, Play and Youth work (CPY), claiming that they no longer fit with the strategy of the University. The UCU pointed out that this move threatened the jobs of 5 out of only 7 ethnic minority academic staff in the School of Education. The University failed to meet its legal obligations for genuine consultation and failed to consider fully the potential impact of the course closures on race equality issues. The UCU complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality over the CPY closure plans led to the current threat of legal enforcement action against the University. Last December, following a flood of complaints from supporters of the CPY courses, the Vice Chancellor assured local MPs that the University had acted within the law.

Peter Hick, UCU representative in the School of Education said today:

"Staff across the University and within the School of Education work hard to develop good practice in teaching and research around race and diversity issues. It is unacceptable that Senior Management should be so complacent about race equality issues that the Commission for Racial Equality has to inform the Minister at the Department for Education that the University is apparently failing in its legal Race Equality Duty. The Vice Chancellor owes an apology to staff in Community, Play and Youth Work for the shabby way they have been treated.

"The University is currently going through a major reorganisation, and this presents an ideal opportunity for a step change in the way it deals with race relations issues. Birmingham is shortly to become one of Britain's first major cities with a majority non-white school-age population. The University of Birmingham should be working towards best practice in race equality, instead of having to be dragged reluctantly into the 21st century."
-----------------
Is this university one more candidate for the 'Divestors of People' award/standard?

Staff 'swotted' by managers - Birmingham University, UK

Senior managers at Birmingham University have identified a key "threat" to their strategic goals - their own academics. This was the conclusion of an analysis by Birmingham's "leadership team" of the university's "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats" (SWOT) in an early, internal draft of a new human resources strategy.

Academics were top of the list of threats and, although the university has since removed them from the analysis, representatives say that the original document highlights wider concerns across the sector about the general decline of the status of academics as universities become business-oriented.

They said that it reflected a trend where the traditional notion of universities as autonomous communities of scholars was being superseded by corporate practices and "customer" students.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union said: "The shift towards a market in higher education is inevitably bringing about a consumer culture in universities and the biggest losers will continue to be staff.

She said that academics were "determined to retain the spirit of what a university should be, even in this age of marketisation" and need "a renewed commitment to the principles of higher education as first and foremost a learning environment."

The issue is likely to be a key theme of the first conference of the 120,000-strong UCU at the end of May. A motion from Nottingham Trent University, to be debated, says that "the current managerialist governance culture is... doing irreparable damage to institutional organisational structures".

Another, from Sussex University, says that "current thinking about HE management, ie that the VC must act like a private sector CEO in order to 'manage' the university, is erroneous". It insists that "universities are not businesses" and managerialism is "anathema to the philosophy of higher education".

The Birmingham branch of the UCU said that it was pleased that the latest draft of the university's human resources strategy had dropped the notion that the academics were a threat. But a newsletter from the branch says that the latest version still raises questions about the university's commitment to traditional academic values of autonomy, collegiality and trust.

The branch calculates that while the words "manager" and "management" appear 119 times in the document, "researcher" appears five times, and "teaching" appears six times. The word "academic" appears twice after its removal from the list of threats.

The branch says that it fears that "rather than being treated as self-motivated creative professionals who are experts in their areas" academics are being seen as "work-units to be managed, performance-managed and even micromanaged".

"UCU members who want to work in a leading research and teaching university should be seriously alarmed by it," the newsletter says.

The strategy document, seen by The Times Higher, set "core themes" of the strategy including "performance management; reward; talent management". It includes a strong emphasis on performance management, and performance-related pay.

A list of ideal aspirations for employees includes: "If I under-perform against my targets I am clear on what the impact would be on my salary, bonus and career development. I know that if I underperform, my salary inclusive of cost of living increases will not progress."

The university said: "Because the university values the expertise and intellect of all its staff, both academic and non-academic, a cross-section of colleagues were part of a consultation process that has led to a draft HR Strategy.

"All members of staff were invited to participate in a series of discussion groups to determine the themes of the draft HR Strategy... 150 took part.

"In addition, heads of school, senior academic managers and the campus unions were consulted prior to the publication of the draft for the second stage of consultation, which is now taking place within the university.

"This strategy will enable the university to achieve its ambitions. As the consultation process shows, we believe that engaging in constructive discussion with staff will enhance the draft HR Strategy. That discussion is best held internally within the university. The full strategy will be published later this year."

From: Times Higher Education Supplement

'Punishing' style puts staff on critical list

Phil Baty, THES. Published: 19 January 2007 - Whistleblower investigates

Academics at Birmingham's School of Health Sciences feel 'failed' by senior management who, a leaked report shows, were slow to address 'rock-bottom morale' and a 'culture of fear'. Phil Baty dissects the bones of contention.

"I have the sense of a school that is divided, where many staff feel isolated and unfairly treated... "Everyone is aware of the tension, pressure, even anger that exists between different groups and individuals".

This is the conclusion of a report on Birmingham University's School of Health Sciences that is so sensitive that the university refused to even confirm its existence when The Times Higher asked to see it under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report, which was leaked to The Times Higher this week, paints a damning picture of a school at war. It raises serious questions about the state of personnel management at the university and the future of the school.

Stuart Hunt, a human resources consultant, produced the report, which was handed to staff in the school in August 2006. It reports the results of a consultation exercise that involved 22 staff in "focus groups" and one-to-one interviews at the school and "several" further direct contributions to Mr Hunt.

The local branch of the University and College Union had suggested that disgruntled staff boycotted the consultation for fear of victimisation, but the paper, however, concludes that an "excellent level of engagement... should mean that the findings... are valid".

The report identifies a number of "key issues". "Leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness that was expressed by the majority of respondents," it says.

A clear split emerges between a minority of staff - described as an "inner circle" - who are happy in their work and a majority who feel bullied, isolated and discriminated against.

The report says that although some staff felt recruitment processes to be "reasonably sound", many others found them to be "flawed". Staff expressed "deep concern about the fairness and transparency" of the promotions process.

They also said favouritism was shown in the allocation of tasks, the granting of permission to attend conferences and the handling of promotion opportunities.

The management was said to be supportive by some staff, but many more felt that the systems and the management style were "much too controlling, even punishing". The report says: "Although several staff explicitly said they had not experienced or witnessed bullying, many more comments contradicted this."

Some staff said feedback and performance management were "punitive", and nearly all considered communications to be poor.

The school, founded in 1995, combines nursing and physiotherapy. For most all of its time, it has been headed by Pat Wrightson, a professor of physiotherapy. It has 63 academic staff and 22 academic-related and support staff who are responsible for more than 500 undergraduate students, 87 taught postgraduates and 15 postgraduate research students.

Nursing received a 3b rating in the 2001 research assessment exercise. The Hunt report highlighted staff fears that the school's problems could further damage its profile and even threaten its survival in a university committed to top-rated research.

Staff blamed high workloads for cutting into research time. The report says some staff felt that teaching and administration was valued more highly than research.

"There is significant concern about personal job security and about the future of the school as a whole, especially in relation to the vice-chancellor's statements about (the need for) research excellence," Hunt says.

The report highlights major staff concerns about five general aspects of work - leadership, professional and career development, communications, management, recruitment and promotion. In each of these areas, between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of all comments made were "negative".

These areas, the report said, "should be seen as highly significant to address".

The university this week released a statement to The Times Higher in which it said that the consultation and meetings with staff have allowed the university to "develop additional responses to address staff concerns".

In particular, "leadership training" for staff at various levels has been implemented.

Staff in the school were due to meet Mr Hunt this week, as The Times Higher went to press, to agree "some key actions" to help develop "a framework for collegiate leadership" in the school, according to a leaked memo.

The Hunt report concludes: "Finally, nearly half of respondents made comments relating to the sense that the university centrally has not supported the school... effectively."

