A few notes on the abuse of occupational health procedures

"Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad" - Euripides

Over the past few years I have listened to many cheerless stories of individuals who have exposed unacceptable practices within universities and hospitals. The institutional response is almost formulaic.

A frequent part of the common experience is the abuse of occupational health procedures. Following an incident this week involving a colleague, I have summarised some aspects of UK occupational health law below.

Most of these individuals started with the belief that their institutions would assume responsibility for upholding their own rules of conduct. They assumed that responses would be honest, colleagues and professional bodies would behave honorably, and that someone would take responsibility for the safety of the product (whether that product is a drug, honest science, open academic discourse or care of individual patients).

In reality, most are projected into an Alice in Wonderland world of sham procedures, collusion, lies and bullying. Many become ill (see the case of Dr Z), and some die. Distress signals are used by poor managers to invent "health concerns" and to avoid rational discussion about genuine problems. That hospitals and medical schools abuse their staff through health mechanisms is indicative of deep immorality within these institutions. The process usually starts as an apparent expression of genuine concern about the health of the employee.

Sadly, psychopathic administrators and medical leaders are rarely subjected to psychiatric or medical evaluation.

Employees should almost never agree to an employer's "offer" of health evaluation under these circumstances. When such evaluation takes place, it should only be for the benefit of the employee. Any assertion by the employer that they must have any right of access to health information is illegal and constitutes serious bullying.

Aspects of the relevant law is summarised from these sources: a) Occupational Health Law, 4th Edition, Diana M Kloss ISBN 0632-064978, b) Medical Ethics Today: Its Practice and Philosophy, Veronica English, Gillian Romano-Critchley. 2002 2nd Ed. BMJ Books, ISBN 0727917447

1. The physical occupational health (OH) records technically belong to the employer, but the employer has no right of control or access to the information therein.
2. OH doctors should have an agreement their employer with regard to confidentiality of records. If the doctor leaves the company, records remain the property of the employer, but should be passed to a new doctor or nurse with the same obligations. If an employee moves to another employment, OH records can only be transferred to the new employer with consent.
3. Employers cannot enforce terms in contracts of employment stating that employees must provide copies of medical records.
4. OH doctors have a duty of confidence which is the same as that for any other doctor. For example, if an OH physician were to reveal to the human resources department (without permission) that an employee has a drink problem the doctor could be sued for damages. Secretarial staff who have access to confidential information share these obligations.
5. According to the General Medical Council there are restricted circumstances under which information could be conveyed by a doctor:
   • The patient explicitly consents.
   • Some circumstances where the doctor shares information with other health professionals caring for that patient
   • Parliament requires disclosure (notifiable diseases, RIDDOR reporting of injuries at work, and more worryingly "terrorism legislation")
   • Disclosure may be made to a statutory regulatory body for investigation into a health professional's fitness to practice (it is worrying that the GMC would see fit to incorporate such a provision without detailed qualification)
   • Disclosure is in the public interest, e.g. to the police about a serious crime
6. If consent is provided, it can later be withdrawn. Consent should be in writing for the protection of the doctor or nurse. Consent should clarify exactly what records may be passed over - not simply "all records". The OH doctor can refuse to accept partial consent if that would be misleading through omission. An OH doctor should not communicate with the patient's own doctor without consent.
7. Guidance from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (2002) is more coherent with greater emphasis on the purpose for which information was supplied: "To trust another person with private and personal information about yourself is a significant matter. If a person to whom that information is given is a nurse, midwife or health visitor, the patient or client has a right to believe that this information, given in confidence, will only be used for the purposes for which it was given and will not be released to others without their permission".
8. Mere attendance at the OH department does not imply consent.
9. Even if an employer is facing legal action by an employee, OH records should not be disclosed to the employer without consent or a court order.
10. An occupational health doctor may find that an individual is somehow unfit for a job or that the employee is in danger. This does not justify a breach of confidence. If the danger is to others there may be a case for breach of confidence, but even then this requires very careful deliberation.
11. Per the Faculty of Occupational Medicine's Guidance on ethics: "Occasionally the occupational physician ....may find that an individual is unfit for a job where the safety of other workers or the public is concerned. He should then take great care to explain fully why he thinks the disclosure of unfitness is necessary.... Where this is not obtained the occupational physician is faced with an ethical dilemma..... Ultimately, the safety of other workers and the general public must prevail..."
12. Occupational health doctors should not become involved in advising employers on the validity or otherwise of sickness absence of an employee. They can however (in consultation with the employee) advise management on potential changes required to the conditions of employment. The doctor may also advise the employer about future employability but without providing clinical details of sickness to the employer.
13. Some occupational health records may be of direct relevance to the employer (for example where the employer has a legal requirement to monitor toxic substances). Those records should be maintained separately from other records. Conveying of such records also requires consent.
    

