Matters Concerning Members of the Governing Body - Conflicts of Interest

2.20 It is central to the proper conduct of public business that chairs and members of governing bodies should act and be perceived to act impartially, and not be influenced in their role as governors by social or business relationships. Good practice requires that a member of a governing body who has a pecuniary, family or other personal interest in any matter under discussion at any meeting of the governing body or one of its committees at which he/she is present shall, as soon as practicable, disclose the fact of his/her interest to the meeting and shall withdraw from that part of the meeting.

A member of the governing body is not, however, considered to have a pecuniary interest in matters under discussion merely because he/she is a member of staff or a student of the institution. Nor does the restriction of involvement in matters of direct personal or pecuniary interest prevent members of the governing body from considering and voting on proposals to insure the governing body against liabilities which it might incur.

2.21 Institutions should maintain a register of interests of all members of the governing body. The secretary and any other senior officer closely associated with the work of the governing body, for example the finance director, should also submit details of any interests. The register should be publicly available and should be kept up-to-date.

2.22 Details of the terms of appointment should be set out as appropriate in the letter of appointment, but institutions may wish to seek a signed undertaking that governors will act responsibly.

2.23 The governing body should have the power to remove any member of the governing body from office, and must do so if the member breaches the conditions of his/her appointment.

From: Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK, November 2004/40

What is going on...

...at the University of Glamorgan?

The well-placed lie...

...One of the most insidious forms of academic violence is the generation and transmission of rumours. We know from Ekman's (1985) research that the liars who are difficult to detect are those who can anticipate when they will have to lie, who will not be severely punished if caught, whose lies are sanctioned higher up in the system, who have successfully deceived the target before, who are practised in lying, and who have a good memory.

There is often an element of ambiguity to very skillful lies (Rosnow, 1991), making it difficult to receive disconfirming input. Disconfirmation may not even be sought, since we seem to have a tendency to want to believe the worst of people—a negativity bias (Amabile & Glazebrook, 1982) —and "to want to spit in god's eye" (J. Letvin, personal communication, 1976) — especially, perhaps, if they are above us in rank or status. Rumours and other lies are likely to be believed, and passed on to others, when the listeners are uncertain, are under stress, or are experiencing personal anxiety (Rosnow, 1991) — a situation that obtains for many faculty and students these days.

Aspects of the academic environment make it fertile soil for bumper crops of rumours and other lies. Unfortunately, students can also get caught up in the web of intrigue—as victims of coercion and of academic politics, but also as potential contributors to the violence, wittingly or unwittingly.

For a number of reasons, rumours are particularly difficult to dispel:

• For instance, the target of the rumour may not even be aware of the circulation of lies about them; they may only have noticed that people are treating them differently.
  
  
• If the target becomes aware of the lies and tries to correct the misperceptions or misinformation, they are less likely to be believed (a) because they may be perceived as being "defensive" (à la perceptions of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth: "methinks the Lady doth protest too much") and (b) because primacy is more powerful in communication effectiveness than is recency (discussed in Markus & Zajonc, 1985).
  
  
• Even otherwise very intelligent people tend to believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire"; the possibility that both the smoke and the fire may have been caused by an arsonist—a psychological arsonist—seems rarely to spring to mind.

Taken together, these factors may render impossible any due process or achievement of social justice for the victim.

The generation and transmission of rumours is difficult to curb: like the unethical passing on of confidential information "confidentially", the transmission makes both the bearer of the tale and the recipient of the misinformation "important". Yet, left unchecked—and thereby condoned—rumours can lead to very destructive consequences for the target of this violence, the recent suicide of a McGill psychologist being a case in point (Fox, 1994). When left unchecked, the character assassination can create a climate in which two additional circumstances may obtain:

• The victim can achieve pariah status; vulnerable others, afraid of being "tarred with the same brush", may avoid being linked to or associated with the victim, thereby isolating the victim and leaving them bereft of support.
  
  
• Unscrupulous others, bent on revenge, can "justify" to themselves further violence, thereby escalating the irreversible damage.

