Crown Prosecution Service Squashes Witness Intimidation Case Against Kingston University

The Criminal Witness Intimidation case against Donald Beaton, University Secretary, and Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University has been squashed by the Crown Prosecution Service, after taking over the case from the alleged victims, who had originally launched a private prosecution before the Court in April 2007.

On June 22 in a hearing before the Richmond Magistrates' Court, charges were formally dropped by the CPS against the defendants on the grounds that Witness Intimidation, when it takes place against witnesses in an Employment Tribunal is, in effect, perfectly legal. According to the CPS, Employment Tribunal's do not constitute "relevant proceedings" under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and therefore, there is insufficient evidence of a crime having been committed.

According to the alleged victims and their solicitor, who is also an alleged victim, Mr Beaton wrote a series of at least five threatening and intimidating letters between January and March of 2007 in response to having been informed that one of the victims had recorded her husband's internal grievance proceeding held before a panel of Board of Governors, and that this recording revealed that the panel had allegedly engaged in improper and unfair discussions with the Vice-Chancellor during a break in the proceedings, thereby suggesting that the process was not being carried out fairly and impartially.

According to the alleged victims, additional evidence has since emerged that suggests that the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Peter Scott was aware of and/or ordered Mr Beaton to write the allegedly threatening and intimidating letters in order to avoid embarassment. According to the alleged victims, Mr Beaton ordered them to turn over all existing copies of the recordings and transcripts thereof, not merely a single copy, thereby raising the question as to why this was done. Was it because the University wanted to suppress this evidence from coming to light during an ongoing Employment Tribunal proceeding?

Why is it that the CPS decided to squash this criminal case rather than allowing it to go before a Court for a full hearing on its merits as a private prosecution by the alleged victims? After all, a panel of three Magistrates apparently felt that there was enough evidence to issue an indictment of Mr Beaton on 20 April 2007, didn't they?

If this decision by the CPS is allowed to stand, will it become, in effect, perfectly legal to intimidate witnesses in Employment Tribunal proceedings? Could that have REALLY been the intention of Parliament when it passed the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001? And did the CPS then hold the view that Witness Intimidation, when it occurs in an Employment Tribunal, is and should be considered to be, in effect, perfectly legal?

For further details on this unusual groundbreaking case, visit the website:

www.sirpeterscott.com

London Met awarded the 'Divestors of People' standard

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing to inform you that your institution has been awarded the 'Divestors of People' standard, for you meet at least 50% of the required criteria.

For more details, please check:

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com

and

http://bulliedacademics.250free.com/divestors_of_people.html

Yours sincerely,

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louise Michel and Peter Kropotkin

London Met corporate bullying - 2

Anonymous said...

The extent of corporate bullying at London Met is matched only by the incompetence of its senior management. Particularly since the University lost the high profile dispute over contracts following the merger there has followed a steady process of retrenchment by the management. Academic staff have gradually been removed from key committees which have been taken over by bureaucrats acting at the behest of their senior managers. Since the merger new modular course structures, forms of student support, systems of quality assurance have all been imposed with minimal consultation with the teaching staff who have to deliver them. This would not be so bad if what has been imposed were halfway effective. But while the new structures and processes are widely recognised (including by Heads of Department) to be at best half-baked and at worst severely destructive of good practice, the senior management of the institution remains completely out of touch with the realities of higher educational delivery, protected by the middle layer of mediocrities they have put in place to do their bidding. If the University Management could get themselves down to 50% of the criteria for the Hall of Shame, this would be a major step forward. Please consider this a formal nomination.

London Met corporate bullying

Anonymous said:

London Met staff have been subjected to corporate bullying since the day it was formed by a (pointless) merger between London Guildhall and North London. One example of controlling just for the sake of it, is that we are not allowed to take more than 3 weeks contiguous leave during the summer period. Currently, we are almost certainly facing compulsory redundancies, but management have decided not to recognise UCU, so they will be able to get rid of anyone they like (or rather, don't like) without consultation.

