Almost 200 academic staff fight against RAE exclusion

At least 190 academics who were told their work would not be submitted to the research assessment exercise mounted a formal challenge against their exclusion, Times Higher Education has discovered. And about one in three of those who appealed was successful in overturning the decision, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The RAE, a periodic assessment of research quality in university departments, is used to determine more than £1 billion worth of grants each year. Any academic omitted from it is, in effect, branded "research inactive", which can prove a blow to their prestige.

The data, which are not officially collated, were compiled by Times Higher Education using information received from 145 universities. In total, 159 higher education institutions are known to have made RAE submissions.

The show that of at least 190 academics who lodged appeals against exclusion, 58 (30.5 per cent) were upheld. Across the sector, six appeals were taken by individuals beyond universities' RAE appeals procedures and became formal grievances. It is not known yet how many academics were excluded from this year's exercise. In 2001, more than 32,500 research-active staff (40.4 per cent) were excluded.

The institution to receive the most appeals was Queen's University Belfast, where 37 academics challenged their exclusion. Of these, 11 were upheld, 26 rejected and two proceeded to formal grievance.

Queen's was followed by the University of Glasgow (21 appeals), Swansea University (17), Queen Mary, University of London (15) and Kingston University, which had 11 appeals. The rest of the sector either did not receive any appeals or received mostly only one or two.

This year's RAE is the first in which universities have had to have an internal code of practice for preparing submissions, including selecting staff for inclusion. An appeals provision is standard. Decisions about which staff to include are at the university's discretion, but they need to be defensible and must not contravene equal opportunities legislation.

Reasons for appeal were wide-ranging. They included: claims that the university was not following its own procedures correctly; that due account had not been taken of special personal circumstances such as maternity leave that affected research volume; that research quality had not been judged correctly; and that new evidence of research output had not been originally considered.

Trevor Newsom, director of research at Queen's, said the reason for the relatively high number of appeals there was that the university had been upfront with academics about why they were excluded. "We made it easy to appeal and that was in keeping with the spirit the Higher Education Funding Council for England had requested," he said.

But Jimmy Donaghey, the local issues secretary of the University and College Union, cited a different reason: "(There was a) lack of transparency in the Queen's RAE selection process and, in some areas, Queen's decision-makers did not use the same weightings for the various measures as will be used by the (RAE) subject panels," he told Times Higher Education.

A spokesman for the University of Glasgow said an appeals rate of "less than 2 per cent" testified to the "robustness of its process". He added that a "substantial number" of appeals were upheld because the academics provided evidence that their publications would appear in time for the RAE deadline.

The vice-chancellor of Swansea University, Richard Davies, said a "major factor" behind the number of their appeals was that the university had applied "stricter criteria" than previously, excluding more academics. He said 92 per cent were submitted in 2001 compared with approximately 80 per cent in 2008. Queen Mary said in a statement that it was "satisfied that the processes used in its RAE decision-making were fair and thorough". A Kingston University official said that although 11 staff had complained, only two submissions were eligible for consideration and one of those had been upheld.

Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank, said the fact that so few academics had appealed meant they either did not disagree with the judgments or did not think it was worth arguing against.

A spokesman for Universities UK said the low number of appeals suggested that institutions had "robust procedures" in place for selecting staff for inclusion.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said it had lobbied for a "less selective" RAE and would analyse the data on exclusions, particularly in relation to equality issues. "We do not accept that the relatively low numbers (of appeals) vindicates the current system," she said. "Lodging an appeal is a stressful process and a wholly unsatisfactory one for the two thirds of staff who had their appeals rejected."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
----------------------------
A spokesman for Universities UK said the low number of appeals suggested that institutions had "robust procedures" in place for selecting staff for inclusion!!!

Research Assessment Exercise: Guidance on producing equality profiles

Under RAE 03/2005, institutions were instructed to provide an equality profile of staff who are eligible for submission to the RAE, and indicate those who are submitted and those who are not.

Under equality legislation , institutions are required to monitor the progression of their staff according to racial group, disability status and gender. In addition, HEIs are encouraged to submit the work of all their excellent researchers, including those whose volume of research output has been limited for reasons covered by equal opportunities guidelines, for example disability or absence from work due to maternity leave.