The generation and transmission of rumours is unethical (Stark[-Adamec] & Pettifor, 1995); failure to curb rumour-mongering is also unethical; even listening to rumours condones the violence and could therefore be considered unethical. The generation, transmission, and failure to curb rumours is so prevalent in academic work environments that one may feel pressed to choose between two unattractive explanations: that academics do not realize the gravity of the situation and the unethical nature of these acts; or that they do realize that such behaviour is wrong and, like true sociopaths, persist in wrongdoing anyway...

From: Psychological violence in academia, University of Regina

How a union official reacted to a member who asked for no more legal assistance from the union

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for informing me of your decision and I note also the email which you have sent to XXXX XXXX [the union lawyer employed by a major legal company], copied to me, informing her.

I will write to XXXX to ask them to return all papers to you as soon as possible so that you can pass these to your new adviser.

As you have taken your decision it is not really appropriate for me to enter into lengthy discussion with you. I note what you say and your disappointment with what the union and our lawyers have been able to do for you has been evident for some time. However, much of the problem has been beyond our control:

* You joined AUT at a time when we were not a recognised union at CIA, had no branch and no local rep. [This is not what AUT stated on their web page]

* You had a conflict of interest with a NATFHE member, so that the local NATFHE and the regional office in Gateshead were involved in assisting that member. [Contrary to what AUT stated on their web page]

* As a result, even following the merger of AUT and NATFHE, UCU is still unable to provide you with an experienced local union rep or full time official support from the regional office in Gateshead which now covers XXXX. [So why pay membership fees?]

* In these circumstances, I have tried to provide as much support as possible through XXXX in Newcastle.

I understand how, in these difficult circumstances, you would feel disappointed with the type of service we have been able to offer. I wish you well with the hearings ahead and success and good health in the future.

With best wishes,
XXXX XXXXX
----------------------
And thus one more member became disillusioned... and wrote to Roger Kline and Paul Mackney:

"...I have been in touch with my AUT branch in Edinburgh (XXXX XXXX) – for some months now - who referred me to an Employment Law firm in Newcastle. David has tried to be helpful and has authorised funds for the lawyer to advise me. I understand that AUT has no rep in my town and XXXX – despite his support and good will - was unable to offer any other assistance. XXXX told me that AUT does not have a specialist consultant on workplace bullying, and I have found this very disturbing. Is this the case with UCU as a whole? It would be hard to accept that UCU does not have access to a specialist on workplace bullying. Academics are suffering in big numbers, let alone support staff. The evidence is not just anecdotal. I can refer you to numerous surveys and reports, including some from teaching unions, which confirm this disturbing trend.

The union lawyer has been helpful whenever I manage to get in touch with her. Over the last four months, I was able to meet with her twice. She has often told me that my union rep should take up day-to-day issues relating to my case, and ideally, the lawyer should look after the big picture.

Bottom line is that I have no regular support from my union, and I am fighting alone my case of institutionalized workplace bullying against my senior managers. I often have to make decisions on a weekly basis, but there is no assistance beyond a possible reply through email or a phone call. This is while I am dealing with symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress caused by workplace bullying during the last few years at XXXX. I often have to refer to a legal advice phone line provided by my union. The usual waiting time is 2-3 hours during working hours. They try to be helpful but they usually refer me back to my union lawyer. There does not seem to be anybody available or qualified to deal with this case of workplace bullying.

The costs of workplace bullying not just to the union members and victims (targets), but also to our profession collectively must be phenomenal. The impact on our health has possibly never been estimated. Until this thing happened to me, I could only think of it as impossible. Now I live a nightmare. This is not just a general plea. I have some questions to ask. I seek assistance and justice.

• Does UCU have access to a specialist in workplace bullying? If not, when can I have access to one?
• It is not sufficient for Higher Education Institutions to have anti-bullying policies that are worth nothing. How is our union keeping accountable these institutions in terms of how they are applying their policies? Do all employees run awareness sessions and workshops open to staff? How often?
• Does our union have a programme of training reps and other appropriate union members, to recognize and deal effectively with workplace bullying? How is our union proactive in dealing with workplace bullying in our profession?..."

No reply was received.

Utterly Completely Useless - Part 2

Dear Sally (UCU leader), Jenny (regional UCU official) and Hamish (UCU legal official),

I am writing to each of you today to ask for your assistance in seeking justice in a matter that I believe has important implications for all UCU members.