The Wikipedia entry for London Met merits a visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Metropolitan_University

You will see that there is a lot of information there about "Industrial Relations"; this was added fairly recently, and is factual and properly referenced. All this text was deleted by someone whose IP address can be traced to London Met in the Holloway Road; then it was restored, then deleted, restored and so on (click on the "history" button). It seems that someone does not want the truth published.
-------------------------
Just a reminder that we need two nominations from the same Higher Education institution to award them the standard DIVESTORS OF PEOPLE...

Ask Boris

Boris Johnston is the opposition (Conservatives) spokesman on Higher Education. Some may argue that it is futile to make aware and remind Boris of the real costs of workplace bullying in Higher Education. We think it is our duty to remind all in public positions including politicians of all parties, about the impact of workplace bullying.

In particular, since the Conservatives are to articulate their policies on a number of fronts, it may be opportune that we ask them about their policies on workplace bullying. In the case of Boris, we need to – politely and with facts – ask him to comment on his stance on workplace bullying in Higher Education. It is imperative that we are precise, polite and factual. Boris needs to become aware and not alienated.

Boris runs an online forum on Higher Education, with a section titled ‘Ask Boris’. You will need to sign in and get a password to post a question. We suggest that you ask him – online - about his stance on workplace bullying in Higher Education. Alternatively, you may wish to email Boris with your questions on workplace bullying in Higher Education, or write to him at: Boris Johnson MP, Constituency Office, 8 Gorwell, Watlington, OX49 5QE

Here are some pointers that you may wish to quote or refer to in your communication with Boris:

• ...Workplace bullying contributes to a total loss of 18 million working days every year in the UK. This equates to a cost of around £2 billion each year to UK industry...
  
  
• ...Some of the costs of behaviours associated with workplace bullying have been identified. In the United Kingdom, Hoel, Sparks and Cooper (2001) estimated that workplace bullying absenteeism contributed an extra 18 million lost working days annually. By contrast, Rayner, Hoel and Cooper (2002) argues that costs are rarely estimated reliably but rather are lost in the daily activities of those who are required to deal with the problem. As such, the true costs remain unaccounted for… there is a lack of research quantifying the impact workplace mobbing has on organisations. Such a model would need to account for the hidden costs such as client and industry perceptions, investor confidence, and loss of knowledge capital. Generally, only the obvious organisational impacts are considered such as absenteeism, turnover and productivity…
  
  
• ...The company where mobbing occurs may suffer damage not only to its image but also to its finances. An evaluation by the International Labour Office has found that psychological harassment costs about EUR 150,000 a year in a company with 1,000 employees. Moreover, some researchers have found that a mobbing victim has a reduced working performance (by 60%) and an increased cost for the company (by 180%)...
  
  
• ...A recent ACAS study highlighted how claimants dismissed as “futile” internal grievance procedures aimed at resolving disputes within organisations. Complaints were made about how the submission of a grievance by an employee was often triggered by disciplinary action by employers and how they could work against achieving a satisfactory resolution; it was also thought to be difficult to find colleagues to represent them, that there were often unnecessary delays and the involvement of unsuitable managers who, in a number of cases, were felt to have been complicit or active in the original discrimination experience...
  
  
• ...“I’ve just heard from over 800 people in an online survey and additional 400+ people in emails all telling me about their bullying experiences in higher education. These are academics and academic-related staff who’re facing regular abuse within their workplace…” Dr Petra Boynton research.
  
  
• ...There are five stages. First is ostracism, to cut the victim off from influence and support. Second is administrative harassment, often in petty ways. Then comes the incident, an action by the victim that can trigger formal retribution. The fourth stage covers the various appeal procedures and the final stage is elimination...
  
