An injury to one is an injury to all

Press Release - Please Read & Disseminate

An academic has been dismissed from the School of Computing and IT at the University of Wolverhampton on the grounds of Gross Misconduct following the use of email and an online blog devoted to bullying in academia to express criticisms and complaints towards management and policies within the University.

References to bullying, harassment and discrimination were publicised via both internal University of Wolverhampton email and more recently via the http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/ website and accompanying forum (the message can be seen at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/message/111).

The Senior Lecturer in Computing, who has been disabled from work due to stress and depression for over six months, was unable to participate at the disciplinary hearing because of his illness and the decision to dismiss was taken in his absence. He remains unfit for work after a long standing dispute and a string of unresolved grievances regarding relations in the School and working conditions.

The Health and Safety Executive has been called in since October 2006 to investigate the management of workplace stress and return to work procedures at the University of Wolverhampton.

The "Bullied Academics" blog and forum have become virtual meeting points for academics from the UK and worldwide to share similar experiences and constructive discussion about bullying in academia.

From:
Melody J. Boyce
Email: melodyboyce@yahoo.co.uk
----------------------------------
The above (received: Sat May 5, 2007 4:14 pm) relates to a recent post: Bullying of Academics in Higher Education: Questions for Caroline - Wolverhampton, UK.

Also, extract from 'Talking is not working' - what the target/victim posted on an anti-bullying online group:

'...I would also like to explore the connections between bullying and leadership/management styles which I believe give the possibility to bullies (managers and non-managers) to thrive and the university policies that hide the bullying and the bullies behind managerial procedures.

... From my side I am trying to build a blog with all the happenings of management-union collusion, probation flaws, breach of contract, favouritism, lack of interviews for promotions all backed by bullying at Wolverhamtpon in the School of Computing and IT and will publish it soon with name and surnames and evidence (of course)...'
---------------------------
Brian Martin has ellaborated upon the 'five Rs'. In brief:

The keys to backfire
• Reveal: expose the injustice, challenge cover-up
• Redeem: validate the target, challenge devaluation
• Reframe: emphasise the injustice, counter reinterpretation
• Redirect: mobilise support, be wary of official channels
• Resist: stand up to intimidation and bribery

When and how does an individual case - like Rosa Parks - become a catalyst for major change? It helps when an injustice to one is perceived as an injustice to all. This is a call to arms...

Questions for Caroline - Wolverhampton, UK

Questions for Caroline:

Of course, there has been another dismissal. It is of my partner, from the School of Computing and IT at the University of Wolverhampton notified by letter.

The claim is gross misconduct.

Apparently, he was too critical of the bully Dean of School and the widespread malpractice which I (unusually being a non-employee) managed to witness. One of the criticisms they seem to have disliked was a message posted on the yahoo group in response to the item “Talking is not working”.

I’ll refrain from commenting for now on the ridiculous charade reported by letter as a ‘hearing’ but all the details will soon be out. Please look out for my series Pack of Wolves.

My partner, meanwhile, is too ill with stress and depression (and has been since 2005) to respond appropriately and indeed could not attend the kangaroo court himself.

Needless to say the bullying and intimidation extended to use of messages posted on this forum should not make you fearful. Keep posting and keep naming and shaming.

In the likely event that you know these individuals, please tell them that the news is still here and will be here and else, that is, tell Mr Gordon, Sir Geoff Hampton, Prof Gipps, Mr Cutler and especially Prof (without Doctorate) Moreton, happy reading, there’s more to come here and elsewhere.

BTW: I was nearly forgetting my partner, who has been dismissed has achieved to date:

HND in BIT (commended by examination board) at Brunel University

BSc (hons) in BIT (commended by examination board) Open University

MPhil in Computation (commended by the examiner) at University of Manchester

PGCert at the University of Wolverhampton (despite bullying and harassment from tutors and line management)

He is also studying for an MBA with good results at the moment.

A question then for the VC Caroline Gipps, why did you not take care of all these skills , or when have you ever taken care of these skills Caroline?