Certainly, the university had clear warnings of the emerging crisis. In October 2005 - almost a year before the Hunt report and as Professor Wrightson's second five-year term of office was coming towards an end - 17 members of academic staff wrote to the head of personnel, Jane Usherwood, raising concerns about how the school was being managed.

The letter, which was followed by a similar one in summer 2006 to the vice-chancellor, stated explicitly that it would not be "appropriate" to reappoint Professor Wrightson because of a number of "significant concerns about the current management style and the relationships within the school, which have led to inequitable workload distribution and inconsistent promotion decisions".

It reported that 12 staff had resigned in the previous three years - six of them "within the last few months" - and referred to "widespread concern that we may not be able to deliver existing courses, nor that we will be returnable in the next RAE". But as the Hunt report noted almost a year later, five staff asked: "What happened to the letter... there was no response, no feedback."

A major warning - described by one staff member as a "huge emergency siren" - came in the form of an October 2005 staff "stress survey" that highlighted the same issues as Hunt, but almost a year earlier. This survey, obtained by The Times Higher under the Freedom of Information Act, showed staff reporting "a culture of fear" and "rock-bottom morale" in health sciences.

Some 47 staff in the school, including 41 academics, participated in the survey. They reported that promotion and job opportunities were "unfair", that the school suffered from a "blaming culture" and an "unrewarding social climate", and that they suffered "low autonomy, insufficient participation and a sense of lack of control". The report, by consultants Applied Research Limited, recommended an "urgent" investigation into allegations of bullying and favouritism and said that "organisational interventions... are urgently required".

But nine months after the survey was completed, the Birmingham UCU was bemoaning the lack of action. A submission from the Birmingham UCU to a July 10, 2006, meeting of the university stress review group said: "It is no exaggeration to say that UCU members in health sciences are at the end of their tethers. They are asking how much more time it takes for the university to act to address the problem."

In the same month, 15 school staff complained in a letter to the vice-chancellor of a "lack of strategic planning", a "climate of low morale" and "raised stress levels".

Michael Clarke, the vice-principal, replied 18 days later, on July 28, rejecting their request for a meeting but saying that the vice chancellor would "take into consideration" their views about leadership when deciding on the future headship of the school.

Just four days after that, Professor Clarke told the school: "Professor Wrightson has agreed to continue as head of the school. Both Pat and the vice chancellor recognise there are significant issues to be resolved... about the future direction of the school." This should be taken forward by staff "working constructively together". But Professor Wrightson's new term would run only until March 31, 2007, he said.

In a statement this week, the UCU branch said that it had been aware of "serious problems" in the school for several years.

It said: "Some of our members in the school have been off work with stress-related illnesses, and many of them have been afraid to raise their concerns with the university for fear of victimisation.

"Members have also expressed anxiety about their future careers because the perceived absence of a clear research strategy has apparently made the prospect of an RAE return in this round unlikely."

As one member of staff who did not want to be named said: "The university has failed us. They had the stress survey and did nothing for a year. Then they sent in a consultant to find out what the problem was when they knew the problem all along.

"It is very sad. There is a lot of enthusiasm and ability and potential, but we've just been ground into the ground."

STAFF CLAIMS

"You don't get promoted unless you are part of the 'favoured few' and your face fits." Eight people shared these sentiments.

"My sense is that everything is designed to support the 'inner circle'."

The report said that this term was "used by several people".

"Criteria for promotion are fixed so that only certain individuals can meet them". Five people expressed this view.

"Some people are allowed to go to international events and others are not - this is a favouritism issue." Four staff repeated such sentiments.

"We are desperate for help. We are vacillating between despair and anger."

"There has to be a change in leadership."

Source: the Hunt report

THE BIRMINGHAM RESPONSE IN FULL

"Birmingham University, as a responsible employer, conducts periodic reviews of stress in its schools. As a result of findings of the 2005 stress survey in the School of Health Sciences, the university, in consultation with the school, commissioned a further review from an independent consultant.

"This was intended to provide a more detailed insight into issues raised in the original survey. The university considers the results of both to be confidential, other than to its senior management group and the appropriate staff in the school concerned.

"The findings of both reviews and meetings with staff have enabled the university to develop additional responses to address staff concerns. One such response is to implement a package of leadership training for differing levels throughout the school.

"The university has every confidence in Professor Pat Wrightson, the head of school, who was recently reappointed by council following the normal procedure of consultation with the school.

"The university will not comment further on specific personal cases."

Professor Wrightson declined to add any additional comments beyond the university's official response.

Universities have been listed among the worst in a survey on bullying of university staff across the UK

Northern Ireland’s two universities have been listed among the worst in a survey on bullying of university staff across the UK.

The University of Ulster and Queen's University feature in the “worst” category for staff being “always” or “often” bullied.

The UU was 7th on the national list compiled by the University and College Union (UCU). The union has named and shamed the universities with the worst reported levels of bullying ahead of Friday’s national Ban Bullying at Work Day. Queen's was 19th.

Of the 143 respondents from Queen’s, 11.9% said they were always or often bullied. At the UU, just over 10% of the 148 respondents said this was the case.

The University of East London had the worst ranking with almost 17% of the staff surveyed saying they were always or often bullied. In 19 institutions at least one-in-10 respondents to the UCU survey reported being ‘always’ or ‘often’ bullied.

A University of Ulster spokesperson said: “The University of Ulster has received a copy of the UCU survey and is in the process of assessing its validity and relevance.

“The university has a comprehensive bullying and harassment procedure agreed with the local trade unions. The aim of the procedure is to provide a safe and harmonious working environment and to provide mechanisms to address any issues raised.

“All staff and students are expected to comply with the policy, and to assist in the promotion of a good working environment free from any form of bullying and harassment.”

Queen’s University said: “Queen’s University is a large employer and has an extensive range of policies to support staff in the workplace.

“The university views bullying at work as unacceptable and has procedures in place to fully investigate complaints of this nature and take appropriate and timely action.

“An analysis of the last two years indicates only three cases have been brought to the attention of senior managers for examination under the agreed procedures. The university has comprehensive consultative procedures in place with all its trade unions.”

Over 9,700 UCU members working in higher education across the UK were surveyed and the results reveal that 6.7% of members said they were always or often bullied at work and 16.7% said “sometimes”. Only half (51%) said they were fortunate enough to “never” be bullied at work.

Less than half of all respondents in higher education (only 45.1%) said they were never subjected to personal harassment at work, 7% said they were subjected to it “always” or “often” and nearly one-in-five (18.8%) said they “sometimes” suffered personal harassment.

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “Bullying at work can take many forms and all of them create stress for the victim.

“Everybody has the right to expect to work in a safe environment free from bullying. We believe bullying to be a deep-seated problem in higher education and we want to know what organisations such as the Universities and Colleges Employers’ Association (UCEA) are doing to tackle the problem.”

From: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Also: UCU today names and shames the universities with the worst reported levels of bullying, ahead of Friday's national Ban Bullying at Work Day.

They are:

• University of East London
• Kingston University
• De Montfort University
• University of Lincoln
• University of Salford
• University of Glamorgan
• University of Ulster
• Bangor University
• Manchester Metropolitan University
• Birmingham City University
• University of Greenwich
• University of Westminster
• Oxford Brookes University
• University of Gloucestershire
• University of Hertfordshire
• University of Dundee
• University of Portsmouth
• University of Bradford
• Queen's University Belfast

-----------------------------------------------
Tackling bullying - a UCU conference

UCU will be holding a national conference on tackling bullying and harassment in the tertiary education workplace on 27 November in London.