Equality profiles, therefore, provide the evidence base necessary to identify differential submission to the RAE with regard to different equality groups. If any apparent imbalance is found relative to the total potential pool, then the HEI may be required to account for it, and to provide objective, non-discriminatory reasons for the impact, taking into account the factors above.

In order to meet their obligations under equality legislation, HEIs must monitor the submission of eligible staff to the RAE according to race, disability status and gender. They must therefore collect statistics in these three regards for the group of eligible staff and for those selected. ‘Eligible staff’ in this case refers to all academic staff, whose contract lists research and/or teaching as their primary function.

From: Equality Challenge Unit

Institutional racism in UK universities?

Universities have become the latest institutions to be accused of harbouring racism. A professor at Manchester University has lashed out with claims of racial discrimination. Dr Aneez Esmail, a leading medical academic said, "I do think that as an organisation Manchester University, like so many British universities, is institutionally racist."

The most high profile case to face Oxford in recent years has been that of Nadeem Ahmed, a student at the Oriental Institute, who was asked to leave the university in June 1999 having been made to sit unofficial 'flawed' exams by his tutor. Although he was unsuccessful in his legal action, Ahmed has been widely backed by anti-racist groups, including the Oxford Majlis Asian Association.

A recent survey by the Association of University Teachers has revealed racial tensions and prejudices. Out of 10,000 interviewed, 25% of ethnic minority staff felt that they had been unfairly treated in interviews, and worryingly, ethnic minorities make up less than 4% of the student body, in traditional universities. Similarly, not one academic in any of the top 3 positions at a UK University is from an ethnic minority, and out of 11,000 university professors, only 208 are black or Asian. - 24th Jan 2002

From: http://www.oxfordstudent.com/

Is Oxford University racist?

"It is increasingly clear that the purpose of Oxford University's current method of handling ethnic minority complaints is to exhaust complainants in order to force them, for the sake of Oxford's brand name, to withdraw their grievances."
Letter from an Oxford academic to Kofi Annan prior to Annan's acceptance of an honorary Oxford degree in July 2001

Keble College has been labelled institutionally racist by an employment tribunal after being found guilty of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.

College accountant Diamond Versi accused bursar Roger Boden of forcing him out of his job due to his race. Mr Versi, who is of Asian origin, left Keble College following a reorganisation of the accounts department instigated by the Bursar in January last year. Versi had worked for the college for 14 years.

In a written ruling, the tribunal said: "The whole process was a sham and the tribunal takes a most unfavourable view of a prestigious Oxford college."

Versi told The Oxford Student he felt the reorganisation of the accounts department, which led to his resignation, had been designed to shunt him out. "They have around 600 students and now they say they don't need an accountant. Can you believe that?"

Versi described how the ordeal had caused a great deal of stress and he had received medication from the doctor due to high blood pressure and sleepless nights. "I am thoroughly surprised that he [Boden] kept his job," said Versi. "His position is untenable. I saved the college millions of pounds. He should have gone, not me. I blame not only Roger Boden, but the whole Keble College system. The Warden would not talk to me, nobody would talk to me."

However, staff and students of Keble have defended Boden, refuting the conclusions drawn by the tribunal. Keble Warden Professor Averil Cameron expressed her dismay at the verdict. "The college is very shocked and upset by the tribunal; we don't recognise its findings and we are looking into an appeal very carefully. There are a lot of mistakes in the tribunal's findings. We have explanations for every alleged incident and they were not recognised. We lost because the tribunal was unfair, they only listened to Mr Versi's case."

Versi's case was based on proving he had been unfairly dismissed by Keble. If this was proved, it was then up to Boden to prove he was not racially prejudiced against Versi. James Stuart, representing Versi, built a picture of conflict between his client and Boden, which led to his dismissal. This was accepted by the tribunal. It was described how the bursar launched an internal investigation against Versi in December 2002 with his only motivation being Versi's purchase of a new BMW and his taking his wife on holiday to Sri Lanka.