From: The Scientific Misconduct Blog, by Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

News from Kingston University, UK

1. During the past 10 years how many formal grievances have been raised by employees? How many employees have raised such grievances?

Answer: 36 grievances have been raised by 28 people.

2. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Vice Chancellor, how many appeals were successful?

Answer: None (although one was partially upheld).

3. Of those grievances appealed to the level of Board of Governors, how many appeals were successful?

Answer: None.

4. Of those grievances appealed (i.e. beyond the level of Personnel to the Vice Chancellor and/or Board of Governors), how many employees launching such appeals are still employed by the University?

Answer: Two.

5. Of those employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these employees who were members of ethnic and/or religious minorities.

Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The percentage of employees who were members of ethinc minorities was 57% (4 out of 7).

6. Of all employees dismissed on any grounds, please provide the percentage of these who were non-British born.

Answer: 28% (2 out of 7).

7. Of all employees hired since 1998, what is the average length in years/months of employment of such employees?

Answer: From the data the University has recorded from 1998 the overall average length of employment in years/months is 3 years 1 month.

8. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are members of ethnic/religious minorities?

Answer: The University does not record employees religion. The average length of employment for employees who are members of ethnic minorities is 2 years and 10 months.

9. Of the above average length of employment, what is the figure for employees who are non-British?

Answer: The average length of employment for employees who are non-British is 2 years and 8 months.

Sir Peter Scott and Leadership for Higher Education in the 21st Century

Read more about it at:

http://www.sirpeterscott.com/

Thirty academic mobbing cases since 2005

Below, in alphabetical order, are 30 academics whose troubles, as reported in the press or on the web, appear to fit the definition of workplace mobbing. Reviewing these cases is useful for understanding the variety of origins of the phenomenon and the different ways cases play out.

1. Jury refuses to convict Sami Al-Arian (University of South Florida); he is eliminated anyway
2. Jonathan Bean on guard, surviving at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
3. Jerry Becker and Elisabeth Reichert in board presentation at SIUC
4. Stephen Berman is ousted from University of Saskatchewan
5. At Sheffield, Aubrey Blumsohn is forced out, starts blog
6. Student Seung-Hui Cho goes postal at Virginia Tech, 33 dead
7. Firestorm over Ward Churchil at University of Colorado
8. Suicide of David Clarke at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
9. At last, Jean Cobbs vindicated at Virginia State
10. Dramatist George Cron is ousted from Missouri State
11. Shiraz Dossa goes to conference, is mobbed, keeps job (St. Francis Xavier University)
12. Christopher Dussold's resistance at Southern Illinois (Edwardsville)
13. Mohammed Elmasry retires at Waterloo — mobbing aborted
14. Jews mob a Jew: Norman Finkelstein gone from DePaul
15. Redress for Joan Friedenberg at Southern Illinois (Carbondale)
16. Ouster of Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer at Southern Mississippi
17. Biswanath Halder cybermobbed at Case Western Reserve, goes postal
18. Hector Hammerly (Simon Fraser University) is dead
19. Filmmakers John Hookham and Gary MacLennan suspended from QUT for newspaper article
20. Harassment of Gabrielle Horne continues at Dalhousie
21. K C Johnson alive and kicking at Brooklyn College
22. Biology professor Robert J. Klebe files suit (UTHSC San Antonio)
23. David Mullen suspended for words at Cape Breton University
24. Physician Nancy Olivieri still battling in court (University of Toronto)
25. Lethbridge administrators attack Tom Robinson for his website
26. John Soloski fighting back at University of Georgia
27. Successful mobbing of Harvard President Lawrence Summers
28. Medaille College settles with Therese Warden & Uhuru Watson
29. James D. Watson broken for breaking a taboo (Cold Spring Harbor Lab)
30. Supreme Court victory for Wanda Young (Memorial of Newfoundland)

More details and info from: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobnews06.htm

Once a bully always a bully? Dealing with the perpetrators

There's no shortage of statistics to paint what is a rather bleak picture of bullying in the UK. According to the Andrea Adams Trust, a global workplace bullying charity, as many as 18.9 million working days are lost to bullying every year and up to a half of all stress-related illnesses are a direct result of bullying.