UCU conference centre, Britannia Street, London, WC1X 9JP

Britannia Street office location map

Speakers include:

Dr Iain Coyne, University of Nottingham
Hannah Essex, College and University Support Network, and
John Bamford, UCU health and safety advisor

There will also be practical workshops in the morning and afternoon, on campaigning against bullying and negotiating anti-bullying policies, and results from UCU's forthcoming survey of bullying and cyber-bullying.

Birmingham University FOI Request

Between 2003 to December 2006, Birmingham University had:

5 claims for unfair dismissal
4 claims for race discrimination
3 claims for sex discrimination, breach of contract, breach of fixed term regulations
2 claims for disability discrimination
1 claim for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal
1 claim for unfair dismissal breach of fixed term worker relations
1 claim for breach of part time worker regulations, breach of contract
1 claim for deduction of wages, sex discrimination
1 claim for constructive unfair dismissal and harassment

Of these 12 cases were settled and 1 was successfully upheld at an Employment Tribunal. That leaves 6 cases ever lost or withdrawn.

Between August 2002 and December 2006 there have been 20 complains of bullying by managers and THREE were disciplined (17 got off!!!)

During the last five years there has been 48 workshops on bullying at Birmingham University, and 49 on disability discrimination.

Hiding the truth by Sheffield University - Exam Fraud

'... This website shows why there is a need for anonymous marking, the flaws of the anonymous marking system that was present when I was a student. It shows how it failed to protect me, the failings of anonymous marking. What I also show is a better system.

The government is very keen to get people to go to university. During my search for information for this article I have inspected several university prospectuses. For some reason no university prospectus mentions the issues discussed on this site. No prospectus mentions that they may (or may not) have staff who can abuse the power to hinder your progress and if they do the university takes no action against them.

There is information that I hope all bodies representing students can use to gain fairer marking and a better appeals system. The information here is material that Sheffield university has tried to stop coming out publicly...

What is anonymous marking?

Under a system of anonymous marking candidates’ names are supposedly not meant to be visible to examiners. Candidates are meant to put an anonymous candidate number on them so in theory the examiners don’t know who the candidate is. This website shows the flaws in the sysstem...

I can see students of white origin- especially in medicine is “what evidence do you have of racism or examiner bias? It doesn‘t exist.” Undergraduate education in courses allied to medicine takes place in the NHS. Well consider the words of Sir John Blofield QC the high court judge “the NHS is riddled with institutional racism” is damning.

I can also see students, especially in medicine, saying that it isn’t in the interests of a university to fail a student on purpose. It is always, without exception, in the interest of the university that students should pass exams. People who engage in discriminatory practices are contravening the university’s interests and add their colleagues workload. Unfortunately the link between knowledge and behaviour is not always so obvious. If it were so, then no person would ever smoke, take drugs etc. For example how many doctors smoke?

What is written in this site is partially based on my experiences at Sheffield university. It may (or may not) be possible that similar things have happened at other universities. In July 2003 the Times Higher ran a story called Almost 40% fail to comply with race laws...

It is not just in medicine where racism/bias can occur. On 24 November 2000 the Steel Press Issue 36, 24th November 2000 ran a story called Racist Slur Exposed. This article described how Sheffield university law lecturer Margaret Wilkie was accused of marking derogatory and offensive reference to black people twice in lectures. The Steel Press had heard a tape in which she made a remark about a “nigger” and referred to Nigeria as a White man’s grave. Note that people like Wilkie may assess students...

The dispute at Sheffield- did the “anonymous marking” system protect me? A case study.

Unfortunately I had a long dispute there summarised by a few events. Most of these letters have been read in several courts or they have been quoted in newspaper articles so they are in the public domain. Those marked with * have come out in court or are in court documents or judgments.

2 February 1998 the letter from the Commission for Racial Equality to me. “Mr. Page, (the undergraduate dean) states that the medical school does not monitor failure rates but seems to have a belief, (possibly divine) that their procedures are free and fair from racial bias.”

11 May 1998 “It appears to me that some people do not want him to carry on his medical studies.” Dr Rao consultant. It was partly on the basis of this letter that an examination decision was overturned even with anonymous marking. However I only managed to do this because I had managed to get hold of information that usually only the university had hold of. Students normally didn’t have this information.

2 July 1998 the then Registrar and Secretary sent a memo to all departments saying "A recent case has highlighted the danger to the University's reputation of dealing with personal matters on university headed note-paper...

This must be because of Professor Mortimer from Hull York University Medical School falsely accusing me of being a drug taker on the basis of my exam papers. I note that she is the Deputy Chief Examiner for the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If such a person can falsely accuse an ethnic minority student of being a drug taker on the basis of exam papers I wonder how many times the UK medical royal colleges have falsified exam results? She is also the external examiner for the University of Birmingham department of psychiatry.

19 July 1999 “This does raise some important issues about the conduct of University examinations and courses.” Richard Allan MP for Sheffield Hallam- then of the House of Commons Select Committee of Education and Employment...

On 12 January 2001 I was due to face a review panel- it was adjourned as we had lodged an appeal and that was outstanding. In response to a direct question from Richard Price- then solicitor from Howells solicitors and now of Richard Price and Company (ceased trading) Weetman admitted that he personally selected the medical school’s documents. When you read Richard’s letter you will see how selective Weetman was. He manipulated evidence and procedures.

Weetman has preached about standards that the GMC sets. Consider regulation 51 - one of their rules states “You must be honest and trustworthy when writing reports, completing or signing forms, or providing evidence in litigation or other formal inquiries. This means that you must take reasonable steps to verify any statement before you sign a document. You must not write or sign documents which are false or misleading because they omit relevant information. “

Do the words practice what you preach come to mind? When it suits them they will apply the rules to the hilt. When it doesn’t they won’t...

Thoughts to ponder on

I have often wondered since the 1 June 1998 decision came out how many people have been failed on purpose? How many people have appealed and been refused unjustifiably? What would have happened if I hadn’t kept the information? I have also wondered what sort of justice does a university like Sheffield administer when an external examiner- Professor Mortimer- can falsely accuse a student of being mentally ill and taking drugs and yet they make the student re-sit?

...My advice to anyone who does not have a white English name is not to go to any university where they do not unconditionally return assessments back to candidates when marked. Always ask what safeguards they have, no matter what level-GCSE, A level etc. YOU are the consumer, it is your right to choose...'
--------------------------
Read it all at: http://www.examfraud.co.uk

You may also wish to read: THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY INVESTIGATION into Sheffield Medical School, by The United Kingdom Council for Human Rights

Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus...

First the letter to the editor from clerics and other religious representatives:

The Times, November 24, 2006

Student union tactics are intolerant and unlawful

Sir, Christian students at many of our universities are facing considerable opposition and discrimination in violation of their rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association. In recent times, some student guilds, in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh in particular, have changed their anti-discrimination provisions to discriminate against Christian students. We believe this to be intolerant and unlawful, and that the Christian unions currently suspended by the student guilds or associations should be reinstated with full rights as a student society forthwith.

Of course university student guilds and associations have a responsibility to ensure that official societies are run in a proper and lawful manner. However, this does not give them, or anyone else, the right to restrict or change the essential beliefs of those societies, or impose as leaders people who do not share those core beliefs.

Christian union meetings and events are open to all students to attend. In fact, as faith-sharing organisations, CUs specifically invite people who do not share the Christian faith to attend their meetings. Therefore, there is no restriction imposed on who can and who cannot join the CU.

However, the executive committees of CUs act rather like charity trustees, and as such, they are responsible for two things: first, that funds donated to the CU are used only to further the stated objects, and secondly, that the object of the union, the proclamation of the Christian gospel (as understood by millions of orthodox Christians around the world), is advanced.