  
• ...At a time when academia needs to serve the knowledge economy in an innovative manner, the inaction, unwillingness to act, and fear to act against bullying from the boss within the organization is a sad commentary on the academy. The prevalence of bullying within academia is of concern. As noted by Czernis (2005), “respondents to The Times Higher survey had worked at their jobs an average of seven years and reported bullying as lasting typically from two to five years, suggesting academic staff who completed the survey spent a large proportion of their working lives being bullied”. This is a tragedy. The human loss in potential and the organizational loss in possibilities are and should be intolerable...
  
  
• ...Over two thirds (68%) of staff surveyed at Leeds Metropolitan University (LMU) have suffered stress because of bullying from their managers. A similar number (67%) said they had become angry as a result of how they were treated and over three fifths had lost sleep (62%) or become anxious (61%)...
  
  
• ...Leaked survey at Sheffield Hallam reveals 'disturbing' fears of victimisation, high stress and sub-par performance in many areas of work that require 'urgent action'. Phil Baty reports Almost 100 members of staff at Sheffield Hallam University have reported being bullied "always, often or sometimes" in an internal survey leaked to The Times Higher...
  
  
• ...In some cases when academics sue for wrongful dismissal, they reach a settlement with the university that includes a payment to them only upon acceptance of a silencing clause, namely a settlement condition that restricts future public comment about the case. Silencing clauses are potent means for cover-up...

Math Profs Get Mobbed

VIRO & JÖRICKE. Thanks to a colleague on North America's west coast, I have learned of the resignation-under-duress in 2007, of two prominent mathematicians at Uppsala University in Stockholm: the Russian Oleg Viro and the German Burglind Jöricke. As is common in academic mobbing cases, their foreign accents and imperfect command of the vernacular tongue appear to have been factors in their elimination. Viro has made relevant documents and transcripts available online. The European Mathematical Society has collected critical commentaries, including a strong critique by Karl-Heinz Fieseler et al. Aisha Labi has published a summary of the Viro and Jöricke cases in The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 25, 2007).

From: K. Westhues Homepage, workplace bullying in academia

Leeds Met staff stressed and losing sleep over management bullying - UK

Over two thirds (68%) of staff surveyed at Leeds Metropolitan University (LMU) have suffered stress because of bullying from their managers. A similar number (67%) said they had become angry as a result of how they were treated and over three fifths had lost sleep (62%) or become anxious (61%).

The survey of UCU members at LMU paints a worrying picture of a bullying culture at the university. The survey was sparked by fears from the local union branch that staff members' health was suffering because of a bullying culture. The union was forced to survey its members after the university's human resources (HR) department refused to.

The union says that an early indication of the bullying culture was a unilateral ban on staff leave during graduation week and the two week staff development 'festival', followed by a thinly veiled threat to sack those who did not participate. The festival coincides with the end of the summer holidays, a time when schools are still on holiday, and many parents wish to be with their families.

The survey confirmed the union's concerns that, despite protestations from HR, leave during the two periods was not being granted. Ninety per cent of those surveyed said they had been refused leave during these periods.

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The behaviour of the management at Leeds Metropolitan University is clearly having a demoralising effect on the staff. A decent work - life balance is crucial to staff being able to do their jobs properly. Even more worrying are the revelations in the survey about the impact the management's approach is having on staff's health.'

UCU regional official, Adrian Jones, said: 'The vice-chancellor claims the university aims to enhance well-being by promoting an ethical, healthy environment, ethos and community. The reality, revealed by the preliminary results of this survey, is very different. Besides the high levels of stress and anxiety, the survey reveals a climate of fear with 96% of those surveyed reporting that they felt inhibited about criticising polices of Leeds Met.'

From: http://www.ucu.org.uk
---------------------------------------
Is it time for another DIVESTORS OF PEOPLE award? Do we have any nominations coming from Leeds Metropolitan University? Do we know what the governors are doing about the situation?