As you may already know, I have fallen victim to acts of criminal witness intimidation, in violation of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, at the hands of Mr Donald Beaton, University Secretary of Kingston University, and have more recently learned that Prof Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor of the University in all likelihood, ordered Mr Beaton to commit these rather serious and troubling acts on his behalf.

All evidence points to guilt on the part of these individuals, who are, quite shockingly, members of senior management, however, unfortunately, a number of events have prevented them from being held to account for their actions. Moreover, they/the University have not denied that these individuals have committed the acts in question, as there is, in my view, rather compelling documentary evidence to support a conviction on these charges.

The only justification or explanation that has thus far been offered by the University's lawyers, who have represented Mr Beaton following his indictment by the Magistrates' Court on 20 April 2007, is that while the acts in question, if committed in connection with a civil or criminal matter in a wide range of "relevant proceedings" (e.g. County Court, High Court, Crown Court, Magistrates' Court, etc) would be illegal, the Act does not explicitly list Employment Tribunal proceedings under the set of "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act. In other words, according to the University's solicitors, committing witness intimidation in connection with ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings, does not amount to a criminal act because Employment Tribunal proceedings are not "relevant proceedings."

The effect of this view, if it were to be upheld as a matter of law, is to create an "open season" on claimants and respondents alike with respect to such proceedings, as in effect, witness intimidation would become legal in Employment Tribunal cases.

What has since transpired is that a hearing was held on 10 May 2007 before a District Judge, Hon. Stephen Day. Judge Day wisely ruled that the case should be continued in anticipation of the possibility that the matter would be taken up by the CPS for prosecution. He also ruled that were the CPS to take the case and were they to then decide to drop it for any reason, my wife and I could take the case back as a private prosecution, which is how it was launched in the first instance.

This week, the CPS notified us that they had, indeed, decided to take on the case, but that they had decided to drop the matter altogether on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence, since, in their view, Employment Tribunal proceedings did not constitute "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act. To my surprise and dismay, I learned today at a hearing before the Court, that we would not simply be able to take the matter back to continue it as a private prosecution, but that it would be formally ended.

As I understand things, our only viable option would be to refile the matter as a private prosecution before the County Court. In discussing our options with my Branch Rep, (Name deleted) who so kindly attended today's court proceedings and who was extremely supportive of my efforts to seek justice in this rather extraordinary matter, (name deleted) felt that one possibility would be to file a petition with the County Court for a District Judge to hear arguments as to why Employment Tribunals should, as a matter of law, be considered to be "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the act, notwithstanding the fact that such proceedings are not explicitly referenced, on the grounds that Parliament must surely have intended for witness intimidation to be a crime for such in such a clearly bona fide civil proceeding as an Employment Tribunal case, and that it could not possibly have been their intention for witness intimidation to, in effect, be legal in such proceedings. Following a positive ruling on that, he suggested that we could then launch a private prosecution on the matter, having already achieved a clear view on whether such proceedings constitute "relevant proceedings" in respect of the intentions of Parliament, and therefore as a matter of law. Thus we would file to separate actions in sequence, the first being to decide matters of law and the second to decide whether or not the facts then suggest that Mr Beaton and Prof Scott had, indeed, committed illegal acts as set forth in the allegations.

This seems to me like a reasonable set of steps, though given that the case is relatively simple and given that following (name deleted)'s suggested course of action would likely take more time to pursue, it might very well be that both steps could be accomplished in one case, namely a private prosecution, part of which could be devoted to first establishing the matters of law, and then the case could continue along to deal with matters of guilt or innocence.

In the end, I would certainly be open to either possibility as a course of action, but in all instances, I feel so strongly that a serious injustice has taken place, and that if allowed to stand, this case will set precedent in respect of any FE/HE employer (or employee) being able to resort to witness intimidation in Employment Tribunal cases with total impunity. That will mean that witnesses in such cases will feel reluctant to come forward and that important and compelling evidence, (such as that which Kingston University has attempted to suppress), of wrongdoing will be prevented from seeing the light of day, thereby depriving UCU members of their right to have their concerns properly aired before a Court of Law.

