Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment - UK

...Further and higher education institutions have a specific duty to monitor, by racial group, the recruitment of staff and their career progress. They are also expected to take reasonable and practicable steps to publish the results of their monitoring each year...

If the monitoring data show significant disparities between racial groups, employers should investigate the possible causes, and examine all the arrangements, procedures and practices that give effect to their policies in the field of employment, including recruitment, training, promotion, grievance and discipline, performance assessment and dismissal. The absence of disparities for ethnic minorities as a whole, or for one racial group in particular, should not be taken as evidence that ‘discrimination is not a problem’. The aim should be to make sure none of the rules, requirements, procedures or practices used, formally or informally, put any racial groups at a significant disadvantage...

Employers must not discriminate on racial grounds in the way they respond to grievances, or invoke disciplinary measures. Disciplinary action is an extreme measure and should be taken fairly and consistently, regardless of the worker’s racial group. Equally, allegations of racial discrimination or harassment must always be taken seriously and investigated promptly, not dismissed as ‘oversensitivity’ on a worker’s part.

...It is recommended that employers monitor, by racial group, the number of workers who have brought grievances or been subjected to disciplinary action (public authorities with at least 150 full-time-equivalent workers have a legal duty to do this; and the outcomes of each case. It will also be useful to be able to match the data with information about the workers’ grades, their managers and the areas of the organisation where they work.

...It is recommended that, before taking disciplinary action, employers should consider the possible effect on a worker’s behaviour of the following:

a. racist abuse or other provocation on racial grounds;
b. difficulty in communicating with, or understanding, colleagues; and
c. different cultural norms.

As part of their equal opportunities review, employers should use the monitoring data on grievances and disciplinary action to see if there are significant disparities...

It is recommended that employers monitor all dismissals, by racial group. They will find it useful to be able to match this data with information about the workers’ grades, the areas of the organisation where they work, and their managers...

Responsibilities

A. The governing body - The governors are responsible for:

• making sure the institution stays within the Race Relations Act and meets all its duties, including the general duty and the specific duties; and
• making sure the race equality policy and its procedures are followed.

B. The Vice-Chancellor / Principal / Rector - The Vice-Chancellor / Principal / Rector is responsible for:

• giving a consistent and high-profile lead on race equality issues;
• promoting the race equality policy inside and outside the institution; and
• making sure the race equality policy and its procedures are followed.

C. Managers, including heads of departments - Managers and heads of departments are responsible for:

• putting the policy and its strategies and procedures into practice;
• making sure all staff know their responsibilities, and receive support and training in carrying these out; and
• following the relevant procedures and taking action against staff or students who discriminate for reasons of race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origins.

From: http://www.cre.gov.uk/index.html [Commission for Racial Equality]

Ten Top Tips for Promoting Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions

1. It is essential to have senior management support for any initiatives you put in place – as well as the executive team, you may find it useful to involve governors in raising the profile of dignity at work issues. If the head of your institution and your governing Body are actively involved, for example in attending training sessions, it is much easier to encourage all other members of staff to do so too.

2. Having a well-written policy is vital – but this is only the first step, not an end in itself. Even the most skilfully crafted policy is useless if no-one within the institution has the confidence to use it. The chances of any policy being successful are much greater if it is part of a wider institutional approach that includes consideration of issues such as stress management, the use of advisers and the investigation process.

3. Help your managers to understand the differences between firm management and bullying – focus attention on how staff are managed and the ways in which communication takes place, as well as on the formal processes and procedures.

4. Emphasise the role of every member of the institution in combating bullying and harassment – those who witness it have as important a role to play as those who experience it directly. Include dignity at work as one of your core organisational values.

5. Offer a variety of sources of information and ways of accessing support. Not everyone will be comfortable talking to a stranger on the telephone, but others will prefer to discuss sensitive issues with someone who is not involved.

6. Communicate your policy and support services as widely as possible, using as many different types of media as you can. Some people do not have easy access to e-mail and the internet, so don’t confine your efforts solely to electronic means of communication.

7. Monitor and evaluate any initiatives you put in place – you will not have any evidence that they are working unless you are able to effectively measure your progress. Think carefully about how you are going to monitor the usage of every service you have in place and ensure you track your statistics over time to identify trends.

8. Consider having a staff attitude survey on a regular (every two or three years) basis. In this way, you will have an indication of how staff feel about working at your institution and you will have valuable data about a range of significant issues by which to track your progress in a qualitative way.

9. Train all your staff in the operation of the policy, placing emphasis on the organisational culture you are aiming for – and make sure that you include refresher training in your plans.

10. The culture of your institution must reflect what you say in your policies in order to effectively tackle bullying and harassment issues. Ensure that you work in partnership with the trades unions to promote these values and to identify any issues that need to be addressed. Make sure that you treat everyone fairly, irrespective of their status and position within the institution.