Allegations of criminal witness intimidation by the University Secretary of Kingston University, UK

For those of you who are interested, this Friday, 22 June at 10:00 a.m. there will be a repeat "performance" (a continuation of a hearing from 10 May) of a hearing before the Richmond Magistrates' Court in the matter of allegations of criminal witness intimidation by the University Secretary of Kingston University, Donald Beaton.

According to the allegations cited in a Court-issued summons, Mr Beaton allegedly attempted to intimidate likely witnesses to an Employment Tribunal proceeding against the University into turning over ALL EXISTING COPIES (including originals) of evidence in relation to an ongoing Tribunal case, thereby creating a potential for these copies to be destroyed, altered, or otherwise rendered unusable as evidence.

You are all invited to attend the hearing, at which Mr Beaton is, as I understand it, supposed to enter his plea.

Several questions remain to be decided - is witness intimidation perfectly legal if it occurs in connection with Employment Tribunal proceedings? And if it is NOT legal, will the Crown Prosecution Service then choose to take over the prosecution of this case from the alleged victims (former University lecturers)?

To read a copy of the Summons, link to: www.sirpeterscott.com

Unite against the bean-counters 1

Letter to the Editors, Times Higher Education Supplement, 15 June 2007

So research is being wrecked by "bean-counters", as your front page had it (June 1). Isn't it about time that public-service employees started to fight back against the absurd notion that the so-called reform of the sector is somehow progressive? Doesn't every public service worker now understand exactly how regressive the measures inflicted upon the sector in the name of modernisation are?

Reform is, in reality, a 19th-century Gradgrind utilitarianism married to a vicious Thatcherite backlash against the ideals of public service that have provided institutions such as universities with endless supplies of unpaid overtime in the past.

No more - demoralised staff will work to rule if they are treated as untrustworthy children. Students can expect to be met by increasingly angry and exhausted lecturers. "Reform" has taken some of the worst indignities suffered by the working class and visited them on middle-class public-service employees under cover of an entirely bogus notion of accountability.

To paraphrase the political philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon: to be reformed is to be watched, inspected, spied on, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the virtue to do so. Or, if you prefer the Orwellian version, as one of my colleagues put it so eloquently: "if you want a vision of the future, imagine a sandal stamping on a human face - for ever!"

Nick Haeffner, London Metropolitan University

Going backwards: failing to change the workplace

Thirty years ago in the New South Wales’ (NSW) [Australia] Upper House, Premier Wran delivered his visionary Second Reading to establish the Anti-Discrimination Board, stating, "the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual is of paramount importance to governments. The principle that all human beings are born equal, have a right to be treated with equal dignity, and a right to expect equal treatment in society is a principle firmly upheld by my government."

NSW was the second Australian state to enact anti-discrimination law after South Australia, but it was the first to establish a dedicated Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB). Its role then was to conduct quasi-judicial inquiries into discrimination complaints and develop human rights policies. Today, the ADB's powers are in the investigation and conciliation of complaints.

Thirty years is a good passage of time for considering the impact of the ADB. Thirty years of changes in the workplace and in social attitudes across NSW, but to what end?

The most recent management book from Robert Sutton, Professor of Management at Stanford University entitled, The No Asshole Rule - Building a Civilised Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, has been a bestseller in Australia. Its popularity attests to the fact that workplaces remain the number one location for bullying and discrimination. If so, what does this say about the effectiveness of the ADB?

Not much - last year, as with every year, most of the complaints to the ADB were made by women about sex discrimination in the workplace, 10 per cent were about individual males. Over half of the complaints do not even get looked at, either withdrawn or the ADB “declines” to investigate. Only 10 per cent end up in being publicly aired at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT).

Two reports into the ADB by the NSW Law Reform Commission attest to the ADB’s failures. The first in 1999 recognised a "significant discrepancy between discrimination in theory and practice”. Professor Sutton observes that such "discrepancies", or bullying and discrimination, damages victims and batters bystanders.