During 2003 the relationship between the two men worsened and the claimant described how he felt he was sidelined from decision-making by Boden. In January 2004 the bursar submitted a review of the accounts department which recommended the posts of accountant and assistant accountant be scrapped and replaced by a new post of financial controller. Mr Versi claimed this was designed to force him out of the office and that his assistant, Julie Hernandez, was assured the position. Hernandez did not appear as a witness.

Versi refused to apply for the new post and issued a formal grievance of racial discrimination to the Finance Committee in January 2004, the first instance where his official racial discrimination complaint was made. The claimant felt he was not given a fair hearing by the college, who rejected his claims as without merit and felt the case for the proposed re-structuring was entirely workable. The tribunal said Boden had undue influence on the complaint and appeal process.

A number of examples were submitted by the claimant as evidence for Boden's alleged racism. In March 2003 Boden refused to provide a £4,000 loan to a Keble employee of Pakistani origin. In October 2001 he had agreed to grant a £5,000 loan to a white employee.

Keble College's Warden, Professor Averil Cameron,
who believes the ruling was unfair

The claimant also cited how Mr Boden had blocked the transfer of a member of the Hall staff of Vietnamese origin, Hien Le, from moving to the accounts department in April 2003. Le, who now works in the accounts department, was not called as a witness by either the college or Mr Versi, but she told The Oxford Student she did not support Diamond Versi's assertion that Mr Boden had been racially prejudiced against her. "It was not until I read The Oxford Mail that I heard I had been discriminated against. I didn't get the impression they didn't want me because I was Vietnamese."

Professor Cameron suggested Keble had made a mistake by deciding not to provide Le as a witness. "Perhaps we were advised in the wrong direction," she said.

However, the tribunal felt Boden and Keble College did not provide adequate evidence that he had not acted in a racist manner. Professor Cameron refutes that there was any evidence of racial discrimination.

During an interview with The Oxford Student, Versi was questioned on his evidence of Boden's alleged racial discrimination. He described the conflict with the Bursar over staff loans. "It was total racism," said Versi. However, when Versi was challenged over the nature of the two loans in question, one needed to pay off a credit card debt and the other to help purchase a house, he said: "Stop arguing with me. It bloody well was racism. I don't need to justify myself to you, you're not the tribunal." Versi then said he would not answer further questions.

He had earlier expressed his unhappiness with the nature of coverage of the tribunal by Oxford University's two student newspapers. "I was extremely upset with the articles in The Oxford Student and the Cherwell. It was very upsetting for me. Roger Boden should never have spoken to the press during the tribunal."

Meanwhile, Keble JCR President Mohsin Zaidi expressed his surprise at the findings. "My relations with the Bursar have been amazing. I can say that he's not a racist because I know him and speak to him every day. I hope the Keble student body can trust my, the JCR treasurer's and the vice-president's judgement in our support for Mr Boden because we deal with him and they elected us to do so," he said. Zaidi was not surprised at Mr Versi's reaction to being questioned over the evidence in the tribunal. "It shows he doesn't have any basis to claim the Bursar was racist," he said.

From: http://www.akme.btinternet.co.uk/vsioxst2.html
----------------
Late in 2004, to celebrate the fact that no legal action alleging racial discrimination had ever successfully been brought against any Oxford college or the University, Akme assembled the special Oxford Is Not Racist subindex of reported incidents and failed lawsuits. Now with the dramatic conclusion of the case Versi vs Keble College & Roger Boden, in which both the college and its bursar have been found guilty of racial discrimination and unfair dismissal, Oxford's blameless record and reputation have irrevocably been shattered. For the benefit of scholars Akme has collated the papers in this important, fascinating and at times comical case, and here posted them in a new linked series. Note too the Warden's 'under payment'.

From: http://www.akme.btinternet.co.uk/race0000.html
----------------
The whole process was a sham and the Tribunal takes a most unfavourable view of a prestigious Oxford college who through its Finance Committee and Governing Body failed to apply appropriate checks and balances and allowed a situation to prevail where there were no effective or operable policies in relation to equal opportunities at the college. Much has been canvassed regarding equal opportunities as to admissions to Oxford colleges and no doubt Keble College takes such issues seriously. In the Tribunal's view it should also pay significantly more attention to the matter of equal opportunities in relation to its workforce. The claimant with distinguished service of 15 years in a senior position deserved a lot more from the college in the unfair and prejudicial process that led to his departure.