From: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/resources/daw/

Mutual trust and confidence

In Malik & anor v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) 1997 ICR 606 (Brief 592) the House of Lords finally confirmed the existence of a term which the lower courts and tribunals had been using and developing for many years, namely that the employer will not, ‘without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee’. While the duty is on both sides – trust and confidence must be mutual if the employment relationship is to work – most cases where it is raised are constructive dismissal cases brought by employees alleging a breach by the employer.

Disciplinary matters

Mutual trust and confidence can be undermined by the way in which an employer carries out a disciplinary procedure. In Alexander Russell plc v Holness EAT 677/93 EAT upheld a tribunal’s finding that an employer had been oppressive in summoning an employee to a disciplinary hearing and giving him a final written warning for poor timekeeping, where he had been given a written warning for the same thing only 24 hours earlier. Such treatment might have been appropriate, however, where the complaint was one of gross misconduct.

Employers should exercise caution when suspending an employee, even where it is specifically permitted by the contract. In Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council G, a residential care worker, was suspended pending investigations into alleged sexual abuse of a child with learning difficulties, which later turned out to be unfounded. G suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the suspension and investigation, and was unable to return to work.

The Court of Appeal held that to accuse someone of sexual abuse was likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, and that the Council had no reasonable and proper cause for their actions. The information given by the child had been vague and, although further investigation was required, it could not be said that the allegation necessarily involved sexual abuse. The Council should have considered whether it was necessary to separate G from the child and, if so, whether some form of action other than suspension could be contemplated, such as a temporary transfer to other work, or a short period of leave.

Impossible tasks

In Hellman International Forwarders Ltd v Cooper EAT 1040/96 an employee was told that if she did not complete an enormous backlog of paperwork within a fortnight she would lose her job. She resigned, and the tribunal found that the task would have been impossible. EAT upheld the tribunal’s finding that she had been constructively dismissed.

...in a few words...

...They wanted to 'expedite' the process so they called for an Appeal Hearing two days before Good Friday - when all staff are away, when all students are away, when all witnesses are away. Despair sunk in. Yet, within 48 hours numerous witnesses were prepared to travel, they were prepared to be there. A flood of witnesses...

The spineless mob told him that you can never beat the 'Institution'; why become a martyr?

But there was fire in his belly. There was fire in everyone's belly...

So they wanted to 'expedite' the process. They wanted an Appeal Hearing with no witnesses. Perfect timing - they thought.

Once confronted with the list of witnesses, they 'adjourned'... Yes, they 'adjourned' with a bleeding nose...

The Dalai Lama said 'If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito!'

And so the 'Institution' has withdrawn, it has 'adjourned' to contemplate the next trick in the book - in this David and Goliath battle, David is getting stronger by the day as Goliath has lost any semblance of morality, of natural justice, of honesty... We live to fight another day - a victory for the small people against the 'Institution' : )

The serial bully sits by the side. He caused all this. He continues to victimise the students... And so the 'Institution' having backed him all the way, have no face to accept his mistakes, his faults. Who pays the price? The students.

Never surrender - we fight on. We fight on for our friends, for the students, for justice...They 'adjourned' and we smile : )

The Serial Bully

'...Ensure you know how to identify, expose and deal with the serial bully, who is often an unrecognised sociopath. It is estimated one person in thirty is a serial bully. Find out how the serial bully gets away with their unacceptable behaviour repeatedly. Start by learning to recognise the serial bully from his/her behaviour profile. Know how to investigate a case of bullying. It's a specialised job and an investigation is more than just asking questions and taking statements.

The serial bully is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise pool negative information about them whilst indulging their gratification of seeing others (employer and employee) destroy each other.

The serial bully is also adept at distorting people's perceptions of them. In the event of the serial bully being identified and held to account, the bully may leave, resulting in the employer defending litigation (for the bully's behaviour) which may last years. If you have a serial bully on the staff, then the bullying you see will be only the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing by that person...'

From: Life After Adult Bullying

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

'... [The serial bully is] An individual who repeatedly intimidates or harasses one individual after another. A victim is selected and bullied for an extended period of time until he/she leaves... Since there are often no witnesses, HR may accept the account of the bullying staff member, possibly a serial bully. The bully may even convince the organization to get rid of the troublesome victim. Once the victim is out of the organization, the bully usually needs to find a new victim. This is because the bully needs someone on whom he can project his inner feelings of inadequacy.

The bully may prevent others from sharing negative information about him by sowing conflict... Most cases of bullying involve a serial bully - one person to whom all the dysfunction can be traced. The serial bully has done this before, is doing it now - and will do it again. Investigation will reveal a string of predecessors who have either left unexpectedly or in suspicious circumstances, have taken early or ill-health retirement, have been unfairly dismissed, have been involved in disciplinary or legal action, or have had stress breakdowns. Serial bullies exploit the recent frenzy of downsizing and reorganisation to hinder recognition of the pattern of previous cases...

Most people with this profile are incompetent at their job and the bullying is intended to hide this incompetence...'