I am therefore asking each of you to consider seriously the matters at stake in this case in respect of their potential and likely impacts on all UCU members now and in the future. And I am asking that you take appropriate action to support me in pursuing this case further in the Courts so that the rights of UCU members to be free from intimidation in Employment Tribunal cases is preserved.

Specifically, I am taking the unusual step of formally requesting legal support and or any other support that UCU can provide so that this matter can be taken forward, since there will, indeed, be costs (albeit, hopefully not excessive costs) involved in pursuing this matter vigorously. I do realize that such support is not normally provided as part of UCU's Legal Assistance Scheme, and I am not specifically requesting such support under this scheme. Rather, I am asking that UCU consider providing support under whatever auspices it feels are appropriate under the circumstances.

Again, I believe this to be an unusual and important case, one that is worthy of being supported by UCU on behalf of all of its members, and so I therefore urge you to support my efforts. I look forward to your prompt written response to my request for support and to receiving whatever support you feel that UCU can offer.

Please feel free, as well, to forward my letter to any other UCU officials whom you think would need to see such a request for support so that it can be duly considered. I would also urge you to speak with (Branch Rep), who has seen the relevant evidence in this case, in order to gain directly his valuable insights on the matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Dr Howard Fredrics, UCU Member.
-------------------
Letter written on 22 June 2007. To date, Dr Howard has not received a reply.

Complaint against Michael Scott, Universities and Colleges Union Solicitor

20th February 2007,

Dear Ms Hunt/Mr Mckney, [UCU leadership]

As Michael Scott’s [senior solicitor] employer I would like you to investigate my complaint against the Union solicitor and his failure in the provision of legal services to me on behalf of NATFHE (now the UCU) before I take up the matter formally with the Law Society. My complaint against Michael Scott is as follows:

Michael Scott as Union solicitor breached the conflict of interest rules of the Law Society. He revealed in the London Tribunal that he was NATFHE’s budget holder and ultimate decision maker in regard to the provision of legal services and so there was a conflict of interest in M. Scott assessing the merits of Dr D’Silva’s racial discrimination claim in which he claimed had no merit. M. Scott in the London tribunal could not explain why he had removed Waquar Ahmed an ethnic minority comparator who was also being discriminated by Professor Leach from his race relations questionnaires except I infer to undermine his claim to show that the difference in treatment was based on race M. Scott to justify his perverse decision on the 13th March 2003 cited Cornelius [1987] and the Khan case [2000] and again on the 22 July 2003 knowing that the Race Amendment Act 2002 rendered these cases obsolete as one could not preserve one’s position by denying the applicant a grievance.

He also did not afford the applicant advice to progress his issues that having claimed racial discrimination his employer had not addressed his complaint which was a BREACH OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT. This was a breach of his professional service and CONDUCT TO SAFEGUARD THE CLIENTS INTERESTS.

M. Scott again on 15th Sept 2003, part way through Dr D’Silva tribunal case when he requested legal assistance undermined the applicant’s request. He claimed he had given the correct advice in his request for legal assistance even after being reminded of the Race Amendment Act 2000. This case law used to deny him merits as stated were rendered obsolete by the Race Amendment Act 2000 and acknowledged as such by the finding of the London Tribunal, 2006 which stated “it was a concoction”. There was a conflict of interest in M. Scott giving advice being the fund holder for legal aid which resulted in his advice always being legally flawed. M. Scott was also hostile to the claimant for not going down the ADR route rather than the legal route but could not justify his advice when questioned why. M. Scott informed the Tribunal he had been on courses updating him on changes in the law so knew what he was doing.

M. Scott knew NATHFE’s procedures for the processing of legal aid applications by the local branch that documents would not be sent by the local branch to Head office unless they were complete. He claimed he was copied documents from the local office including his letter of the 21st Jan 2004 which was the remainder of his complete legal application form but however decided to undermine the applicants legal aid application and his position with other NEC officials by claiming that the applicant had not complied with its procedures and that he had not received a signed legal aid form to deny him legal services.