Even more worrying is that, despite legislation designed to stamp out the problems, the trend appears to be on the up.

When the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) last tested the waters in 2006, they found as many as 20 per cent of respondents had experienced some kind of harassment or bullying over a two-year period. This is an increase of 7 per cent since the 2004 survey.

The Association for Coaching (AC), a not-for-profit organisation that carried out a joint survey with the Trades Union Congress and CBI, also found that just under half of employees have witnessed workplace bullying, indicating that the incidences of bullying might actually be higher then the 'reported' figures represent.

Marie Strebler, a senior research fellow from The Institute for Employment Studies, says the issue is made even more confusing given that bullying doesn't lend itself to a legal definition but the statistics indicate loud and clearly that the problem is rife, alive and well in organisations across the UK today...

Read the rest at: http://www.hrzone.co.uk

Speak out on bullying

9 November 2007

I have been a target of workplace bullying in the university where I work. I have been so ill with stress that I have taken time off work. When I returned I was ignored by colleagues, my grievance unresolved. The union rep who was supposed to be supporting me blamed me for the lack of progress in my case.

If you know someone being bullied, then speak out. It's not a spectator sport.

From: Times Higher Education

Keys to Spotting a Flawed CEO - Before it's too late

The Warning Signs • An overt zeal for prestige, power and wealth. A manager's tendency to put his or her own success ahead of the company's often is evident long before that person is ready to assume the CEO post.

A reputation for shameless self-promotion. Executives who constantly seek publicity, are always looking for a better job or trumpet their successes while quickly distancing themselves from setbacks are sending strong signals that their egotistical ways may eventually cause major problems.

• A proclivity for developing grandiose strategies with little thought toward their implementation. These executives may assume that others at lower levels will magically turn strategy into reality.

• A fondness for rules and numbers that overshadows or ignores a broader vision. This is the flip side of the preceding problem.

• A reputation for implementing major strategic changes unilaterally or for forcing programs down the throats of reluctant managers. CEOs have to be consensus builders.

• An impulsive, flippant decision-making style. CEOs who approach decision-making with clever one-liners rather than with balanced, thoughtful and informed analyses can expect to encounter difficulty.

• A penchant for inconsiderate acts. Individuals who exhibit rude behavior are apt to alienate the wrong person at the wrong time.

• A love of monologues coupled with poor listening skills. Bad listeners rarely profit from the wisdom of their associates.

• A tendency to display contempt for the ideas of others. Hypercritical executives often have few stellar accomplishments of their own.

• A history of emphasizing activity, like hours worked or meetings attended, over accomplishment. Energy without objective rarely leads to improved organizational performance.

• A career marked by numerous misunderstandings. There are two sides to every story, but frequent interpersonal problems shouldn't be overlooked.

• A superb ability to compartmentalize and/or rationalize. Some executives have learned to separate, in their own minds, their bad behavior from their better qualities, so that their misdeeds don't diminish their opinions of themselves. An important internal check is missing. Others are always ready to cite a higher purpose to justify their bad decisions.

Dr. Leap is a Professor of management at Clemson University. From: The Wall Street Journal

Tribunal rules vice-chancellor is guilty

A tribunal has found the former vice-chancellor of Brunel University, Steven Schwartz, guilty of victimisation after he publicly implied that two former colleagues had behaved dishonestly, writes Melanie Newman. After Brunel staff members Gurdish Webster and Saeed Vaseghi lost claims of race discrimination against the university in 2005, Professor Schwartz sent two circulars around Brunel criticising the pair, whom he did not name.

Bemoaning the expense of defending the cases, he referred to the two as having made "unwarranted demands for money" and described their claims as "unfounded", "unmeritorious" and "futile".

"The cost of the defence exceeded £60,000," wrote Professor Schwartz. "This is money that could have been used for teaching and research." He criticised the then Association of University Teachers for using "members' funds to support futile litigation".