It would therefore be inappropriate for anyone who does not agree with the aims, objectives and beliefs to be executive committee members, although it would be totally in order for them to attend CU events, Bible studies, discussion groups or missions, and put forward their views with conviction and passion. Thus the only restrictions limit the right to amend the constitution and select leaders to those who can affirm the core beliefs of the society.

THE RIGHT REV MICHAEL SCOTT-JOYNT Bishop of Winchester, THE RIGHT REV MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI Bishop of Rochester, THE RIGHT REV PETER FORSTER Bishop of Chester, THE RIGHT REV GEORGE CASSIDY Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, THE RIGHT REV JONATHAN GLEDHILL Bishop of Lichfield, THE RIGHT REV STEPHEN VENNER Bishop of Dover, THE RIGHT REV PETE BROADBENT Bishop of Willesden, THE RIGHT REV CRISPIAN HOLLIS Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth and lead Bishop of Higher Education, LORD CAREY OF CLIFTON Former Archbishop of Canterbury, CANON DR CHRISTINA BAXTER Chairman of the House of Laity, Church of England General Synod, PROFESSOR NIGEL M. DE S. CAMERON Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, London, PROFESSOR JOHN WYATT Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics, University College London, DR DON HORROCKS Head of Public Affairs Evangelical Alliance, ANDREA MINICHIELLO WILLIAMS Public Policy Officer, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, PETER SAUNDERS General Secretary, Christian Medical Fellowship, THE REV RICHARD CUNNINGHAM Chief Executive Officer Universities & Colleges Christian Fellowship, DR PETER MAY Chairman, Universities & Colleges Christian Fellowship

---------------------------------------------------------

Then coverage by the National Secular Society:

Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus

Senior Bishops of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, have defended the right of several university Christian Unions to practise discrimination against non-Christians and gay people. Unions in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh have been prohibited from using university faculties and in some cases from being recognised as a club because of allegations that they are discriminating.

In a letter to The Times, the clerics used the usual tactic of presenting themselves as the victims when they have been caught out discriminating against others. “[Christian students] are facing considerable opposition and discrimination in violation of their rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association,” wrote the Anglican bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Chester, Southwell and Nottingham, Lichfield, Dover and Willesden, along with the Roman Catholic church’s lead Bishop on Higher Education, and with signatories from academics and representatives from national Christian organisations.

They claim that the Student Guilds/Associations, in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh in particular, have changed their anti-discrimination provisions to discriminate against Christian students. In a complete reversal of the true situation, the bishops say the action by the Guilds is “intolerant and unlawful, and that the Christian Unions currently suspended should be re-instated with full student union society rights.”

Last Monday, Christian students at Exeter University served a Letter before Action upon the university’s Registrar, and on the Student Guild after it was suspended for being too exclusive. The letter stated that unless the CU was fully reinstated with full student society rights within 14 days, legal action would be taken against the University, the Guild and Guild officers personally, under the Human Rights Act, and that substantial damages would be claimed against them.

At Edinburgh University, a course looking at orthodox Biblical teaching on relationship, sex and marriage has been banned from being taught on campus because it recommended literature on how homosexuals can be “cured” by prayer. The Students’ Association claimed the “Pure” course was homophobic, and breached the S.A.’s and the universities anti-discrimination policies.

CU representatives are due to meet the vice-chancellor this week and a further legal letter is likely to be served.

-----------------------------------

The central questions are: Who is bullying whom? Who is really intolerant? Who has empathy, and who shows understanding and acceptance?

Well equipped and qualified for the task

HEFCE-GMP Projects - Occupational stress in higher education

Details of this project are as follows:
Lead HEI / Representative body University of Plymouth

The project aims:

* to provide stress benchmarks for HE
* to enable comparisons with other professions and intra-sector comparisons with other HEIs
* to relate these to a survey of current good practice in stress management
* to support a consortium of HEIs to institute and evaluate institutional strategies to improve stress management.

Collaborative partners:

* University of Birmingham
* Bolton Institute
* Brunel University
* University of Gloucestershire
* Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine
* Keele University
* King's College London
* Leeds Metropolitan University
* UMIST
* Manchester Metropolitan University
* University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
* University of Plymouth
* University of Surrey
* University of Wolverhampton

Project Leader: Professor Christine Webb
Position Professor of Health Studies
Department Institute of Health Studies
Institution: University of Plymouth
Address: Veysey Building, Earl Richards Road North, Exeter, EX2 6AS
Telephone: 01392 475173
Email: c1webb@plymouth.ac.uk
--------------------------------------
In our opinion, some of the collaborative partners are well equipped and qualified for the task :(

Staffordshire University whistleblower accuses sports centre staff of fraud and corruption

A whistleblower who accused university sports centre staff of corruption and fraud has won legal claims against her former employers.

Sports manager Fiona Roberts accused Staffordshire University staff of a string of wrongdoings costing thousands of pounds.
She claimed that:

•  Staff pocketed money from deleted sports bookings
•  Staff took equipment to moonlight as fitness coaches
•  10p coins were going missing from lockers
•  There were discrepancies with vending machine cash
•  University equipment was sold on Facebook

Ms Roberts told a previous Birmingham employment tribunal hearing that there was a “culture of staff taking what they could and of being proud of being able to steal money.”

The allegations were made as Ms Roberts accused the university of unfair treatment which caused her to resign, prompting a legal claim for constructive unfair dismissal. She also claimed damages for breach of contract.

Ms Roberts, 47, joined the university in 2000 and was sports manager both for the university’s campus at Stafford and at the Sir Stanley Matthews university sports campus at Stoke-on-Trent. In a witness statement she said: “It came to my notice that sports equipment belonging to the university was missing and I suspected two staff members whom I believed were using the equipment to provide fitness coaching for their own private gain.

“I made the management aware of the situation.”

The tribunal was told in Ms Roberts’ statement that the bookings system was allegedly abused by staff. Bookings were deleted and the money pocketed by staff who were later suspended, she claimed.
But the university opposed her legal claims, and accused her of failing to act when “wrongdoing” issues were brought to her attention.

“She should have known something was amiss when the sports centre income for August and September in 2013 was £28,000 down against the budget,” university bosses said.

Ms Roberts denied that she had not responded.

“There was a knee jerk reaction to suspend me without considering my long service and the fact that I brought wrongdoings to the attention of the management,” she said.

And last week tribunal judge Mr David Dimbylow agreed, ruling that her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and damages were both well-founded and successful.

”I concluded that the claimant had undertaken no action which was culpable or blameworthy,” he said.

“She did not cause, or contribute to, her losing her job and it would not be just or equitable to reduce any award. We go on to state, contrary to the respondent’s assertions, that there was no repudiatory conduct on part of the claimant.”

Mr Dimbylow added that Ms Roberts’ suspension related to a need for a full and formal investigation into the possible misuse of the booking system and serious allegations of potential fraud and breach of professional responsibility.

“As we understand it, two employees who were dismissed were involved in the competing gym business and the misuse of cash,” said Mr Dimyblow.

A tribunal hearing to announce the amount of the award to be granted, did not take place. A tribunal spokesman said later: “It appears a settlement may have been reached in private prior to the hearing.”

University agrees to pay £35,000 after losing discrimination case

Academic not given job because she was Irish - Compensation on hold until after an appeal

By Clare Dyer, legal editor. Monday April 23, 2007. The Guardian

Warwick University has agreed to pay £35,000 in compensation, subject to appeal, to an Irish academic after a unanimous employment tribunal ruling that it discriminated against her on the grounds of her race. The Birmingham tribunal ruled last month that the university failed to select Patricia Walls for a research job because she was Irish and gave the post to a less-qualified candidate instead.

