7th November 2008 - Ban Bullying At Work Day

Welcome to the independent home of the 5th National Ban Bullying at work day campaign.

Workplace bullying is a silent disease affecting millions of people throughout the UK. Nobody is immune, so turning a blind eye or a deaf ear is no longer an option. 18.9 million Working days are lost to industry every year. Workplace bullying should be on every employers agenda - Is it on yours?

Recognition and awareness of bullying at work is the focus for this year’s campaign. It is centered on eliminating the fear employees feel about speaking out, by providing them with support to overcome their fear with courage.

We need your organisation to share our commitment by getting involved and raising awareness of this important issue within your own workplace, so that everyone can identify and take responsibility for resolving bullying at work. Come to your senses, what could be simpler?

The Ban Bullying at work campaign is spearheaded by the Andrea Adams trust – the first charity in the UK dedicated to raising awareness of workplace bullying.

Last year’s Ban Bullying day was very successful, with over 300 organisations involved and an estimated 3 million of the UK’s workforce taking part in events on the day. The website was accessed by an estimated 3 million people up to and including November 7th. All campaign promotional items were completely sold out and several thousand co-branded posters were sold across Europe.

A very successful PR campaign saw us on BBC News, GMTV, Sky News, the ‘Today’ programme, 23 regional BBC radio shows and a wide range of newspapers and magazine articles which all helped get the campaign the attention it deserved.

As the UK’s leading authority on workplace bullying, the Andrea Adams Trust is committed not just to helping individuals and organisations deal with the problem, but to extending our understanding of the nature and scale of workplace bullying through extensive partnership working. For more details of the Trust’s work click here.

Too bad

Further to UCU: 'Mild-mannered militants' will get our support and protection':

• Howard Fredrics 9 October, 2008

  It's too bad that Sally Hunt doesn't stick by her words by helping bullied university staff to assert their legal rights. By failing to provide even basic legal support to virtually all applicants and by then withdrawing support to those few applicants who are given initial help when they elect to go all the way to trial, rather than accept a pitiful compromise agreement, Sally Hunt is perpetuating the cozy relationship between management and UCU at the expense of lecturers.

• Peter Kropotkin 9 October, 2008

  It is good to read that Sally is making some noise - now what about some action? All UCU needs to do is select some representative cases of union members that are relatively clear-cut, that have a decent chance of winning in an Employment Tribunal, and take them all the way. This will really show that UCU means business. The 2,000 active cases of members claiming unfair treatment, is more than likely the tip of the iceberg.

• Aubrey Blumsohn 9 October, 2008

  Too bad indeed.

  There is a world of difference between that which the Sally believes she sees and what the UCU/AUT actually does.

  Sadly, when asked to explain why the UCU failed to uphold the most basic principles of academic freedom in several cases (including those of Rhetta Moran and myself), Sally felt it appropriate to reply in a completely irrelevant manner and then to terminate the conversation.
  

• Andy 10 October, 2008
  
  Is Ms. Hunt living on a different planet? I’ve been paying my subs as a research student member of the Union for years, but when I desperately needed them to help me with a serious issue of disability discrimination (an issue that would have been eagerly championed in the good old days, when ‘outdated’ union membership actually meant something) my request was refused on the basis that I am (or was) a student, and I was dumped into a desperate legal black hole. Forget about the paddle – I was without a canoe. Despite my evidently sub union status as a student, I sent them a number of payslips showing the ad hoc casual teaching work that I was encouraged to do by the University - casual work is included in employment legislation and should have triggered at least a twitch of interest from this ineffectual Union. Is it any wonder that belligerent managers such as the ‘loose-lipped registrar’ (I know him only too well) treat the Union with derision. It’s because they act derisory.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

UCU: 'Mild-mannered militants' will get our support and protection

With 2,000 active cases of members claiming unfair treatment at any one time UCU membership remains vital, says Sally Hunt.

Earlier this year, Times Higher Education "outed" a university registrar laughing about redundancies, describing staff as "deadwood" and the University and College Union (UCU) as "outdated" and "left wing" ("Loose lips sink staff relationships", 1 May).

What startled me at the time was how little surprise there was across the sector that the individuals concerned should hold such views.