Since being at the University of Wolverhampton my partner has also funded all his own studies together with other conferences, except the PGCert. He has written publications and spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds on books etc. etc. etc, without presenting one receipt to Prof (without doctorate) Moreton. Since 2005, he has been without any training supported by the University and of course he pays his own professional associations membership fees included the Higher Academy which the University instead uses for validation purposes.

Another question for Caroline, is this the fairness you refer to in your speeches where you care so much for your staff, Caroline?

My partner has also been without an office since May 2006 although one was promised by Dr Bechkoum (new Head of School of Computing at Derby University) and never implemented. My partner had to receive students in the campus bar for tutorials since May 2006 as I was shocked to witness on numerous occasions.

Caroline, seriously no space for one employee, with all these qualifications, skills, qualities and passion and seriousness about his job, bullied out of his office by the Union rep in the School of IT of your University?

Anyway, too many difficult questions for now, Caroline. More to come later with the first Pack of Wolves story: Interviews for Senior Lecturer at the School of Computing and IT, University of Wolverhampton (yes, it really started that early on).

Anybody on this forum angry about the public attack and shame of the Union collusion with management at the University of Wolverhampton?

Nice to know at least that this forum’s readership extends beyond its contributors, so the bullies themselves can believe what they see now in the mirror.

Regards,
MJB.
------------------
Above post received Friday 4 May 2007.

From 'Staff Disciplinary Procedures', Wolverhampton University:

'...In cases of alleged gross misconduct the University will normally suspend a member of staff on full pay. This is to allow an investigation into the alleged gross misconduct and/or where relationships have broken down and/or where there are risks to the University’s property or it’s responsibilities to other parties or for some other good and urgent cause. [Was there such a threat?]

The decision to suspend should be taken only after careful consideration and should be reviewed to ensure it is not unnecessarily protracted. [Request a detailed explanation for the decision.]

Any member of staff who has been suspended on full pay and that suspension lasts for more than 21 consecutive days has the right to appeal against the suspension to the Staff Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Governors. Appeals must be in writing and addressed to the Clerk to the Board of Governors, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1SB

Staff who are suspended on full pay may not for the period of the suspension enter any building or premises owned operated or occupied by the University of Wolverhampton, make use of any of the University’s facilities or contact any member of staff or student [This last one is contrary to Article 11, Human Rights Convention. This imposition has no legal standing outside the campus. One can meet up with anyone they wish within the limits of the law.] without the express permission of the Vice-Chancellor or his nominated deputies in this matter; the Head of Personnel, relevant Personnel Manager, Dean of School or Head of Department.

Staff must ensure, whilst suspended on full pay, that they are readily available to attend meetings or hearings called by the University. For example, staff should not make arrangements to go on holiday whilst on suspension without the express permission of the Vice-Chancellor or his nominated deputies in this matter, namely the Head of Personnel, relevant Personnel Manager, Dean of School or Head of Department.

Permission to enter University premises in order for a member of staff to contact or consult with their trade union officer or work-based colleague will not be unreasonably withheld.

Staff who are suspended on full pay, will have their suspension confirmed in writing with a copy of the suspension order being given to the Clerk to the Board of Governors...' [Usually a colleague of managers. His/her role is to 'filter' what goes through to the Governors.]

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I work for a boss (Chair and now Interim Dean) who bullies, and has other faculty do the mobbing for her. She is undeniably a sociopath (and ex-local beauty queen) who manages to fool a lot of people with her high squeaky voice "Hi, guys!" and her dyed blond hair and blue eyes. Unfortunately, I also have a Provost and Chancellor who are corrupt. Grievance comittees on my campus also tend to be weak.

I am a tenured senior faculty member being mobbed, and bullied. I was just given a below post tenure rating for speaking out in a Personnel Committee against a probationary faculty member who lied on his tenure/promotion resume. He said that he had publications under review, and he did not. The Personnel Committee attacked me and said I had a "vendetta" against this guy. The Chair who gave him a rating based on his publications so instead of non-tenuring this colleague, they attacked me with a below. The Chair, now Dean wrote libel and slander about me in her summary. She said I was "unethical" and made up many lies about me for which there was no data.