A spokesman for the university said that although it had agreed the amount of compensation, it did not accept the tribunal's finding that it was guilty of race discrimination and would be appealing. Payment of the compensation, for loss of earnings and injury to feelings, is on hold, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Dr Walls, 44, who originally comes from Northern Ireland but now lives in Chipping Camden, Gloucestershire, applied for a post in 2005 as a research fellow with the centre for research in ethnicity and mental health, part of the university's medical school.

The job was to carry out research aimed at improving mental health services for black and ethnic minority communities. Dr Walls, who has a PhD in ethnicity and health, has published and carried out extensive fieldwork on the subject. She works as an independent research consultant and holds an honorary research fellowship at Strathclyde University.

Of the four-person interview panel, which included three psychiatrists, two had worked with Dr Walls before. Sivasankaran Sashidharan, an honorary professor, had encouraged her to apply for the post after working with her at Glasgow on a project on the mental health of four minority communities: Afro-Caribbean, south Asian, Chinese and Irish. Hannah Bradby, a sociology lecturer, was on the same team as Dr Walls at Glasgow, but the tribunal found that the two had had a "poor relationship".

Of the three members of the interview panel who gave evidence, one said she had "flicked through" the university's equality and recruitment policies, while the other two admitted they had never read them. The panel did not assess the candidates against the advertised criteria and made their decision on interview performance.

During the interview Dr Walls asked which minority communities the research would cover and was told it would cover Afro-Caribbeans and south Asians. She said it would be a better project if it included the Irish and Chinese communities as well.

The tribunal said the candidate who was appointed had much less research experience than Dr Walls. She had yet to complete her PhD, although when Dr Walls queried the outcome she was told - in what the university says was a genuine error - that she already had a doctorate.

While Dr Walls had submitted a detailed CV, the successful candidate had not put in a CV at all. Dr Walls was given various reasons for her failure, some of which were "very misleading", the tribunal said. It concluded the decision not to appoint her was affected by the assumption the panel made that she would not be interested in the project unless it included the Irish community - an assumption which would not have been made about a non-Irish person.

Dr Walls said she was "very pleased" by the outcome and hoped it would encourage others to challenge flawed recruitment procedures.

UCU uncovers high price of failure to hit REF targets

More than 10 per cent of academics at eight UK universities have been told that failure to meet their institution’s expectations on producing work for the research excellence framework will lead to redundancy, according to a survey by the University and College Union.

In recent weeks, Times Higher Education has highlighted several examples of what critics have described as draconian treatment of non-submitted academics, but the UCU survey, carried out in June, suggests that policies vary widely.

Just over 4 per cent of nearly 7,500 respondents report having been informed by a manager or senior colleague that failure to meet REF expectations will result in redundancy. At Middlesex University, however, 29 per cent of respondents have received such messages.

Other institutions with high percentages include the University of Leicester (24 per cent of respondents), City University London (21 per cent), Queen’s University Belfast (18 per cent) and the universities of Birmingham (13 per cent), Sussex, Warwick and Cardiff (11 per cent each).

A Middlesex spokesman said that although the institution “places substantial new focus” on research, no compulsory redundancies had been threatened.

Meanwhile, 17 per cent of respondents at the University of Warwick say they have been told to expect disciplinary procedures for non-submission, compared with 2 per cent of all respondents.
A Warwick spokesman denied that its performance management procedures were linked to the REF.

At the University of Essex, 29 per cent of academics report having been told to expect denial of promotion, 20 per cent to expect transfer to inferior terms and conditions, and 59 per cent to expect to be moved to teaching-focused contracts. Sector averages for these threats are 10, 4 and 12 per cent, respectively.

An Essex spokesman said that it had “clear targets for all staff with research in their contracts to be submitted to the REF”, with 60 per cent of all academics to be submitted. But since “other factors” affected who were submitted, non-submission was not seen “in itself” as a “performance issue”.

He added that promotions were made in accordance with a strict set of clearly stated criteria. A small number of academics had moved on to teaching-only contracts, but Essex’s priority was to help research staff maximise their potential.

At the University of East Anglia, 36 per cent of academics have been told to expect “capability procedures” to address underperformance, compared with a sector average of 4 per cent.

A UEA spokesman said that non-submitted staff were being “mentored to help them progress their research careers”, while the institution had also “explored in a positive way the opportunity for a small number of staff” to take up teaching-focused roles, which enjoyed “parity of esteem” with research roles.

Several of the universities also said that the survey’s relatively small sample sizes – typically less than 100 responses for each institution – were not representative.

But Stefano Fella, national industrial relations official at the UCU, insisted that they were “reasonable”, with the results demonstrating “a significant level of discontent even where respondents said they were going to be included in the REF”.

Across the sector, 53 per cent of respondents fear losing their jobs if they fail to meet REF criteria. Some 61 per cent expect to be submitted and 21 per cent do not, a figure roughly evenly split between those who do not meet quality criteria and those who do not fit into institutional submission strategies.

Only 35 per cent of respondents agree that their institution’s selection procedures are transparent. Six per cent indicate that selections are made by senior managers without any input from peer review.
Meanwhile, nearly 25 per cent of respondents – and just under 30 per cent of women – say they undertake more than half of their work on REF outputs outside “reasonable” hours.

Some 34 per cent (39 per cent of women) say that meeting REF expectations has had a negative impact on their health.

Mr Fella said the survey confirmed what the UCU had been hearing from members about the impact the REF was having on their lives.

“Universities should acknowledge the REF is a bit of a game they play to maximise their reputation and funding, and separate it from treatment and assessment of staff,” he said.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

UCU publishes motions for Congress - Bullying on the agenda

By Debbie Andalo, Tuesday April 24, 2007. EducationGuardian.co.uk

The privatisation of university services and the problem of bullying in higher education will come under the spotlight at the inaugural congress of the University and College Union (UCU) next month.

Issues around academic freedom and cuts in adult education have also been included in motions to be discussed by the 400 delegates expected to attend the three-day event in Bournemouth which starts on May 30.

...The union's joint general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "The first congress will set the tone for the largest post-16 education union in the world, and really allow us to start working to represent our vast membership."

The UCU was formed in June last year following the merger of the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (Natfhe).
-----------------------------
From: Univesity and College Union (UCU)

Topic: Inaugural UCU Congress, 30 May - 1 June 2007: First report of the Provisional Congress Business Committee including motions submitted

Summary: Motions submitted for debate at the inaugural meeting of UCU Congress and Sector Conferences to be held 30 May – 1 June 2007 in Bournemouth

Contact: Catherine Wilkinson, senior administrative officer cwilkinson@ucu.org.uk;

Paul Bennett, national official pbennett@ucu.org.uk; (Note: Paul Bennett will be out of the office until 18 April)

'...Congress recognises that bullying and harassment are particularly likely to affect women, LGBT, BME and disabled members, hourly paid members and other members who are perceived as vulnerable. While it is recognised that UCU may have to advise, support and represent both sides in this type of case, it is particularly important that the person alleging bullying and harassment, particularly when a woman, LGBT, BME or disabled person is given the best possible advice, support and representation and feels that they are taken seriously.

Congress instructs the NEC to issue advice on handling of bullying, harassment and violence against women and minority group members and recommendations for policy measures to prevent it...'

OK, so the 'Congress' asks the 'NEC' (National Executive Committee) to 'issue advice'... Further down we read:

'Bullying in post 16 education (Bradford College). Congress notes:

1. surveys indicating growing management bullying in education, often related to workloads, restructuring, marketisation, and management aims to boost productivity;
2. huge costs in terms of staff turnover, sickness and burn-out where managers ignore the work/life balance and fail in their duty of care to staff;
3. bullying is not an individual’s problem but the responsibility of the institution to stop and the union to resist.