From: http://www.akme.btinternet.co.uk/vsijgmt1.html

Injustice anywhere...

Studies of bully victims found increased risk of suicidal behavior, with victims being up to 5.6 times more likely to have suicidal thoughts...

When it comes to workplace bullying there are distinct stances adopted by HR Departments

When it comes to workplace bullying and its attendant issues – because it never arrives in the workplace alone – there are distinct stances adopted by HR Departments. Like yoga positions, they can be categorized.

1. The Mafioso:

Perhaps the worst stance, the Mafioso HR Department knows there is a problem with workplace bullying and actively participates or supports the abuse by bringing false, fabricated or unnecessary proceedings against the targets of bullying, supporting the culprits, joining in “the fun”. Their typical way is to issue threats to targets and abuse procedure. They are the harbingers of doom to any firm and and they ride in on the pale horse.

Oh, yes, you know who you are. And so do we. We can tell by the attrition rates, the number of lawsuits, and the fact that you can smell the fear and tension the moment you walk through the door.

2. The Ostrich:

Identified by somewhat sandy and muffled responses to questions on respect at work with.“We don’t have a problems with workplace bullying, nor are we ever going to have one” or even “We take respect at work seriously”. The muffled responses get all the fainter when one tried to identify how, exactly, they are taking it seriously. They achieve the same result as the Mafioso except passively, not actively.

3. The Firefighter:

This HR position involves leaping from crisis to crisis, from formal discipline/grievance proceeding to proceeding, from court room to court room. There’s no time to implement good practice – they are too busy putting out fires.

4. The Bureaucrat:

This HR team loves writing policies that look good on paper and then stuffing them in a drawer, and scheduling expensive training which doesn’t tackle the problems. Failure to monitor and audit procedures lead to a failure in implantation. But hey, they look good, even if you don’t achieve much. Often accompanied by Firefighters or Ostriches.

5. The Tinker:

The Tinker is perhaps the least glamorous respondent to the challenge of workplace bullying. They might not look good, patching here and there, but they only step in occasionally when a rare crisis emerges. For the most part, their conflict resolution and workplace harassment policies and procedures work so well they can get on with other stuff – like hiring, succession planning, and increasing the firm’s knowledge base. They do this by practicing preventative medicine in the work place, continually, monitoring and checking for signs of bullying and workplace toxicity. They actively work to reduce the number of grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and attrition due to mental ill health. They keep their stats in order. Quietly.

You know the burning question, don’t you? Which one of the five positions is YOUR firm’s HR adopting in response to Workplace Harassment?

From: http://scottishboomerang.wordpress.com

An Open memo to Baroness Ann Gibson – Chair of the Dignity at Work Project

Baroness I understand that you have been quoted as saying: ‘Employers who choose to ignore bullying do so at huge costs to society."

I would like you to know, Baroness Gibson, that my university – a prestigious research university – which claims to be a centre of excellence - has in my view behaved disgracefully and unprofessionally in relation to its Dignity at Work policy.

From my experience there is little evidence that the policy has been taken seriously. I believe that since the policy was implemented in my university there has been no impact assessment of the policy.

When a meeting was held to discuss issues in relation to the policy many staff openly ignored requests to attend the meeting.

The Dignity at Work project that you chair has indicated that the costs to the economy of work place bullying run into billions – almost 14 billion pounds a year. Yet there appears to be no ‘moral panic’ about this – whipped up by the media.

Why might this be? Has debate about this been silenced?

I have worked tirelessly at my university to raise issues in relation to alleged workplace bullying. The university carried out an internal survey which has indicated the scale of the problem.

However it is difficult to see what action has been taken to effectively address these issues. Those of us who freely give of our time to raise issues in relation to workplace bullying are often faced with ‘character assassination’; these and other strategies are used by our colleagues whose aim is to discredit us.

In my university I believe that the strategy of ‘character assassination’ against me has been and continues to be very effective. The issues that I raise are ignored as my university tries to brazen out the uncomfortable facts of workplace bullying that inform out working culture.