I filed a grievance against her, the Dean, and Provost. All of them came to the hearing with no data to support their claims. The Chair refused to answer 10 letters of questions sent to her by my union representative. The "hearing" lasted 8 hours and the grievance process lasted 14 months. The Chancellor received the report where the Committee recommended that I receive another review and that they did not follow the university rules. By the way, the Provost (female and friends of the Chair and Dean) was included in the grievance.

The Chancellor dismissed the grievance and said that his administrators followed the rules. Also, the Chair, Dean and Provost are all grads of the university to which they are employed at. So, at this point, bullying boss-has not given me my teaching schedule for fall (not typical treatment for tenured professors).

I am speaking anonymously, here, and not mentioning my institution, not for fear of reprisal (what more could they really do to me ?!) but because I want the story to go public in a way that does NOT allow the perpetrators, abusers, and my sociopath Chair, now Interim Dean, to log on a blog and bully and mob me one more time!

May Day

About the Serial Bully...

…In the workplace, serial bullies aspire and are often promoted to the managerial level. Bullies become bosses not the other way around. In a workplace where upper management is removed or currupt, where employees are degraded, there is little job security, disparent treatment abounds, and job expectations are unclear, bullies thrive and workers suffer. Little real work ever gets accomplished.

…The person being bullied may not realise they are being bullied for weeks or months - until there's a moment of enlightenment.

…What the serial bully lacks in decency or intellegence is often made up for in cunning and cruelty. Most have honed their bullying skills throughout their miserable lives. So beware!

A favorite tactic of bullies is to falsely accuse his/her victim of something so outrageous that the victim is stunned with humiliation. The decent or religious worker is accused of viewing pornography at work, the dignified moral worker is accused of sexual misdoings, the liberatian is charged with being a racist, the most honest worker is branded a thief. It doesn't really matter that the bully often can't make the charges stick, the harm is already done. There's that element of guilt by association placed in the minds of others. Bullies do this to assure the victim's Subjugation, Elimination, or even better to the bully, Ruination! Bullies are masters of projection so they never run out of terrible things, from their own lives, to accuse others of. Real Sick Isn't It?

From: http://www.uncommonforum.com

Ten Choices in the Study of Workplace Mobbing or Bullying

Ten Choices

For each of the ten choices listed below, I first explain what it means and then offer a provocative (and certainly debateable) defense of the choice I have made in my own work.

1. Which label to use. No matter how often the words mobbing and bullying are said to be synonyms, they are not. They are alike in denoting aggression. Mobbing posits a collective, nonviolent source in a distinct episode. Bullying points to a single, physically threatening aggressor, sometimes aided by toadies, over an extended period of time. Mobbing implies a mob, a crowd of normal people who have temporarily lost their good sense. Bullying implies a bully, an abnormal person who is habitually cruel or overbearing toward weaker people. Mobbing highlights situation, the ganging up in a specific circumstance of ordinary people against someone. Bullying highlights character, the humiliation of someone by one or more psychologically disordered individuals.

These two words direct attention to related but different phenomena. In my own research, mainly on academic workplaces, I have found that professors use many techniques to gain advantage, apart from the quality of their teaching and scholarship. Bellowing and throwing tantrums — hallmarks of bullying — are uncommon techniques, because they tend not to work in a culture like academe, where norms are strict against physical aggression. Sycophancy, fawning, flirting, gossip, sneakiness, underhandedness, ridicule, chicanery, and the subtle scratching and stabbing of backs are more common because they work better. But to apply the word bullying to these latter behaviours is a stretch.

The workplace harm that fascinates me is the same as what fascinated Leymann: the coalescence of many people in a workplace, using many devious techniques, for putting a workmate down. I have found little evidence to support a characterization of the perpetrators of such aggression as bullies. They have looked to me like normally self-centred academics for whom mobbing a colleague is a handy escape from ambiguity and fear...

2. What is this harm like? One clue to how a researcher conceives of the harm called bullying or mobbing is which other harms he or she considers it similar or related to. Gary Namie has called it "escalated incivility" and cited David Yamada's description of it as like sexual or racial harassment, but "status-blind." Common Spanish (acoso laboral) and French (harcèlement moral) echo the same conception. Lawyer Gabrielle Friedman has lamented that "mobbing seems to have drowned out the law of sexual harassment in Europe...." True to what Einarsen has called the American tradition, Davenport et al. subtitled the first US book on mobbing, "Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace." Related terms include "emotional violence," Wyatt and Hare's "work abuse," and Leymann's memorable phrase, "psychoterror in the workplace."