Congress resolves:

1. to launch a major training campaign for UCU members and reps to fight bullying and harassment;

2. to organise a national conference on bullying and harassment;

3. to encourage UCU branches to collectivise anti-bullying action in post-16 institutions by:

a. organising bullying and harassment surveys;
b. negotiating anti-bullying policies and making them work through regular monitoring and training;
c. where this fails, organising collective responses including the declaration of collective disputes and ballots for strike action.'

Further down we also read:

'Equality in universities (Northumbria University)

Congress notes with concern the lack of priority given by UK universities to equality issues. and how the impact of the neo-liberal agenda, globalisation and increased managerialism has led to increases in bullying, harassment and stress in academic staff.

We are particularly concerned that
- many universities have not fully implemented the legal requirement for a Race Equality scheme, i.e. have not carried out Race Equality impact assessments
- the Stonewall Diversity champions table suggests a lack of attention to LGBT issues in many Universities.

Congress is asked to support:
- the election of an Equality Officer in every UCU Branch
- a national network of UCU Equality Officers with an annual conference and regular training sessions
- an audit of bullying and harassment in Universities
- equality being raised with the national employers with the demand for an urgent review of the issue in universities.'

And we continue reading - further down:

'Bullying (Nottingham Trent University, Clifton)

Sector Conference notes that Bullying is a seriously damaging problem within HEI’s. It can occur in a wide variety of different ways between managers, employees and/or students. When bullying occurs it often results in poor performance, stress, sickness absence and leaves very unpleasant feelings for the people directly involved. Bullying is certainly not needed in any educational institution and should not be tolerated in any form whatsoever.

Therefore Conference resolves that awareness training should be provided by both the institutions themselves and within UCU. Also,that harassment procedures exist within all HEI’s to deal effectively with this serious issue. Furthermore UCU should ensure that policies and procedures on this topic are disseminated widely and effectively across the sector within a high profile campaign to increase awareness of the damaging effects caused.'

With some disbelief, we continue reading...

' Workplace bullying (University of Birmingham)

Conference notes the growing incidence of alleged workplace bullying in HE institutions, often associated with RAE outputs, unreasonable research, teaching and administration targets, erosion of accountability and transparency in university governance, and unaccountable and reprehensible practices in management, recruitment and promotions.

Conference welcomes the 2006 House of Lords ruling on the case of Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, which will make it easier for an employee to bring a bullying-related claim against his/her employer under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and obtain damages for anxiety caused by the harassment, and any financial loss resulting from it.

Conference instructs Executive to issue guidance on the implications of this important case to all regional officials, LA/branch committees and personal casework officers.

Conference further instructs Executive to work with UCU's Legal Office to bring cases before the courts for work-related bullying in HE institutions.'

We are speechless... but we keep reading:

'Stop Bullying in Higher Education (Kingston University) - HE Sector Conference.

Kingston University calls upon the UCU to organise a national campaign against Bullying in Higher Education.

This should include:

1. code of conduct to be sent to all UCU members which should inform our conduct towards fellow members;
2. agreement of a new national UCU Anti-Bullying Policy which branches can use in negotiations with local employers;
3. management should ensure that staff are provided with a clear alternative channel of complaint if they prefer not to raise the matter with their Head of Department;
4. a demand that employers record, monitor and review bullying complaints and the outcome of bullying cases on an annul basis. That this information should be shared with the local UCU branch;
5. that employers review their anti-bullying training for senior staff and require all senior staff to regularly attend such courses.
   

---------------------------------------
Some brief comments on the above:

Lots of encouraging rhetoric - 'Why did it take so long?' one can ask. But then again, we are up and running now... One small step towards the right direction, perhaps the start of many more significant steps...We support what is proposed. It is in many ways a vindication that bullying is firmly on the agenda of the inaugural congress of the UCU. We are looking forward to the outcomes.

So you want to know how some universities waste taxpayer money and who the biggest offenders are?

5,528 UK university staff signed non disclosure agreements (NDA) over the last 3 years.

366 resulted from employment tribunal claims that were settled prior to hearings.

These settlements involved payments to staff of £4.4M and legal costs of £7.1M.

A total of 810 staff submitted claims to employment tribunals.

64 were settled without signing NDAs.

2,361 staff have signed NDAs in connection with research projects. More than half of these were at just one university.

2,801 have signed NDAs for reasons other than tribunal claims or research such as restructuring, grievances or disputes.

The Questions:

Q1 Over the last 3 years how many current or former university staff have submitted claims to the employment tribunal service?

Q2 How many of these were settled prior to a full hearing date?

Q3 How many of these settlements involved the insertion of a non disclosure (commonly known as gagging) clause in the terms of the settlement?

Q4 What is the total figure that has been paid out in these settlements?

Q5 What has the total expenditure on legal expenses been in relation to the above disputes?

Q6 Over the last 3 years how many current or former staff have signed non disclosure agreements purely in relation to the confidentiality of research activities?

Q7 Over the last 3 years how many current or former staff have signed non disclosure agreements for reasons not covered above?

Top 5 Employment Tribunal Claims
Manchester 40
Leeds Met 31
UCL 27
Birmingham 25
LSE 23

Top 5 Settlement NDAs
Manchester 26
Birmingham 20
Bristol 17
UCL 15
Manchester Met 11

Top 5 Settlement Costs
Liverpool John Moores £ 362,108
Manchester £ 247,881
Bristol £ 165,000
East London £ 156,210
Cambridge £ 148,505

Top 5 NDAs For Other Reasons
Manchester 669
Glasgow Caledonian 247
Cumbria 148
Plymouth Marjon 131
West of Scotland 136

Check how your university rates: http://www.academicfoi.com/untoldstories/

Manchester Metropolitan University’s skeletons of institutional racism re-surface

On September 22nd, 2011 we reported on Dr D’Silva’s challenge against his unfair dismissal by MMU and his application for judicial review (see http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=claudius+d'silva ).

On 27th March, 2012 the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) will consider the following:

a. MMU’s attempt to derail Dr D’Silva’s judicial review by forcing the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing first. If successful it would render the review meaningless.

b. An appeal against the ET decision made by Judge Sneath. Dr D’ Silva’s main ground of appeal is that Judge Sneath made an adverse finding against Dr D’Silva, that was based on evidence not before the court. This finding was used by MMU in his unfair dismissal hearing.

c. A review of the EAT decision which set aside overthrowing the landmark decision in his 2005 case of Institutional racial discrimination. This review is to be based on deception by MMU that they were not aware of the issues adjudicated by the Judge prior to her decision.

The Council of Ethnic Minority (http://sites.google.com/site/cemkumar/
manchestermetropolitanuniversityseniorma) and the Council for Academic Freedom and (www.cafas.org.uk) reported the scathing findings of the Manchester Employment Tribunal and its condemnation of the Institutional Racist Culture at MMU under the headship of the then Vice Chancellor, Dame Sandra Burslem.

In a landmark decision in cases no 2409906/03 – 2404779/04 the Manchester ET made findings of racial discrimination against the Vice-Chancellor Dame Sandra Burslem, Professor Barry Plumb Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Maureen O’Neal Pro- Vice Chancellor, Professor Leach Head of Chemistry & Materials, Mr Bill Hallam Human Resources Director, Mr. Peter Gibb Employee Relations Manager and Dr. Julia Dickinson Principal Lecturer in Chemistry. This decision was made in the absence of Dr D’Silva or his witnesses giving evidence to shift the burden of proof. Dr D’Silva at this time was on extended psychiatric leave due to harassment by the University’s management prior to and after his case.

The University’s Counsel, Mr Paul Gilroy.QC, a part time Chairman of the Birmingham Tribunal, despite being presented with no legal opposition and an open goal, failed to make the University’s case against racial discrimination.