This blog is the only outlet for my concerns. It has been a lifeline and has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that I have not taken my life.

It is probably impossible for you to understand the effects of prolonged and intense workplace bullying. Talk of suicide suggests an unstable character and very soon one is in a position where the target of workplace bullying is gently ushered into counselling. My university have suggested that I go for counselling.

Currently I am still very much alive… if you saw my smiling face in the street you would have no idea of the suffering that is hidden beneath my smile. If you saw my colleagues from the university you would see charming people…

We have learnt from stories of abusive relationships in domestic violence that bullies are not easy to spot. Targets of workplace bullying can be easier to identify when they are dead as they are no longer a threat.

In writing this memo to you I am exercising my right under parliamentary privilege to draw attention to defects within my university - specifically in relation to work place bullying. I have worked tirelessly to address these issues myself.

I understand that, if I am threatened by my employer as a result of this memo, I can raise the matter with my MP and it will be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Even so – I use a pseudonym – and construct this memo so that I cannot be traced. I am fearful of the consequences. You see despite everything I love my work with the students in my university and I want to remain there working with them.

I just want the alleged workplace bullying to stop.

Aphra Behn
-----------------
Send a polite email to Baroness Gibson to highlight the issue of workplace bullying in higher education.

The Waterloo Anti - Mobbing Instruments

Name the process

Workplace mobbing is an impassioned, collective movement by managers and/or co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker. A desperate urge to crush and eliminate the target spreads through the work unit, infecting one person after another like a contagious disease. The target comes to be seen as absolutely abhorrent, outside the circle of respectability, deserving only of contempt. A steadily broader range of hostile words and actions toward the target are to be deployed.

About 5 percent of workers are targets of mobbing sometime during their working lives. Most workers see the process from the other side: as instigator, chief eliminator, collaborator, or bystander, or as the target’s guardian or rescuer. The same individual may play different roles in different cases. Mobbing is a drama performed on a real-life stage; workmates make their respective exits and entrances, and play their varied parts.

Mobbing is distinct from penalizing or firing a worker who, on the basis of evidence, does not measure up job requirements. The latter is a reasoned, routine managerial procedure, normally directed with regret at an underachiever. Mobbing is a furious collective attack made with undisguised glee on an overachiever or someone seen as threatening to good and decent employees.

Workplace mobbing is like bullying, in that the object is to rob the target of dignity and self-respect. Here, however, it is not a single swaggering bully that the target is up against, but the juggernaut of collective will. The message to the target is that everybody wants you out of here. Bullies often play leading roles in mobbing cases, whether as targets or perpetrators.

Understand the stages of the process

No two cases are alike, but mobbing typically proceeds from subtle, informal techniques of humiliation and exclusion to overt and formal measures. Five stages are commonly distinguished:

1. Avoidance and ostracization of the target.
2. Petty harassment: making the target’s life difficult.
3. A critical incident that triggers formal sanctions: “something has to be done.
4. Aftermath of the incident: hearings, appeals, mediation.
5. Elimination: target quits, retires,, is fired, becomes disabled, dies of stress-induced illness, or commits suicide.

Recognize the signs of ganging up

The first step toward prevention and remedy of workplace mobbing is to recognize the behaviours that constitute it and call the process by its name. Here are signs to look for:

1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.

Question what is going on

What does the evidence show? Has the target really committed an unpardonable sin? Or might this war of all against one be merely a cruel way of trying to avert a war of all against all?

Educate yourself about humans in mobs

Workplace mobbing springs from elemental impulses common to many mammals. The term pecking order comes from what chickens routinely do: gang up on one of their number (often a new arrival), each pecking the target and keeping it away from food and water. Although individual pecks do little harm, their cumulative effect is to kill the targeted bird.

There is no quick fix for something so instinctive and primordial. Reducing the incidence of mobbing and healing its effects require not just training but education: critical reflection on the human project, insight into the complexity of life, knowledge of right and wrong, self-knowledge above all.

Literature

Classic novels like these shed light on mobbing:

• Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (1850), The House of Seven Gables (1851). The hunt for witches, Hawthorne writes, “should teach us, among its other morals, that the influential classes, and those that take upon themselves to be leaders of the people, are fully liable to all the passionate error that has ever characterized the maddest mob.”
• Herman Melville, Billy Budd, Foretopman (1924).