All these allusions hold insight, but there are others. The body of work with which I am associated sees workplace mobbing as generically similar to scapegoating, especially as René Girard has analyzed it. Similar also to witch hunts, as depicted, say, in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Similar also to those cases of wrongful conviction wherein police, prosecutors, judge and jury fall prey to a collective delusion of the guilt of the accused, when the evidence shows no such thing (see injusticebusters). In insightful work as yet unpublished, Stanley R. Barrett has compared workplace mobbing to blood feuds in traditional societies. An exciting moment for me last spring was the discovery of the literature on sham peer review in American hospitals, since this appears to be one kind of workplace mobbing. The foundational analogue to workplace mobbing is, for me, the mobbing that occurs among birds and animals, as Konrad Lorenz and other ethologists have studied it. You will agree, I think, that these comparisons give a slant on the subject distinct from the slant implied by words like harassment and incivility.

3. Anonymity versus naming names. Among the most basic choices each of us makes in our scholarship is whether to analyze bullying or mobbing, its origins, correlates and consequences, in broad and general terms, without reference to specific cases, or to analyze it in a specific case, identifying this person as the target of aggression, these other ones as perpetrators.

Like most researchers, I often choose the first option (as in my article in OHS Canada). A field of social science consists by definition of abstractions: concepts joined in general hypotheses and theories. Yet any such field proves its worth only in its risky, contentious application to specific cases. In research on bullying and mobbing, the fat hits the fire when the researcher says out loud that by these and those standard measures, this specific person (reputed to be a loser, abuser, nutbar, public danger, or pariah of some other sort) is the target of undeserved humiliation by these other specific people.

When, in his book, The Suicide Factory, Leymann identified certain nurses who had taken their own lives as victims of mobbing, his research became intolerable to powerful figures who had tolerated his general analyses. When Tim Field publicly defended a former employee of the National Teachers Union, he was slapped with a defamation suit that consumed his life and probably hastened his death. When I published an article (in The Record, 2004) arguing that the ouster of my city's symphony conductor, Martin Fischer-Dieskau, was a case of workplace mobbing, I angered those who had ousted him. These are hazards of our field of research, unavoidable except in an academic harbour of irrelevance.

4. Target's perceptions vs. verifiable facts. Almost by definition, bullying or mobbing entails conflicting accounts of what is going on. A real or purported target claims to have been wrongly attacked. Real or purported attackers deny, hide, or excuse what they are accused of doing. What is a researcher to do?

An informative new book by a lawyer, Bullying Bosses: a Survivor's Guide (2005), describes itself as "unapologetically pro-Target" and "from a Target's perspective...." Such a stance may be attractive in a lawyer, but not in a researcher. If we cannot get at the facts of the matter, beyond the alleged target's and alleged perpetrators' perceptions, we have no business calling ourselves social scientists.

That is why I have a problem with measures of bullying or mobbing based on targets' self-reports, as in Leymann's 45-item "LIPT," the "Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization," the various adaptations of it (like the 60-item scale of Gonzàlez de Rivera and Rodríguez-Abuin), related instruments like the Bergen researchers' Negative Acts Questionnaire, or even the "social anamnesis" Leymann obtained orally from his patients.

There is an important lesson in the 2004 report by Jarreta et al. on a case of false accusation of mobbing by a woman in Spain, where the outcome was destruction of the life of the woman wrongly accused of mobbing. The simple fact is that we humans tend to justify our aggression against those we have made our enemies by claiming to have been the target of prior aggression by those enemies.

Never, in my view, should we take anybody's word that mobbing or bullying has occurred — least of all the word of somebody who wants somebody else punished. If we cannot collect data from multiple points of view (some kind of triangulation), we should quit and go home. If our scholarship is to be worthy of the name, it has to be true: not what is believed or claimed to be true by somebody or other, but what can stand up to disinterested review of all relevant evidence. That is why, in my own research, I rely as much as possible on official documents.