It is perhaps easier to see this episode as symbolic of a sector increasingly dominated by macho management, such as that at Nottingham Trent University, where UCU members have voted in favour of strike action after the union faced derecognition unless it agreed to a much weakened agreement.

The concept of derecognition in higher education seems utterly alien until you link it to the broader anti-union context epitomised by our loose-lipped registrar.

Still not convinced? Try the thoughts of Nick Rogers, human resources director at Kingston University, who said in February: "I believe in trade unions - responsible trade unions. But being responsible means not pandering to a vocal, militant minority who cannot see either the future of modern employee relations, or the benefits it can bring to hard-working colleagues."

The extremism of the language is as shocking as the argument is weak. What Rogers really meant was that he believes in unions, so long as they are compliant.

These are not isolated instances. A work-life balance survey undertaken in 2007 by Coventry University reported that leadership styles in higher education were perceived to be "reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive". The survey also reported that university staff were more likely than others to experience bullying. In a recent UCU study, 6.7 per cent of respondents said that they were "always or often" bullied.

The UCU estimates that our branches are dealing with about 2,000 individual cases of members claiming unfair treatment at any one time. How sad that, instead of addressing the problem, the hawks who seem to be running higher education choose to shoot the messenger - the UCU.

The union acts as a powerful civilising influence on a sector that sometimes forgets how to treat staff properly. Membership is at its highest since the merger with our colleagues from further education and growing fastest among employees on fixed-term contracts.

The case of Andrew Ball, a researcher who won a landmark case against the University of Aberdeen, forcing it to offer him a permanent post after it had employed him continuously on short-term contracts for nine years, exposed the practices that have entrenched job insecurity within higher education.

Ball says he would "encourage university contract researchers at whatever stage in their careers to join UCU ... if they choose to remain out of the union they lose a powerful tool for representation to employers and government".

In its judgment against Aberdeen, the Employment Tribunal noted that the standard excuse of highly insecure funding as the cause of casualisation simply would not wash. Most comparable businesses would love to have the security of funding universities receive, said the tribunal, but they manage without the endemic use of short-term contracts. On 3 December, Times Higher Education readers are invited to join our first day of action to stamp out casualisation.

The 2006 pay settlement demonstrates exactly why the UCU and its members are so important to the sector. We had heard encouraging rhetoric about the need to pay staff properly, but when it came down to it the deal was substantially better than what the employers had been prepared to offer only because UCU members were prepared to challenge them.

But having been forced to pay more than they wanted, employers are looking to get even. On 18 September, Times Higher Education quoted an unnamed source as saying next year's increase will be between "zero and a very small figure".

Any attempts to claw back the value of our current pay deal will be seen by staff as yet another kick in the teeth, particularly as vice-chancellor pay is immune from this proposed downward pressure on staff salaries.

Most UCU members would chuckle to see themselves described as militants. They are dedicated professionals committed to their students and their colleagues.

Yet in this new world where the UCU is threatened with derecognition, where casual staff must go to court to establish their rights, where it takes industrial action to secure decent pay offers, and where one in 15 report regular bullying, even the most mild-mannered of people can become angry.

Vice-chancellors and their well-remunerated hired hands who wish the "dinosaurs" would leave the stage will be disappointed. The UCU and its mild-mannered militants are here to stay.

Postscript :

Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk - When you visit the Times Higher Education, don't forget to add your comment at the bottom of their page.

UNESCO: Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel

B. Self-governance and collegiality

31. Higher-education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the governing bodies and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution.

32. The principles of collegiality include academic freedom, shared responsibility, the policy of participation of all concerned in internal decision making structures and practices, and the development of consultative mechanisms. Collegial decision-making should encompass decisions regarding the administration and determination of policies of higher education, curricula, research, extension work, the allocation of resources and other related activities, in order to improve academic excellence and quality for the benefit of society at large.

D. Discipline and dismissal

48. No member of the academic community should be subject to discipline, including dismissal, except for just and sufficient cause demonstrable before an independent third-party hearing of peers, and/or before an impartial body such as arbitrators or the courts.

49. All members of higher-education teaching personnel should enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure, including dismissal, in accordance with the international standards set out in the appendix.