Films

In many movies, ganging up is a basic theme. Six examples:

• The Crucible (Arthur Miller play; Daniel Day-Lewis; 1996);
• Dead Poets Society (Peter Weir, dir.; Robin Williams; 1989);
• Dogville (Lars von Trier, dir.; Nicole Kidman; 2003);
• The Human Stain (P. Roth novel; Anthony Hopkins; 2003);
• Joan of Arc (Roberto Rossellini, dir.; Ingrid Bergman; 1948);
• Malena (Giuseppe Tornatore, dir.; Monica Bellucci; 2000).

Research summaries

In the early 1980s, the late Swedish psychologist Heinz Leymann spearheaded the research effort on psychological terror in the workplace. Here are three practical summaries:

• Noa Davenport et al., Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace (Ames, IA: Civil Society, 1999). Engaging.
• Gary and Ruth Namie, The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job (Benicia, CA: DoubleDoc, 2000). Well-researched, helpful.
• Judith Wyatt and Chauncey Hare, Work Abuse: How to Recognize It and Survive It (Rochester, VT: Schenkman, 1997). Key concept is shame. Profound, easy to read.

Web-sites

Do Google searches for “workplace mobbing” or “bullying,” or for Australian researchers like Charmaine Hockley, Brian Martin, Linda Shallcross, Michael Sheehan. Look at mobbing.ca

Be at once kind and careful

Lying low, keeping your head down, following the crowd, and kowtowing to the boss are poor defenses against being mobbed. Nobody is safe in workplaces of chronic scapegoating, mobbing, and nastiness. This year’s mobber may be next year’s target.

Practical suggestions researchers commonly offer for personal conduct include the following:

• Keep your mind on the job. Mobs form when people lose sight of the organization’s purposes, turn their attention inward, get caught up in power struggles and one-upmanship.
• Plan carefully before blowing the whistle on managerial misconduct. Managers tend to go after whistleblowers, and elites close ranks. See Brian Martin, The Whistleblower’s Handbook (Annandale, NSW: Envirobook, 1999).
• Get a life away from work. Cultivate social relations in many different groups – family, school, church, community. If managers and workmates turn on a person who lacks alternative sources of social support, the target is easily destroyed.
• Show kindness to the target. Instead of joining mobbers or bystanders, find ways to affirm the target’s humanity. The mob may then turn on you, but you may possibly save another’s life.
• Nietzsche said it best: “Distrust all those in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.”

Promote workplace decency

Keeping a workplace free of scapegoating and terror takes more than good intentions on the part of the managers and workers involved. Some organizational structures and procedures work better than others, for getting work done well and for discouraging people from ganging up. Here are possibilities:

• Spread power around. Pluralism, countervailing power, checks and balances, bring out the best in people. Concentration of power in a single hierarchy brings out the worst.
• Minimize adversarial, zero-sum proceedings. Quasi-judicial tribunals unleash groupthink and the impulse to scapegoat. Productivity, truth, and justice are better served by open administration and straight talk, with cards on the table.
• Discourage a culture of grievance and legalism. Given the choice, wasting hours in occasional arguments is less costly and stressful than wasting years in arbitration or in court.
• Avoid “neutral” mediators. They usually side with whoever has the upper hand. An effective mediator is committed to truth, fairness, give and take, productivity, quality, efficiency.
• Provide opportunities for dialogue. If people have the chance to voice concerns, air differences, listen to one another, and seek common ground, the threat of mobbing is reduced – see Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue (New York, 1999).

By: KENNETH WESTHUES, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, ON N2L 3G1, CANADA – kwesthue@watarts.uwaterloo.ca

Academic Bullies

I received a call from a former client this afternoon. This morning, a senior faculty member, who teaches the same subject matter as her, "summoned" her into his office where he proceeded to berate her, call her names and threatened her. He repeatedly screamed that he was tenured and she was still untenured and that she had to answer to him.