5. The informal phase vs. post-incident formal sanctions. The cost, of course, of my priority on formal documents is that I tend to miss the subtle, unwritten techniques of torment that usually precede a critical incident that triggers official action against the target. I miss the informal aggression (as exposed, for instance, in Duncan Lewis's research), since the target is ordinarily the only one willing to talk about it. The bullies or mobbers typically say the target is oversensitive, paranoid, imagining things.

This is a hard choice. In violation of my general principle, I have sometimes taken seriously, without independent corroboration, targets' diaries of informal humiliations at work or suicide notes they have written, and I gladly acknowledge how sly and sneaky are the weapons managers and colleagues often deploy, in universities not least, to do the target unwarranted harm. On the other hand, no good purpose is served in any workplace by encouraging oversensitivity, whining, a culture of complaint, the making of mole-hills into mountains, or the diversion of attention from achieving organizational objectives to mollycoddling. None of us wants to be or to encourage what G. B. Shaw called a "feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making me happy...." Faced with much of life, a healthy human sucks it up and moves on. That is why my research emphasis is on mobbing cases that have advanced to the point of serious, documented incursions on the target's position and name.

6. Should the definition of the phenomenon include consequences? In his foundational research, Leymann defined mobbing to include "the psychosocial stressors that cause extreme impact on the health of the victim...." It is, he said, a pattern of interaction that forces the target into a helpless position. Conceptualization of the problem in a way that encompasses both the aggression and its debilitating effects suited Leymann's vocation of clinical psychologist. Easing victims' pain was the raison d'être of his research program. Most psychologists have similarly built consequences of mobbing or bullying into the definition, and so have I.

If our field is to advance scientifically, I suspect we should define mobbing or bullying more narrowly in terms of the aggression, so that the question of effects can be left entirely open. Aggression sometimes has no ill effects on the target and fails to force the target into a helpless position. The skin of targets varies from thick to thin. As Brian Martin points out in his cogent writings on the backfire effect, aggression sometimes recoils on the aggressors. As Matthiesen points out in a fascinating case study of a whistleblower, a target can have a nervous breakdown under the weight of official ostracization and stigma, but later regain mental strength, even after losing in court. Some of the mobbed professors I have studied have been inner-directed enough to withstand intense public humiliation without crumbling physically or emotionally, indeed in some cases scarcely noticing what has been done to them.

Conceptual and operational separation of aggression from its effects lets us ask and answer questions about the conditions under which mobbing or bullying does and does not harm the target, and precisely how. Our understanding of the phenomenon is thereby enriched.

7. Motives vs. behaviours. In great part, intent defines this harm: what often debilitates the target most is feeling, indeed tasting, the perpetrators’ ill-will. Yet the intent of another can never be known for sure, and is mainly inferred from behaviours. To what extent does the researcher rely on what alleged targets and perpetrators say their and their opponents' motives are, and to what extent on what targets and perpetrators actually do?

In his wonderful posthumous book, Tales of Good and Evil, Help and Harm, Philip Hallie contrasts the carpenter and the walrus in Lewis Carroll's story. The carpenter is the more cold-hearted. He eats oysters without a second thought, the way some bosses crush targeted employees. The walrus, on the other hand, feels sorry for the oysters and cries into his handkerchief over their sorry fate. Alice prefers the walrus until Tweedledee points out to her that behind his handkerchief, the walrus actually wolfed down more oysters than the carpenter did. Hallie agrees with Alice in the end, saying both the walrus and the carpenter are unpleasant characters. But he tilts to the view that the dining on oysters counts for more than any diner's mental state. What happens to a mobbing target matters more than what is going on in mobbers' minds.

The question of malice, intent to harm, often arises in attempts at resolution of mobbing cases through the courts. I shrink from the question, preferring to focus above all on behaviours and actions, the sequence of events leading to the target's elimination, and on how to correct and prevent needless harm.