Instead of accepting the ET’s black and white finding of racial discrimination, the University’s new Vice Chancellor, Professor John Brooks used the University funds (estimated at £1 million by his UCU representative) to prevent justice from being done by overturning the ET findings in favour of Dr D’Silva. In 2007 Mr Gilroy, MMU’s Counsel appealed the ET decision on the pretext that the case adjudicated by the ET was a different one from that pleaded by the Claimant in his grounds (ET1). Dr D’Silva’s solicitor and Counsel, defending the appeal before the EAT, were disadvantaged, since only Mr Gilroy knew the issues adjudicated by the judge, which they only disclosed recently via case management direction (CMD) documents which they deliberately omitted from the EAT Bundle prepared by them.

As an officer of the court, Mr Gilroy had a duty to ensure justice was done and seen to be done, which is not what he practiced – as can be seen from the case of Lingarten vs BMA in which complaints were raised against him in regard to the conduct of the Tribunal, which was biased in his favour. At the EAT appeal the case was heard by H.H. Judge Clarke, who had already adjudicated other MMU case, such as Rudzki vs MMU, EAT/640/99 with Mr Gilroy as Counsel. He dismissed his an appeal on the grounds that he was not entitled to a second opportunity to make his claim, but Judge Clarke, in Dr D”Silva’s case, tied his Counsel’s hand denying him a disclosure order regarding the issues adjudicated by the ET to prevent Counsel challenging MMU’s assertions. He thus gave MMU a second opportunity to make their case. Judge Clarke then overturned five of the findings that had been in favour of Dr D’Silva and, having dismantled his atomic bomb, of discrimination (removed the critical mass), remitted the sixth issue back to the ET to Judge O’Hara for a re-hearing.

However the judge O’Hara’s impartiality was compromized having being promoted to a full time member of the Manchester tribunal, having previously been used on the basis she was a part-time judge of the Leeds Tribunal, on the basis of bias present in the Manchester Tribunal. The hearing breached the EAT’s orders for the re-hearing and the issues adjudicated were different from those identified by Judge Garnon’s CMD document used in the original hearing used to make the findings of discrimination and the outcome obtained was the dismissal of all findings.

On the 4th May 2010 during disclosure of documents on Dr D’Silva’s new case, the respondents (MMU) provided Judge Garnon’s CMD document from the claimant’s 2005 case which had been withheld from three Counsels acting for Dr D’Silva in his different appeals which elaborated the issues identified by Judge Garnon and used by the Judge in making her findings against the University in its 1995 case. The respondent’s counsel, Mr Gilroy also revealed during an EAT appeal before Judge Richardson that he had spent five days discussing the issues of the case with the judge, having claimed before the EAT that he did not know the issues on which the judge had adjudicated.

The Courts have a duty to make sure justice is done and seen to be done and on the 27th March 2012 they will have to decide whether to allow Dr D’Silva’s review of the EAT decision based on the new evidence of gross deception, or accept the respondents’ defense that the claim is out of time.

Dr D’Silva relies on the Sally Clarke’s case in regard to gross injustice and misconduct. In her case, medical evidence was denied to the court, by the prosecution to progress their case. Time was not an issue then and should not be here.

Those interested in this case should attend the EAT at its new venue at 2-6 Salisbury Square London, EC4Y 8JX - 27th March, 2012

The Third Annual Tim Field Memorial Lecture

Saturday 8th Novembr 2008

The organisers warmly invite you to The Third Annual Tim Field Memorial Lecture to be held at Aston University in Birmingham, at 1.45 pm, on Saturday, 8th November 2008.

The event has the full support of Tim's family.

In 2006 we were privileged to have Professor Charlotte Rayner (from Portsmouth University) deliver the first memorial lecture, and, last year, Professors Duncan Lewis and Michael Sheehan (from the newly created Centre for Research on Workplace Behaviours at Glamorgan University) gave a joint presentation. This year's event will be different in format, and we very much envisage that the issues raised and the lessons learned will be applicable across the whole range of occupational sectors.

As in previous year's the event is free (although donations will be most welcome), but this time, as the number of places is limited, admission will be by ticket only.

'Difficult Labour' is an Interactive Theatre Programme, exploring the story of Catherine Lawrence, a midwife, who is experiencing bullying in the workplace. The performance explores Catherine's struggle to understand the pressure she experiences and the increasing desperation which leads her to an ill-judged attempt to collect evidence of her treatment. The performance is followed by a facilitated workshop through which audience members are encouraged to understand better the circumstances which lead to Catherine's crisis and to find positive ways forward for all concerned. Follow-up material will expand on the issues raised, helping promote greater understanding of bullying issues.

The programme has been created through co-operation between representatives of DAWN and OXBOW, John Somers and students from Exeter University's Department of Drama. The production team acknowledges the great help given by a range of individuals in the development of the programme. The Director, John Somers, can be contacted at:
j.w.somers@exeter. ac.uk

Requests for tickets should be submitted a.s.a.p. to Keith Munday:
keith@dignityatwork now.org.uk
and include the following information: your name, preferred postal address for future communications about the event, your telephone and mobile numbers, and your e-mail address.

Any questions you may have can be directed to Keith Munday at the above e-mail address, or on his mobile phone: 07979732037.

A trip down memory lane...

November 2006 Academic unions have their heads in the sand...

Pierre-Joseph, I think your cartoon is unfair. As a UCU (formerly AUT) casework officer I deal with cases of workplace bullyng constantly. Union officials and lay activists like myself spend a lot of our time and energy trying to support bullied academics. The main problem has been that until recently, workplace bullying was not in itself illegal: it was only illegal if it was discriminatory or could be shown to cause personal injury (very hard to prove in law). Thanks to the Majrowski ruling in the House of Lords, that should now change.

Sue Blackwell
UCU, University of Birmingham

-----------------------------

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said...

Dear Sue,

I have no doubt that good and active union members like yourself and perhaps many more, are indeed interested to support your academic colleagues and work against workplace bullying. You and the other active members of academic unions, is not the problem.

The problem is with the leadership of the our academic unions (AUT + NATFE = UCU), who for many years remained inactive, and in many cases caused harm. I speak not only from personal experience.

Please do not promise that due to the Majrowski rulling things will improve. What of the many who lost their jobs and their health - like myself? How is the damage repaired? I will never be able to practice my job anymore. This is the end of my academic career.

Our union reaction was and is so formulaic, that it has become predictable sadly.

The case below highlights the normal pattern:

"The behaviour of the AUT and their solicitors (Thompsons of Edinburgh) in relation to my case was abominable. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I felt considerably less stressed once I had decided to represent myself than when I had been represented by the AUT's solicitors. The solicitor who initially handled my case failed to advise me that I could have filed my initial claim under the Public Interest Disclosures Act, 1998. This failure had significant ramifications for the way the case was subsequently brought. The same solicitor failed to pass information from ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service) to me or from me to ACAS, thus prejudicing the possibility of a settlement without going to an employment tribunal. He also repeatedly failed to reply to my queries. At one point (when the University submitted a large dossier of papers) the case seemed to become too much for him and he passed it on to a junior colleague. She then sent a report to the AUT which managed to get the reason for my resignation wrong and made so many other misrepresentations that I had to send a nine page list of corrections to the AUT's legal aid committee. It was to no avail. The AUT decided to go with the solicitors misrepresentations, conveniently allowing them to avoid funding a potentially lengthy hearing.

The main thing that I learned from my correspondence with AUT officials and their solicitors was that the union subscriptions I had paid since 1986 were a complete waste of money. I urge all AUT members to think very carefully about why they are subscribing to this union and to consider cancelling their membership. I will make the correspondence available to any AUT member who is interested to consult it in London.

Should either the AUT or Thompsons Solicitors wish to contest what is on this page, I am more than prepared to answer them. If necessary, correspondence can be put up here."