From: http://www.bullyonline.org/

'...[The sociopath] Pathological Lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. Shallow Emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises...'

From: Profile of the Sociopath

'...Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs.

Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition...'

From: Inside the Mind of a Sociopath

Grievance procedures failing

Acas has this week published the results of research into the impact of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Religion or Belief Regulations 2003.

The report, commissioned by the DTI, found that workplace discrimination allegations regarding sexual orientation were dominated by claims of bullying and harassment including name-calling, verbal threats, intimidation and physical assaults. Many religion and belief employment tribunal claims also included instances of bullying or harassment.

Another key finding was that grievance procedures were found to be an unsatisfactory arrangement for resolving employees' complaints. [We had to wait for ACAS to discover this!]

"For a majority, dispute resolution procedures were seen to be flawed, often exacerbating the experience of discrimination rather than resolving it," said the report. [Fascinating news!]

"One strong theme among both sets of claimants was the tendency of their employers to respond to their complaint by seeing them as the problem, rather than the victim of unfair treatment." [Even more fascinating news!]

Acas's Rita Donaghy said: "These 2003 Employment Equality Regulations provide a further step forward in outlawing discrimination in our workplaces. This is the first time since the new regulations came into force that sexual orientation and religion or belief at work has been subject to research. The findings shed new light on these issues both from the employees and employers perspective."

In light of the review findings, the Government has now issued a consultation document aimed at improving the way employment disputes are resolved. [We are holding our breath!]

From: http://www.clickdocs.co.uk/news/view.asp?ID=212

Incompetence: The Top of the Food Chain

The easiest way to become incompetent is "Incompetence By Promotion". This happens when you are hired into a job that you are well suited for. Once hired, you must find a way to be promoted in order to become more incompetent. The first promotion is the hardest, but once you convince (or threaten) management into promoting you, you are well on your way to incompetence.

Once you are promoted, your intelligence increases ten-fold. You now know at least fifteen times more than the person recently promoted to your job. While this may seem good, your next promotion is far, far more exciting. You must make another promotion the most important thing in your life. For once you are promoted again, your intelligence becomes ONE HUNDRED times as great. Yes, you now know 115 times as much as the new person promoted to do your first job. See how ignorant they are. They have no idea what they are doing. Tell them so. Make sure they are doing what you think is best, because you are far, far more intelligent than they are.

This method of promotion has a cascading effect. Those promoted behind you to fill the voids left by your promotion are even less qualified than you, and have been promoted up the ladder into jobs they now have no clue how to do. Only you, with your magnificent intelligence is qualified to tell them what to do. Don't let up - your goal is to be the top. Keep those promotions coming, even if it means killing off those higher-up than you. For one day...

The top of the Food Chain. You made it. You now sit in the big leather chair, behind the huge wooden desk, in the biggest office, with the nicest view. How smart are you? Your intelligence can no longer be compared to those below you. This level of intelligence has had a special term reserved for it: Incompetence. If you take time out of your important day to pay attention to what your worm-like subordinates say, you are likely to hear them describe you as such. When you tell them they are doing it wrong, when you chastise them for their asinine decisions, when you give them an order which is the *only* way to do something, they will praise your magnificence. You are the embodiment of Incompetence.

From: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Incompetence

The Art of War - By Sun Tzu

• According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans.

• All warfare is based on deception.
  
  
• Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
  
  
• Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
  
  
• If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
  
  
• If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
  
  
• If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.
  
  
• Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
  
  
• These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
  
  
• The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Our Poll: How effective is your university's anti-bullying policy?

The results of our poll - so far - show that anti-bullying policies are not at all effective or non-existent. Of course the results can only be indicative. However, it is worth noting that from the 70 votes cast only 2 describe them as 'very effective'. Considering how diverse the voters are, this is worrying.

Please cast your vote and perhaps suggest a question for the next poll which we hope to start in May 2007.

Hypotheses are true...

Anonymous said:

In the midst of experimenting with the following laws I have found that their hypotheses are true at Wolverhampton.

In particular:

• Skorupski's Law: The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality.

• Farlie's Law: If in one's professional career one reaches a position way above what is merited, then one can only maintain this position or progress further by surrounding oneself with incompetent people.

Farlie's extensions:

1. If the people surrounding you are not incompetent, filter their every communication so that they appear incompetent and that you've rescued them.

2. If you are/have been the servant of one, then it is reasonable to assume that you will be the one in the future.

Further research and experimentations:

Please, add other locations and subjects observed so that if a significant number of cases are detected they can become published in a relevant conference. ;-)

-----------------------------------
There are of course 'The Peter Principle', stated as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", and

'The Dilbert Principle', stating that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management (generally middle management), in order to limit the amount of damage that they're capable of doing.

The 'Max Rangers Principle' (a new one), states that when called to account, make up anything spontaneously to fit the needs at that moment.

And an extension to the 'Max Rangers Principle': to be a convincing and practised liar, feign victimhood when held accountable, usually by bursting into tears or claiming you're the one being bullied and harassed.