8. Learned behaviour vs. innate impulses. Back in 1994, when I first learned of Leymann's work, I embraced it because it made sense of the ouster of four tenured colleagues from my home university, and of a milder incursion on my own position. I did not initially trace the word mobbing back to Konrad Lorenz or read the ethological research on bird and animal mobbing. Later I read the analysis of aggressive instincts that was the context of Lorenz's use of the word mobbing, and I learned about the fierce opposition to Lorenz's work by anthropologist Ashley Montagu and many other social scientists. I came to understand that the Lorenz-Montagu debate reflected the broader debate still raging that Steven Pinker illuminates in his 2002 book, The Blank Slate.

I suspect that significant variation in how researchers study bullying or mobbing is explained by whether one conceives of the aggression to be learned behaviour, a product of culture, or a culturally conditioned expression of instinctive behavior. If it is learned, then it can be unlearned — by some kind of behaviour modification, a rewriting of the blank slate, punishment for aggressive acts and rewards for kindly acts. But if bullying or mobbing instead represents the coming to the surface of elemental impulses, then the problem is more complex and cannot be understood, much less remedied, except by grappling with both the natural and the cultural aspects of its origin.

In my own work, I value the natural, instinctual connotations of the word mobbing. What I have observed in case after case is gut revulsion for the target. He or she is one who makes others sick (the way Lawrence Summers at Harvard made Nancy Hopkins want to throw up), a destructive force from whom others need protection, one who accordingly evokes a deep-seated urge to join with others and attack.

9. Toward which remedies does the researcher tilt? All of us in the anti-mobbing, anti-bullying movement are open to diverse ways of correcting harm wrongly done: imaginative administrative solutions, publicity of the wrong, redress in the courts, removal to a new workplace, psychological or psychiatric therapy. Yet different experts tilt toward different remedies. Leymann founded the Violen Rehabilitation Centre in Karlskrona. Field used his computer skills to let apparent targets of bullying share their stories publicly. A growing number of labour lawyers advertise their services to targets of mobbing or bullying.

The important point is that one size does not fit all. The objective is that the target recover his or her working life, get it back on track. How this objective can best be achieved depends on at least five clusters of factors: (1) The nature of the aggression against the target; (2) Damages suffered — financial, reputational, physical, emotional, familial; (3) The target's resources, including bank account, personal strength, social support, and employability elsewhere; (4) The resources of the target's adversaries, and how ready to use them they appear to be; and (5) The legal and policy environment, including relevant clauses of collective agreements.

Education about mobbing and bullying is itself a remedy, for many targets a vital therapy. Hundreds of readers of my work have thanked me, and through me thanked Leymann and others, for giving them a word, mobbing, to place on otherwise incomprehensible events. While recognizing the value of psychotherapy, antidepressants, and other clinical treatments in certain cases, I am wary of pathologizing a target's distress more than is necessary, for fear of reinforcing exclusion from normal human communities. Many targets share my concern. I recently received from a beleaguered professor a request to serve as expert witness. She said she "would rather avoid an expert with a heavy slant on psychological counselling." She preferred a focus on power imbalances, professional jealousies, managerial incompetence, and false accusations. I admired how well she had educated herself.

10. Which preventive strategies are favoured? The final choice, but one related to all those preceding, is which proposed ways of preventing mobbing or bullying to spend time promoting. The strategy most popular among researchers and activists is to enact organizational policies and public laws against it. Other strategies include administrative reform and the same kind of public education referred to above for remedy of cases that have already occurred.

I am eager to hear Helge Hoel's assessment at this conference of the Swedish experience with anti-bullying legislation. I was struck by the issue of Le Nouvel Observateur (4 juin 2004), reporting that the law in France may actually have made things worse. To a researcher like me, inclined to see mobbing as an expression of elemental impulses, the practice can no more be legislated away than can hate speech or betrayal of love. For prevention of mobbing and bullying, I have more confidence in administrative reform toward more enlightened, pluralistic and democratic structures of governance. In the concluding chapter of my book, The Remedy and Prevention of Mobbing in Universities, I offer ten specific measures of this kind. First is the mantra of the Human Resources Department at my home university, "Focus on the situation, issue, or behaviour, not the person."
----------------------------------------------
In memory of Heinz Leymann (1932-1999) and Tim Field (1952-2006)

By Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Workplace Bullying Trinity College, Dublin, 15-17 June 2006

EU-wide crackdown on workplace bullying

The European commission has signed a key pact with its ‘social partners’ aimed at tackling unacceptable" harassment and violence at work.