Workplace performance also takes a dive with a decline in innovation, co-operation and morale. Then there is the cost of the victim’s ongoing retribution towards the employer. Corporate reputations can take a hard hit and prospective employees look elsewhere.

The second Law Reform Commission Report in 1997 relied on surveys of employers and employees who had dealt with the ADB. The results were not encouraging. Feedback was "very diverse, ranging from the extremely positive to the extremely negative". Participants stated that, "in the long run, it was often cheaper to settle a claim than to dispute it, whatever the merits of the case”. Whatever the merits? This sums up the ADB’s justice process - settlement through "conciliation".

Last year most complaints (33 per cent) looked at by the ADB were settled before, at, or after conciliation. The conciliation process involves the ADB acting as the third party, brokering a deal between the employer and employee.

The deal is the victim gets a payout, resigns, and withdraws their complaint. Employer insurance usually covers the payout, generally less than the statutory limit of $40,000. In return for the money, the victim signs a legal contract to withdraw the complaint and say nothing to anyone, especially the media.

This practice fails to prevent bullying and discrimination. In many cases the perpetrator remains in their job, perhaps transferred, rarely dismissed. Lip service replaces attitude change.

Take a look at one of the ADB's "successful conciliation" case studies:

A man who was a middle manager in the human services industry wanted to negotiate more flexible working arrangements so he could take care of his young children. He said that after he did this he was harassed and bullied by the manager … The man become very stressed, went on leave and made a complaint of carers' responsibilities discrimination to the board. The complaint was conciliated when the respondent agreed to pay him a separation payment and compensation totalling $10,000 in exchange for his resignation.

Whatever happened to the manager who "bullied and harassed" him for trying to take care of this young children? What did the company do to ensure this did not occur again?

This disturbing view of success was identified in the first Law Reform Commission Review Report which stated, "because the majority of complaints of discrimination are resolved at successful conciliation and because the outcomes reached at conciliation are private, conciliation precludes the development of community education initiatives and thus impedes efforts to promote awareness of, and compliance with, provisions of the ADB."

The ADB argues that the “intelligence” obtained from these confidential conciliated cases enables them to focus their prevention and education efforts.

According to ADB’s 2005-06 Annual Report, two highlights of their intelligence-driven education program were a state-wide colouring competition and information sessions for the deaf community. Education in the corporate sector amounted to three employer seminar programs and 645 in-house training sessions. The NSW Chamber of Commerce currently lists over 5,000 members. The ADB’s education and prevention impact is clearly limited.

Most workplaces have introduced programs to prevent discrimination and bullying. These are often based on information published by the ADB. During the conciliation process, employers point to these programs as evidence of how they proactively prevent bullying. Are they successful?

Professor Sutton writes, "posting them on a wall or Web site or talking about them are - alone - useless acts. And if these values are routinely violated and not steps are taken to enforce them, these hollow words are worse than useless … (as the) organisation and its leaders are seen as hypocrites which fuels cynicism and scorn.”

In the same Second Reading, Premier Wran, described a time when "people of any colour, race or sex are accorded equality without resort to the protection of the law". Thirty years later the protection afforded by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has dissipated into a bureaucracy obsessed with processes over people and payouts over prevention. Perhaps is time to revisit the former Premier's vision, at least as a starting point. Professor Sutton's No Asshole Rule might help as well.

From: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au
---------------------------------
It is obvious that many of the above apply to Higher Education.

• The significant discrepancy between discrimination in theory and practice, and that such "discrepancies", or bullying and discrimination, damages victims and batters bystanders.
  
  
• Whatever happens to bully managers? What does the university do to ensure this does not occur again?
  
  
• Posting anti-dicrimination and anti-bullying policies on a wall or Web site or talking about them are - alone - useless acts. If these values are routinely violated and not steps are taken to enforce them, these hollow words are worse than useless, as the university and its managers are seen as hypocrites which fuels cynicism and scorn.