It was NATFHE’s local office’s duty to send the signed legal aid form to M.Scott office any losses of the form in transit to NATFHE’s head office was the local offices responsibility not the applicants. It was NATFHE’s Head office and its local branch’s responsibility to process Dr D’Silva’s legal aid application form in a professional manner. He failed to enquire why the local branch had not sent the form or whether the legal office had lost the form despite receiving the accompanying documents or immediately send him a new form.

The local branch confirmed in the Tribunal that they had received the form and duly processed it according to their procedures. Neither less he failed to provide Dr D’Silva a professional service and waited until the 8th July 2004 almost six months latter to send him a new legal services form knowing that only the local and Head office could provide him the forms which was a breach of his duty of care. He also did not take on board the applicants statements in regard to there being a conflict of interest which there was.

M. Scott realising that Dr D’Silva had determined that he was undermining his request for legal services having contacted the CRE about his conduct then used the pretext of the late delivery of documents to deny him legal services. On the 5th Aug 2004 he requested the applicant provide the agreed trial bundle by next week or on his return from holiday taken on the 16th August 2004. Five days latter quicker than Royal Mail parcel post in a letter dated the 10th Aug 2004 he denied the claimant legal services stating he was in breach of clause 6.2.

He again failed to provide an adequate professional service and it took the threat of a race discrimination claim and a meeting with NEC officers at the claimant’s own expense to re-instate legal services. He again failed to provide him an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.

M. Scott in his instruction to Nick Toms failed to obtain a fee note for his services but he also had not agreed a fee which he informed those present in the employment tribunal. He denied Dr D’Silva Counsel of the applicant’s choice claiming they were too expensive whilst he paid over £3000 in fees for a Counsel he wanted to provide the applicant with the merits that he wanted him to have which was in breach of the Union’s legal scheme. The claimant’s own counsel informed him he would win his claims in regard to promotion and the events in the Tribunal resulted in him winning the remainder. He again failed to provide me an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society. This was a breach of professional conduct.

M. Scott gave incorrect legal advice when he again sited the Khan case in conference with Nick Toms in 2004 knowing such advice was rendered obsolete as a result of the race amendment act and so undermined the merits of Dr D’Silva’s case and denied him legal representation at his case management hearing. M.Scott denied the applicant the written merits of his case from counsel. It again took the intervention of the CRE to get M. Scott to instruct N. Toms to provide the merits of his claim. This was unprofessional and a breach of confidence and trust and he again failed to recluse himself from the applicant’s case as their had been hostility and continued hostility against the claimant for pursuing his case and not pursuing the ADR route..

M. Scott when informed that there was a breach in confidence and trust on showing him that his legal advice was flawed and was aimed at undermining the applicants claims, but did not recluse himself from the decision process regarding legal services and further undermined the applicant’s claim and denied him legal services in 2005. He again failed to provide him adequate and an impartial professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.

On the 31 March 2005 the claimant requested a review of his NATFHE’s decision (M. Scott’s decision) to deny him legal services. On the 8th April 2005 Paul Mackney provided his reply. The reply was written by M. Scott and this was in breach of the conflict of interest rules of the law society. He again failed to provide the claimant an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.

M. Scott knew that their was a conflict of interest in his handling of the applicant’s legal services and as a result on the 6th July 2006 the last day of the applicant’s tribunal case against NATFHE informed him of his solicitor’s department perverse interpretation of the solicitor’s conflict of interest rule by providing its new legal scheme to deny members who questioned his perverse advice by claiming they were now in conflict with the Union and in breach of legal services. The failure to disclose the change in the Union legal Scheme in regard to the conflict of interest during the Tribunal case in July 2006 was unprofessional and a further attempt to add injury to feeling and cause the applicant detriment. He again failed to provide the claimant an adequate professional service as union solicitor and member of the Law Society.

I would like your speedy decision on my complaint so I can progress this matter to the Law Society for their adjudication.

Yours Sincerely, Claudius D’Silva.
-----------------------------
UCU Reply: The complaint exceeds the three month time-limit for submitting a complaint.

If the academic union behaves like this, no wonder employers can get away with anything.

Survey shows bad manners affect people's work

A rude boss makes workers less productive, according to a new study of Kiwi companies. The survey by an Australian researcher also found New Zealand to be a nation of bad-mannered bores. Dr Barbara Griffin, of the University of Western Sydney, has found one in five of us experiences boorishness at work at least once a month.