According to the Dublin-based EU agency Eurofound, one in 20 workers, or five per cent of the workforce, say they have been exposed to bullying or harassment in the previous 12 month period. The most affected sectors are health and social work, education, public administration and transport.

A news conference on was told that workplace harassment in the British health service is estimated to cost over €100m a year in terms of absenteeism and lost productivity.

An agreement signed on Thursday by employment commissioner Vladimír Špidla and the heads of the main European trade union and employers’ federations is designed to tackle the issue.

The agreement, which follows ten months of negotiations, aims to prevent and manage problems of workplace bullying. It obliges participating businesses to make it clear that harassment and violence will not be tolerated and specifying the procedure to be followed in the event of complaints. The pact leaves the necessary flexibility to decide on the details of the procedure at company level.

Members of the signatory parties have until April 2010 to implement it. John Monks, secretary general of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), described it as a “major agreement”.

“The agreement has strong added value,” he said. “It is a practical tool for companies and workers to come to grips with situations of harassment and violence between colleagues at the workplace. Harassment and violence is not only unacceptable but also disruptive and can be very costly to both employer and employee.”

Philippe de Buck, secretary general of Businesseurope, said the agreement, which his organisation has also signed, aims to raise awareness of the problem among both employers and employees.

From: http://www.eupolitix.com - 26 Apr 2007
-------------------------------------
Agreement on harassment and violence at work

The European social partners (ETUC, BUSINESSEUROPE, CEEP and UEAPME) signed a framework agreement on harassment and violence at work. The agreement aims to prevent and, where necessary, manage problems of bullying, sexual harassment and physical violence at the workplace. Companies in Europe will have to adopt a policy of zero-tolerance towards such behaviour and draw up procedures to deal with cases of harassment and violence where they occur. Data suggests that one in 20 workers (5%) reports being exposed to bullying and/or harassment each year.

The European agreement condemns all forms of harassment and violence and refers to the employer's duty to protect workers against these situations. Companies will need to set out procedures to follow when cases of harassment or violence arise. These can include an informal stage involving a person trusted by management and the workforce.

Complaints should be investigated and dealt with quickly. The principles of dignity, confidentiality, impartiality and fair treatment need to be respected. The agreement underlines that appropriate measures will be taken against the perpetrator, including disciplinary action up to dismissal, while the victim will receive support with reintegration, if needed.

From: http://www.businessupdated.com - 27 Apr 2007
------------------------------
Extracts from the 'Text of framework agreement on harassment and violence at work':

Pre-existing procedures may be suitable for dealing with harassment and violence. A suitable procedure will be underpinned by but not confined to the following:

• It is in the interest of all parties to proceed with the necessary discretion to protect the dignity and privacy of all.
• No information should be disclosed to parties not involved in the case.
• Complaints should be investigated and dealt with without undue delay.
• All parties involved should get an impartial hearing and fair treatment.
• Complaints should be backed up by detailed information.
• False accusations should not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action.
• External assistance may help.
  

...Employers, in consultation with workers and/or their representatives, will establish, review and monitor these procedures to ensure that they are effective both in preventing problems and dealing with issues as they arise... The victim(s) will receive support and, if necessary, help with reintegration.

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.

Suspension not always a neutral act

Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (CA)

The use of an injunction to prevent an employer from suspending an employee was upheld recently in the Court of Appeal.

A consultant psychiatrist was subject to an internal disciplinary process. She voluntarily agreed not to undertake any clinical duties whilst the process was ongoing. Despite this, her employer suspended her. She argued that her professional reputation was being damaged unnecessarily and successfully obtained an injunction stopping the suspension.

It was found that in this case suspension was not a neutral act as it cast an inevitable public doubt over the employee's competency. Any eventual damages would not be sufficient to compensate for any loss of reputation.

In appropriate circumstances suspension will be the right course of action. But employers must carefully consider the use of suspension in each case.

From: Employment Bulletin, http://www.vwl.co.uk