50. Dismissal as a disciplinary measure should only be for just and sufficient cause related to professional conduct, for example: persistent neglect of duties, gross incompetence, fabrication or falsification of research results, serious financial irregularities, sexual or other misconduct with students, colleagues, or other members of the academic community or serious threats thereof, or corruption of the educational process such as by falsifying grades, diplomas or degrees in return for money, sexual or other favours or by demanding sexual, financial or other material favours from subordinate employees or colleagues in return for continuing employment.

51. Individuals should have the right to appeal against the decision to dismiss them before independent, external bodies such as arbitrators or the courts, with final and binding powers.

From: http://portal.unesco.org

Fired prof 'in heaven' to be back at UTSA

Alberto Arroyo came to the University of Texas at San Antonio 26 years ago with $25, an engineering degree and his reputation. He unpacked boxes, set up labs, and helped build a civil engineering department that's nationally recognized for turning out Hispanic graduates.

This summer, when the university fired him for alleged ethics violations, everything he had built seemed to be crumbling. His reputation teetered on the edge of ruin and the stress made him physically ill.

Then last week, on the eve of a faculty tribunal hearing in which Arroyo planned to fight for his job, the university dropped its case and gave Arroyo his job back. He starts work this week.

Arroyo, who repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, said Friday that he feels vindicated.

“I am in heaven. I am alive again,” said a buoyant Arroyo, surrounded by a group of about 50 students, former students and community members gathered at Champps sports bar to celebrate Arroyo's return to UTSA. “Finally, somebody put the file together and read it and said, ‘We are going to hang an innocent man.'”

University officials, who at one point explored criminal charges against Arroyo, offered little explanation for his sudden reinstatement, saying only that it was best for the students and the university.

Arroyo's saga began in January, when officials put him and a fellow engineering professor, Chia-Shun “Rocky” Shih, on administrative leave for buying a parcel of land near Helotes that Shih's students were studying for a yearlong class project.

Shih did not realize until after closing on the land that it was the same parcel his students were studying. He told the students to find a new project, but did not tell them why. Arroyo has said the purchase was coincidental, and he is not to blame for how Shih handled the matter.

UTSA officials are pressing their case against Shih, who appealed his firing to a faculty tribunal. The tribunal heard Shih's case last week and will send its conclusions to University of Texas System regents for a final decision.

In Arroyo's case, he believes a massive outpouring of support from students, alumni and professional engineers helped persuade university officials to bring him back.

“I have never felt so much love in my life,” said Arroyo of the e-mails and letters. “When I read them, I cried.”

Students describe Arroyo as one of the toughest professors in the department, but also one of the kindest. If a student needed books and could not afford them, Arroyo would make an anonymous donation, said Margarita Hernandez, a former student who now works for the City of San Antonio as a storm water reviewer.

“For the university to be doing this to him, I was completely shocked,” Hernandez said. “He was the backbone of the civil engineering program.”

Another former student, Laura Campa, said Arroyo gave her a job grading papers when she was broke and trying to pay her way through college. The university's treatment of Arroyo so upset Campa that when the alumni association called asking for money, she turned it down.

“I said no, I wasn't willing to support the university right now because of what they had done to Dr. Arroyo,” Campa said.

When Megan Forthman, a 22-year-old senior, heard about Arroyo's predicament, she gathered 79 signatures from fellow civil engineering students on a petition to reinstate Arroyo. She sent it to a host of administrators, including UTSA President Ricardo Romo, but received no response.

“It was ridiculous,” Forthman said. “I am really upset still with the university and most definitely with Dr. Romo.”

Among structural engineers in the community, Arroyo's absence caused concern about the quality of UTSA graduates, said John Marin, a local structural engineer.

“The students were of a high caliber, mostly because it's pretty tough to get through the requirements Arroyo's got. You really need to know what you are doing,” Marin said.

Though Arroyo's supporters may find it hard to forgive UTSA, Arroyo harbors no ill will.

“When I leave, I will have my degree, my reputation back, my $25 and the love of my students. That's all that I wanted,” Arroyo said.

From: http://www.mysanantonio.com

Racial Equality

Unfortunately I had a long dispute at The University of Sheffield. My concerns are with the University Equal opportunities Policy; as the Faculty does not record, nor have access to, details of ethnic origin of individual students. The commission For Racial Equality should investigate the disparity practices of The University Of Sheffield. Penalise the University.