Over the phone, she still sounded very shaken and wanted to double check that her reaction and plan of action were on target. She was fighting the urge to simply withdraw from the world and quit her job on the spot. She told me that she never wants to be alone with him again. I was proud of her. Her plans were right on target. This bully had already been warned about his behavior before. She is reporting his behavior to the appropriate people, documenting his bullying, and reaching out to other senior faculty women on her campus for the best ways to deal with him. In essence, she is calling upon her inner warrior princess to shore up her boundaries and is drawing a line in the sand by stating that she refuses to be bullied.

Hazing and bullying have gone on for far too long. Afraid of the bully, colleagues and administrators look the other way as women, especially, are subjected to an extremely hostile environment. Too often, the bully relies on the knowledge that the junior faculty member is too afraid of jeopardizing their chances for tenure and promotion to say anything. But, if you read discussion forums, the end result is that the environment becomes so unbearable that the faculty member ends up leaving for what she hopes are greener and kinder pastures (after all sense of self-confidence in one's abilities have been destroyed).

Bullying has been the elephant in the room. But I am hopeful that people are starting to finally address it. Lately, I have seen a lot of conversations about "faculty incivility" on professional forums for faculty development specialists as well as timid forays into the subject by the Chronicle of Higher Education (Click here for an interesting op-ed about tenure that states that tenure encourages bullying). Let's hope that these conversations develop legs and are the beginning of real change.

I have not had the chance to read Twale and DeLuca's book Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully Culture and What to Do About It that was released earlier this year, but my colleagues are all giving it a thumbs up on how to deal with bullying and how to deal with a culture that encourages the chewing up and spitting out of junior faculty.

Let's join my former client in drawing the line in the sand. Let's conjure up our warrior princesses and remind the bullies that we expect to be treated with respect.

From: http://aroundtheacademy.blogspot.com

Informal complaints: handle with care

Statutory grievance procedures continue to plague employers. For example, in Procek v Oakford Farms Limited, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that a grievance which had been labelled by Mr Procek, a Polish farm worker, as "informal" did satisfy the requirements of the statutory grievance procedures. Consequently, the tribunal was able, not just to hear Procek's claims, but also to slap a punitive 50% uplift on any award of compensation it made against his employer.

This case shows that although the statutory grievance procedures have been with us now for more than four years, the basics of their application continue to be debated at tribunal.

Past case law tells us that grievances can be "minimal" in terms of content do not need to refer to the statutory procedures nor even indicate that the sender requires the complaint to be dealt with. Now with the decision in Procek, a grievance that the employee had labelled as being informal, and which specifically indicated that it was not intended to satisfy the statutory procedures, has been determined as being sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Some may see this ruling as unsurprising, but the statutory procedures have real bite, and failure to comply with them has serious consequences for both the employee and the employer. From an employee's perspective, they can be prevented from having their claim heard from an employer's perspective, they can face an uplift in the damages that have to be paid if they are unsuccessful in defending a claim.

This may seem like a fair quid pro quo. However, the link between an employer's failure to comply and the potential award a claimant could receive has been the source of much discontent among employers. The volume of cases on this issue is testament in itself to the difficulty the procedures have caused for them. When an employer's failure to comply hinges on its inability to recognise a grievance (rather than from inadequate internal procedures, a disregard for the law, or behaviour in any way culpable), an uplift of up to 50% hardly seems proportionate.

In Procek, the EAT considered this point but found that since the uplift was determined at the tribunal's discretion, rather than being an inevitable outcome, the argument was insufficient to dissuade them from finding that the grievance did not satisfy the statutory requirements.

So how should employers react to this decision? Most employers' grievance policies provide for a grievance to be dealt with informally. Arguably, this is the best way to resolve employment disputes, nipping them in the bud at an early stage before the parties' positions become entrenched. If the position cannot be satisfactorily resolved, then the grievance procedure will go on to suggest that the employee raises their concern in a more formal way.

Following Procek, the era of the informal grievance is over: any employee who writes an e-mail to HR raising a complaint should expect the response to set in motion the full force of the statutory procedures, whether they like it or not. The message for employers is clear: any written complaint must be dealt with in accordance with the statutory procedure, or a 50% uplift in compensation may result.

It would seem the informal grievance has breathed its last breath.

From: http://www.personneltoday.com