And some more cases:

...After 2-3 years of inaction and no support from my union, with the last few months on medication and receiving mental health councelling, all this while on suspension because I tried to expose institutionalised bullying, and while I watch the serial bully being promoted and taking over my office, I very reluctantly decided to write to the top persons in my union a very polite letter reminding them that I have not receivedthe support I needed. This is the reply I received: "Our union does not
have a specialist on workplace bullying to deal with your case now. We do not normally use any specialist consultant...

...After the TUC (Trades Union Congress) I will be writing to the ILO, and then last I will resign my union membership making sure that the media know why...

...The trade unions already see, realise, understand the plague of bullying in the workplace. They are quite happy with it. That is the way things are meant to be. One man's [or woman's] workplace bullying is another man's [or woman's] strong management / flexible workforce mantra...

...It is one thing to have my employers not understanding bullying, and it is another thing if the union itself is ignorant...

...I have no doubt that unions and TUC are hopeless [with workplace bullying]. I still think it is worthwhile showing the world how hopeless they are - at a cost of a stamp...

...The TUC general secretary will say that he has no powers to intervene in the affairs of an individual trade union. The TUC is simply the trade union's trade union... I would have been relatively happier if my trade union had maintained indifference. They ended up working against me by destroying and delaying documents, passing confidential info to my employers, all sorts of things...

...I have first hand experience of one particular union that has sat on its hands twice, in cases I have seen and been involved in. That union of shame is XXXXXX. No wonder so many health workers live in fear, there is no protection whatsoever...

...The actions of my union have damaged my mental health and sense of trust far worse that the bullying of my employer...

Dear Sue, I have no problem accepting that perhaps - as I stated above - you are indeed very active and very concerned about workplace bullying, and as a UCU activist you are perhaps trying hard, BUT we do have a very long way to go, and I for one have paid a very heavy price for the inaction of my union, which left me with NO representation for over 8 months!

The pain of loosing your job, your colleagues, bullying, intimidation, etc, etc is something I can't describe, and all my union rep did was refer me to a web page...
------------------------

So Sally that was in 2006. Now it is 2009... Where have UCU got to?

Letter in THE April 23rd 2009 suggests that UCU have not got very far...

Removing the heads won't stem the rot

...The power in my university is in the hands of those whom I believe are driven by their own egos and their own glory. In this I believe they are supported by an obedient board of governors and a sychophantic union. I have spent a number of years challenging practices in my university in relation to Dignity at Work issues. Several grievances later I have got nowhere. In my experience, the university with the support of its governors, uses its power to prevent effective investigation. When that tactic fails it resorts to buying its way out of trouble. The union does nothing...

So Sally what are you going to do about that? To date my local union rep has managed to write a letter...

I think we need more effective action don't you Sally? Have you been reading the bullied blogger in the THE?

Aphra Behn

Open letter to UCU

Open letter to University and College Union.

We would like to bring to your attention the tragic issue of entrenched workplace bullying in higher education, and we would like to have your comments, suggestions and proposed strategies to deal with this. We are making some suggestions and comments below but ultimately we want to hear your opinions on the matter.

Right now most - if not all - HEIs have in place and are required to have in place anti-bullying policies. These exist on paper, but - as evidenced in numerous cases (Sheffield Hallam University, Leeds Metropolitan, Birmingham's School of Health Sciences), plus our own UCU survey, the problems persist. Quote from recent UCU survey:

'...An astonishing 82% said their institution had a management culture which 'actively contributed to stress' (87% in colleges, 80% in universities). 27% thought their management 'acknowledged the causes of stress' but only 15% thought their management 'sought to address the causes...'

Some rough figures: It is estimated that 14-16% of the British workforce experiences workplace bullying. In a union with a membership of over 100.000, this translates to over 14.000 members.

It appears that there are few, if any, 'formal' evaluations of bullying intervention programmes. For example, the recent HSE Research Report 024 reviewing supporting knowledge for stress management standards (Rick et al, 2002) found no studies examining evidence on interventions to reduce the bullying/harassment stressor.

In our opinion, it is far more productive for our union to intervene before disciplinary decisions are imposed on academics and other staff, before bullied staff loose their jobs under tragic circumstances. It is far more productive for a truly independent body, external body to assess if the university (employer) has indeed followed the right procedures before reaching a decision. This needs to happen before a decision is imposed and not after. The problem with formal grievance/discipline procedures, from the point of view of statistical monitoring, is that they come at the end of a long chain of actions and decisions and are therefore rare.

Usually, any mediation offered by the employer can be used / is used as another forum for power games where the target (victim) experiences the ultimate bullying and usually leaves with an exit package, a confidentiality clause and wrecked health. Internal grievance procedures never work in favour of the victims.

The 2005 Survey of HR Professionals: Which of the following factors impair your organisation's ability to deal effectively with bullying?

Unwillingness to acknowledge a problem by management - 74.4%
Prevailing management style - 70.4%
Lack of training in how to deal with bullying - 45.4%
Lack of cooperation from management - 44.4%
Inadequate procedures - 30.2%

In random order, some of the challenges we face, are:

• Failure of some employers/managers to fully implement ACAS guidelines, and in particular the right to call upon witnesses, to have representation, to have access to accurate records of all hearings. Yes, the Employment Tribunals can decide on this but does it have to always go that far? Are there no other options?

• Failure of some employers to have appropriate internal procedures, embedded with principles of natural justice. How many universities have a record of resolving employment disputes through negotiations and a truck record to prove so?

• Colleagues who are afraid to speak up for fear that they may suffer various forms of penalties. So the victim is often left without wtinesses. Which colleague will openly support the victim of bullying and become a witness against senior managers?

• HR and personnel departments caught in the dilemma between their professional training and professionalism, versus possible management 'pressures' to go along with the prevailing and obviously wrong groupthink.

• A noted lack of expert union reps in workplace bullying backed up by union active policy, strategy, negotiation, and legal action. There is a web page online from a network support group, and a legal/counseling help line that union members can phone, but the issue seems to be the lack of satisfactory results in some well document cases. The available help from the network support group, seems to come too late in the process.

• Funding and quality control bodies should somehow engage in the process of contributing to the implementation and appropriate application of internal grievance and disciplinary procedures. They should/can consider what is happening with workplace bullying, for this has effects on how the general workplace functions or dysfunctions. Yes, we know universities are independent bodies. True, but this is where the collective energies of multiple partners at all levels have to come into this, and the union is only one of them. In fact, the union could lead such a campaign and perhaps attempt to unite all the players in some kind of common cause.

Yes, we do have a new booklet that is well written, BUT the issue remains 'policing' and monitoring and from what we know, universities are not always good at policing their own. An independent party is indeed needed, an external party, even an ombudsman, something, anything… for there are far too many instances when universities when left on their own have not always done the right thing… (ACAS, internal procedures, discrimination, victimisation, racism etc)

TUC, Andrea Adams Trust, and other organisations are working/have worked on a number of projects – policing remains the issue, the gap, the weakness. We feel that our union could be more proactive on this issue and at least advocate for this. This is perhaps one of the central challenges. Does 'independence' mean lack of accountability and transparency on issues of workplace bullying?

The reply from HEFCE is/was that universities are accountable to their own governing bodies. Well, one wonders how cozy these relationships may become after some time. There is a voluntary code of practice for governors, but how many of us know about it or have read it? How many governors have been challenged successfully?

So, who has responsibility for this mess? So far, we have failed to pinpoint a single agent for change. That would be too easy. A collective and coordinated effort of multiple players is needed. We have a long way to go. We would like to know if our union will play a leading role in this or will remain a passive observer offering well-written booklets and support after the events.

It would be good to hear/read from all of you your thoughts and your suggestions on how to tackle workplace bullying in academia.

Louise Michel