At the first Asia Pacific Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology held in Adelaide, Griffin said rude behaviour was more subtle than bullying. Although some were unaware of their bad manners, others were "deliberately and purposefully" rude. Examples included ignoring emails, making derogatory comments about a workmate, gossiping, texting during a conversation, and interrupting people.

One Wellington woman, who asked not to be named, told the Herald on Sunday she suffered sleepless nights over workplace rudeness during several years in the communications industry.

One colleague constantly and loudly derided her work to others, another yelled across her workroom to get attention, and another always questioned her judgement. Griffin said such undermining was common and often had a flow-on effect through an organisation.

"Even the occasional rude remark can have a big impact. And that can range from lack of commitment and low productivity to high staff turnover." Ironically bosses who figured highly in studies on bullying were less likely than their subordinates to be bad mannered, Griffin said.

And it was younger workers who experienced the most incidents of rudeness. The study surveyed more than 54,000 employees.

Conducting Investigations

The way in which any investigation is conducted will be a key element in the success of your dignity at work strategy – there is no point in introducing a comprehensive policy, training a network of harassment advisers and communicating widely and successfully if you do not have good, fair and transparent procedures for conducting investigations into complaints.

Such investigations are very sensitive and there should be procedures separate from your normal disciplinary and grievance procedures to investigate such complaints, using people who have had specific training in investigating bullying and harassment complaints. You should bear in mind that many complainants and witnesses will be fearful not simply about the outcome but about any repercussions of making the complaint in the first place and they should be reassured that the institution will protect them and make every effort to deal effectively with the aftermath and minimise trauma after the investigation has taken place and the outcome is known.

Therefore you should consider:

• Providing compulsory training for investigators and panel members;

• Ensuring that the investigation is conducted by two people, to gain the maximum benefit from the interviews. If you have investigators who are relatively new, try to team them with someone who has a lot of experience.

• Dealing with complaints in a sensitive, objective manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved;

• Keeping all the participants, including the witnesses, well briefed about the process and ensure that everyone involved is aware of how the findings will be communicated. Ensure that both the accused and the complainant are aware of what information they will receive at the conclusion of the investigation.

• Maintaining confidentiality – this is particularly important in a small institution, where the parties are likely to be well known to many other employees;

• Ensuring that complainants and witnesses are fully protected from victimisation. It is not sufficient to state in your policy that those concerned will be protected – you must have robust systems in place to ensure that this actually happens in the event of an allegation of bullying or harassment.

• Using open questions to elicit the facts of the case and ensure that all questions are as neutral as possible. In particular, try to avoid questions that appear to allocate blame, which will make the respondent overly defensive and will obscure the facts.

• Concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timescale;

• Making every effort to ensure, if possible, that the investigatory team and the panel are balanced in terms of race, gender, etc (this is particularly important in cases where sexual/racial harassment are at issue). Members of the Investigatory team and panels should also include staff from all levels of the institution and represent both support and academic staff.

From: Dignity at work, a Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions on Dealing with Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace.
---------------------
We were recently told by an 'independent' HR Consultant that advises a higher education institution, that the above is only 'good practice' and not a legal requirement. No wonder bully institutions and/or managers get away with so much...

Where the bullied fight back

Published: 22 June 2007, Times Higher Education

Vice-chancellors beware. A blog for bullied academics (http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com) has launched a new award scheme, Divestors of People. It explains that the award “is a standard awarded to higher education institutions that excel in mismanaging, bullying and harassing their staff”. The criteria include: management strategies that promote cronyism, incompetence, favouritism or inequality; demoralised, de-skilled or demoted staff in a toxic working environment; internal grievance procedures being used selectively by managers against staff. Those nominating can remain anonymous. Institutions qualify for the award if they meet at least 50 per cent of the criteria listed on the site, and this can be verified by at least two staff.

The ritual continues... one more story...

Anonymous said:

I have been bullied since XXXX, have been off sick many months in all and am still being bullied. Many laws and codes of conduct have been violated in the process, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and RAE Code of Practice being only two of them. In the past, bullied employees had to try to prove sex or race discrimination, which is difficult. However, since the cases of William Majrowski and Diana Green in 2006, it should be easier to sue employers under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997.