Professor Vaseghi told the tribunal that the message "echoed around the campus" and that as "the high priest of the university", Professor Schwartz's words were accepted without question.

The tribunal concluded that the claimants' sense of grievance was reasonable and justified. "Professor' Schwartz's assertion that the claimants had made unwarranted demands for money was an implicit assertion of dishonesty on their part," it said. The earlier tribunal, while dismissing the cases of discrimination, had accepted that they were made in good faith.

Professor Vaseghi and Ms Webster were awarded £7,500 each as compensation for injury to their feelings. The tribunal said Professor Schwartz and the university were equally responsible, so each should be liable for half of each award.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: "The findings of the tribunal are important because members of black and minority ethnic communities often feel intimidated and fearful of making legitimate claims of discrimination against their employer."

A spokesperson for Brunel said: "We are taking time to consider the judgment in detail."

From: http://www.thes.co.uk/ by Melanie Newman

Appraisals a time waster

Many workers think their annual appraisals are a waste of time, saying they do not trust their boss to be honest or to take much notice of what is discussed, a survey released on Monday said.

The research found a quarter of respondents thought managers simply regarded the reviews as a "tick-box" exercise while one in five accused their bosses of not even thinking about the appraisal until they were in the room.

Almost half (44 percent) did not think their boss was honest during the process, 29 percent thought they were pointless, and a fifth felt they had had an unfair appraisal, according to the YouGov poll of just under 3,000 workers.

Only a fifth believed their manager would always act on what came up during the review and 20 percent said their boss never bothered to follow up any concerns raised.

However four out of 10 thought appraisals were a useful guide to an individual's progress and just under a third thought they were helpful.

Many said they would prefer more regular feedback, which might explain why 40 percent said they had been surprised at what they were told during an appraisal, said Investors in People, the organisation that commissioned the survey.

"It is encouraging that many people now receive an annual review and the research suggests that they find the feedback useful," said Simon Jones, Acting Chief Executive of Investors in People.

"But, it is also a concern that some managers may be letting down their employees by failing to give full and frank feedback.

"It's a great chance for managers to make sure their employees feel challenged and valued for the year ahead, rather than unmotivated and without guidance."

The survey found those working in the public sector were the most negative about appraisals while those employed in accountancy and financial services were more likely to see them as useful.

From: http://uk.news.yahoo.com
---------------------------
Unmotivated and without guidance... What about the Dean whose job it was to provide an appraisal but was not interested in doing so. In the end, the staff member demanded one and the Dean took five minutes to tick all boxes... What about the Head of School who used to insert in appraisals targets that were never discussed with the academic staff member? And all of this in a University that is an Investor in People!

Constructive Insubordination

This blog was set up out of frustration with certain events at the University of Lethbridge [Canada]. Some of the senior admnistrators seem bent on eliminating criticism and they take harsh action when openly challenged. Student concerns are sometimes dismissed out of hand. It is getting increasingly difficult to understand how the faculty association (ULFA) is offering protection for faculty caught up in this.

Faculty members’ relationship with the administration and university as a whole are governed by the Faculty Handbook. The handbook also outlines the procedure for promotion and tenure, for filing grievances and so forth. It is this handbook that a number of faculty members accuse ULFA of abandoning or selectively applying, leaving the members to fend for themselves...

...in October 2007, Prof. Robinson was so frustrated by all of this that he posted all of his documentation on the issue on a website he provocatively called “One Banana Short of a Republic” and wrote an open letter to the University administration in the student newspaper in which he advertised the site. The university administration was outraged and the Dean of A&S gave Prof. Robinson 5 days to remove the site (which is hosted on a private webhosting service) and to have the student newspaper publish a full apology or face unspecified disciplinary action.

At the advice of his lawyer, Robinson refused, and instead scanned and posted the dean’s letter on what is now called by many at the U of L “The Banana”. In turn, the dean wrote to Robinson informing him that he has recommended to President Cade that Robinson be suspended for two months without pay for “Gross Professional Misconduct”. He cited certain portions of the ULFA Handbook (that Robinson alleges do not really apply) and what is called FOIP (the “Freedom of Information and Privacy” laws in Alberta). This letter has also found its way to the Banana...

From: http://constructiveinsubordination.wordpress.com/