Anonymous

TERRORISM OR BREACH OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM - Dare We Talk About the Nottingham Two?

Today’s UCU strike action against Nottingham Trent University seems to have deflected attention from the equally sobering actions last May of its Russell Group neighbour down the road (and whose actions were, after all, the subject of international censure and an AUT greylisting in 2004).

Dare we talk about the Nottingham Two, a subject which seems to have slipped off the UCU radar screen? In the process, we wish to draw attention to several hitherto overlooked facts.

National coverage of these high profile arrests to date have remained curiously tight-lipped about what would seem to be a critical detail, namely that Rizwaan Sabir, the University of Nottingham postgraduate student arrested in May 2008 for possession of the Al Queda training manual (along with his friend Hicham Yezza to whom he sent the document for printing), had previously been arrested on 29 November 2007 by Nottingham Police on the University’s campus for taking part in a peaceful campus political demonstration.

In early March 2008, following on from his November arrest, Sabir led a 'freedom of speech' demonstration on the University of Nottingham’s campus. His message: ‘The questioning on campus of issues that are emotional has become taboo . . . a University campus is a place where people like us should be exchanging ideas’.

Those close to the case acknowledge that at the time both Sabir and Yezza were arrested on 23 May 2008 the University’s senior management were fully aware of Sabir’s prior incidents of political activism and campus dissidence.

Does this not raise a disturbing question, namely, whether Sabir and Yezza were targeted and victimised for having dared on previous occasions to exercise their academic freedom and right to free speech against actions taken by the University?

The November 2007 arrest of Sabir was clearly instigated by the University’s senior management, just like the May 2008 arrests of Sabir and Yezza; unlike the former, though, the latter captured unsavoury international media attention owing to the threatened deportation of Yezza.

In the aftermath of the scandalous events of last May, the University has staunchly defended its actions which, they maintain, were carried out in strict compliance with the Terrorism Act and in duty of care to its staff and students.

But can such self-serving PR media bites be trusted, especially in the face of evidence of the University’s prior action against Sabir?

As BBC4 asked in its broadcast of 28 July 2008, Is the case of the ‘Nottingham Two’ a harbinger of things to come for British universities, or rather a ‘one-off’ incident? The truth of the matter has far-reaching implications not only for the UK but for the world-wide academic community.

It would seem high time for the national media to launch a full-scale investigation into the matter of these arrests.

Rizwaan Sabir has been an outspoken champion of freedom of speech at a University well-known for its intolerance of dissent and heavy-handed penalization of students who dare to speak out against the University’s policies (e.g. a group of students protesting an increase in library fees slapped with a fine of £300).

The implications of the potential abuse of the Terrorism Act to mask egregious violations of academic freedom and victimisation which seeks to target, silence, and ultimately eliminate academic undesirables--especially vulnerable foreigners on visas and work permits--would seem to threaten the most basic UK civil liberties.

It is sobering enough that a Russell Group university boasting two Nobel laureates should treat its students and staff like hardened criminals, snitching them out to police without the dignity of (or with full benefit of, as some have claimed) an in-house investigation; but to witness its recently retired, knighted Vice Chancellor on record in THE impugning the integrity and probity of three members of his own academic staff—merely for exercising their academic freedom to depart from the University’s self-exonerating script--defies the most basic principles of free speech any university worthy of the name ought to hold sacrosanct.

Where is the outrage?

In his remarks at the public demonstration on 28 May 08 in support of Hichem Yezza, Nottingham MP Alan Simpson had harsh words for the University’s senior management:

“How ashamed you should be of yourselves that you can not come to the defence of one of your staff! You make judgments that are the prerogative of a court, and you don’t even wait for a trial or the presentation of evidence to make those judgments.”

But the brave and outspoken MP seemingly remains a solitary voice in the wilderness.

Where in the world is the UCU?

To her credit, UCU President Sally Hunt penned two op-ed pieces in July and August, in defence of academic freedom and the Nottingham Two. Oddly, even the UCU’s periodic ‘campaign updates’ failed to flag up Ms Hunt’s articles for those who may have missed them during the summer recess.