Most academic bullying is connected with the distribution of public money. In my case this involves not just internal but also external funding. My ordeal started with the arrival of a new XXXX who became Chair of XXXX and, later, head of XXXX and Director of XXXX. His closest friend was recently made a Fellow of the XXXX XXXX after being named as a super chair for XXXX XXXX, and has been put in charge of all post grads in the university.

In 19XX this person lied to me about a referee for a proposed funding application of mine to the body of which he is now a Fellow when he was (unbeknown to me) himself an applicant for the award about which, as Research Dean, he should have been advising me. His comments dissuaded me from applying. He gained the award in 19XX and was given two years' internal research leave on top of the two he got from the external body. Despite this he has not completed the research (just as he never completed a PhD or similar project). I have repeatedly been intimidated by him and others over his lie. The interests of undergrads and post grads dependent on my teaching and supervision have been put at risk.

This person also manipulated internal research funding to promote his own field while blocking the work that I wished to submit to the RAE (which is a known international desideratum). His friend, the VC, adjudicated on my case. I was also lied to by another Fellow of the XXX XXX about external referees for an internal Chair for which I had applied.

Eventually, I gained a XXXX XXXX, the only one for a single-authored project in my field that year, but I was restricted by my institution to a one-year Fellowship although I could have had two years for the same money. By then I had been off sick with stress twice. The amount of material that I discovered in one year meant that I needed two years. However, there was decided reluctance to see me finish for RAE XXXX. This, and the concomitant intimidation, caused me to be off sick a third time.

When I returned to work, the bullying worsened. I was told that I must not complain and must carry out my teaching. I was even told that it was BECAUSE of the RAE that I was not being given completion time, and that if this caused me stress I would have to retire.

I was also made to wait longer than usual for an internal research term. When I queried this I was accused of harassing the Head of School (the man who got the Chair for which I had applied) and received a letter from HR saying that I should take ill-health retirement (although I was not off sick) or see the Head of School about my fitness to remain in post. The leave that I had queried was being given to the HoS's own research collaborator and the HoS proposed to judge his own claim of harassment against me for querying this.

When he finally summoned me three days before my birthday, he bullied me again over my querying the leave and tried to pressure me into retiring. On XX XXXX he denied that he had done this, and instead sought to push me to complete my research in a short time, despite knowing that I had suffered stress. He said that he was concerned about completion, but has not shown concern about the non-completion of the former Research Dean's project. He also said that I should not have research students or postdocs or apply to the funding body of which the ex-Research Dean is a Fellow. I wonder if he knows that the applications will be blocked. At the end of the meeting he attempted to trick me into agreeing with a proposition restricting my future right to research leave and then asked HR to send me a letter about this. As I would be competing directly with him for research time, this is a third conflict of interests on top of all the previous ones.

When I wrote to the then General Secretary of AUT, XXXX XXXX, in 2000, he did not fulfill his legal duty to help me, but attacked me in writing. At the time I was off sick for the second time and had suicidal ideation. When I was off for the third time in XXXX I wrote to Charles Clarke. He replied that he could do nothing - and appointed the ex-VC of whose unfairness I had complained as Head of a body concerned with student finance, describing this as a 'good appointment'. In XXXX I complained to Lady Blackstone, whereupon the ex-VC, who had destroyed my career was appointed to review careers' services at all UK universities.

Thus the response to my complaints of bullying has been victimisation, accompanied by promotion and rewards for the bullies. This leads me to conclude that not just HE, but the whole shebang is corrupt. As bullying at the top of HE has been rewarded at the top (the ex-VC has been knighted, is Chancellor of a local university, and is in charge of XXXX) it is not surprising that bullies in HE behave badly: they know that it is a sure route to success.
---------------------
They are a law and a state upon themselves... no real accountability so they can make it up as they go... who will hold them responsible? Certainly not the union or Charles Clarke or Alan Johnston or even Boris... and so the ritual continues. Good academics victimised because of the insecurity and incompetence of vain managers with little or no people-skills.