The bullying of academics follows a pattern of horrendous, Orwellian elimination rituals, often hidden from the public. Despite the anti-bullying policies (often token), bullying is rife across campuses, and the victims (targets) often pay a heavy price.
"Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci - "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men [or good women] do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
January 27, 2008
Sir Peter Scott and Leadership for Higher Education in the 21st Century
The London South Employment Tribunal has ruled against Regina Benveniste in her claim for unfair dismissal and victimization. In its failure to refer to key points of compelling evidence presented by Dr Benveniste in her case documents (including documentary evidence that the Personnel Director, Liz Lanchberry, had openly called for her immediate dismissal because she could not bear the thought of Dr Benveniste bringing forward an appeal of her grievance to the Board of Governors), the Tribunal has whitewashed a case in which an employee was solely and exclusively targeted for imposition of workplace rules on working at home.
The University freely admitted that it had created the policy barring working at home for more than one day per week in order to address Dr Benveniste's working methods. It did not impose such a policy on any other staff member, nor did it subject any other staff member to disciplinary/dismissal procedings, as it did with Dr Benveniste. This "convenient" action to single out and dismiss Dr Benveniste occurred following her having filed a suit for discrimination and harassment, as well as a grievance which was, of course, not upheld by the University.
In the case R Benveniste v Kingston University, Kingston University was represented by a legal team that costed £313,919.07 of public funds. Dr Benveniste represented herself as she could not afford the cost of extensive litigation. For more details of this case see http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/echr.pdf.
Read more about it at:
3 comments:
Latest News About Kingston University
The London South Employment Tribunal has ruled against Regina Benveniste in her claim for unfair dismissal and victimization. In its failure to refer to key points of compelling evidence presented by Dr Benveniste in her case documents (including documentary evidence that the Personnel Director, Liz Lanchberry, had openly called for her immediate dismissal because she could not bear the thought of Dr Benveniste bringing forward an appeal of her grievance to the Board of Governors), the Tribunal has whitewashed a case in which an employee was solely and exclusively targeted for imposition of workplace rules on working at home.
The University freely admitted that it had created the policy barring working at home for more than one day per week in order to address Dr Benveniste's working methods. It did not impose such a policy on any other staff member, nor did it subject any other staff member to disciplinary/dismissal procedings, as it did with Dr Benveniste. This "convenient" action to single out and dismiss Dr Benveniste occurred following her having filed a suit for discrimination and harassment, as well as a grievance which was, of course, not upheld by the University.
Have you seen the recent leaked document concerning Kingston University on Wikileaks? Maybe you could have some insight?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Kingston_University_witness_intimidation
In the case R Benveniste v Kingston University, Kingston University was represented by a legal team that costed £313,919.07 of public funds. Dr Benveniste represented herself as she could not afford the cost of extensive litigation.
For more details of this case see http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/echr.pdf.
Post a Comment