On the other hand, a massive gust of fresh air is rumoured to have blown into the Trent Building last week, personified as the new Vice-Chancellor. One can only hope for better things to come; in the previous regime, the halls were alive with Chinese whispers of obstreperous, whistle-blowing academic staff disciplined and sacked, silenced by compromise agreements and never to be heard from again. Those who have survived to tell the tale will know these tactics to be relentless, ruthless, unethical, demonising, and generally malicious.

Why, one might well ask, whilst exhorting thousands of its members to mount buses to travel to Nottingham Trent University today, has the UCU failed to utter so much as a single syllable of concern, or offered even a brief update about the disturbing and very much unresolved matter of the Nottingham Two?

Why, for example, has UCU not considered a strike action against *both* Nottingham universities? Or perhaps, at the very least, seized the moment--given the proximity and fortuitous recent change of guard--to request an update on the Nottingham Two and the current state of academic freedom at the city’s ‘other’ university?

In short, why the tough UCU industrial action against NTU and the delicate ‘kid gloves’ approach with its historically more defiant Russell Group sister?

Whatever the case, only a full-scale, impartial investigation into the facts and history surrounding the Nottingham Two will ultimately reveal whether these high profile arrests stemmed from a clear and imminent danger or whether they were themselves an even more insidious kind of terrorism: the attempted intimidation, silencing, and elimination of free speech, campus dissidence, and academic freedom.

By Rosa Luxembourg

Ethics and Academia: An Oxymoron

Your blog is great! I wish it included more cases from the USA. Please participate in the poll on my blog (http://ethicsandacademia.blogspot.com/).

Anonymous

Bullying banned in college contract

A new three-year collective agreement covering Ontario's 24 community colleges and more than 7,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union includes ground-breaking language on bullying and workplace harassment.

The language, which covers support staff including almost 300 employees at St. Clair College, prohibits "bullying and psychological harassment" and carries penalties ranging from a transfer to another department all the way to dismissal.

Rod Bemister, chairman of OPSEU's bargaining committee, said bullying and psychological harassment "can include, but not be limited to, degrading and belittling staff members, undermining or impeding their work, use of physical gestures and spreading malicious rumours."

"It didn't result from any specific incidents at any of our colleges, although I'm not saying such behaviour hasn't happened, but rather it resulted from our ongoing wellness-in-the-workplace campaign," said Bemister. "We have employee and management committees which meet on a regular basis between contract bargaining and much of the work on the language was already done before bargaining began."

Bemister said other penalties for violating the language include suspension and demotion.

John Strasser, president of St. Clair College, welcomed the bullying and harassment language, saying "neither should be tolerated in any workplace."

Strasser also said "we have an excellent staff at St. Clair and I'm happy we were able to reach an agreement that was accepted by such a wide margin of our employees."

While members of OPSEU turned the deal down at five colleges, it won 82 per cent approval at St. Clair College.

The deal also calls for a three per cent wage increase in each year of the agreement, a special allowance of $425 for every employee with more than six months seniority, improvements in dental, vision care and safety footwear allowances and the addition of Family Day to the list of statutory holidays.

Support staff work in such areas as finance, information technology, maintenance and registration.

From: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news

Reporting restrictions in employment tribunals

An opinion from: http://www.personneltoday.com

The threat of sensationalised media coverage of tribunal claims leaves many employers with little option than to settle a claim to escape the damage to its reputation and that of its executives, despite often having a solid case for the defence. It also does nothing to encourage deserving employees to come forward and bring a claim.

And the fact that the press typically only provides very limited coverage to tribunal decisions also adds to the problem.

This is especially true of high-profile cases involving several days of evidence when often many weeks, if not months, will have passed before judgment is finally given. By this time, irrespective of the final outcome, what is left hanging in the air is the sense that the accusations that have been made, however jaundiced the reporting may have been, were true.

While occasionally the employee may feel the overwhelming urge to put its side of the story into the public domain, even before proceedings have commenced - as did Metropolitan Police commissioner Tariq Ghaffur - this is not the norm and most cases only appear as a result of reporting from a tribunal hearing.

From the employer's perspective, to see your accuser publicly humiliated in the press is an understandable urge, and it is therefore tempting to provide the waiting court reporter with an advanced copy of arguments or witness statements to help ensure that press coverage is favourable.

However, it makes no commercial sense to encourage a character assassination of the employee in the press as this type of publicity can backfire spectacularly. The employer is likely be left to pick up the expensive tab for the loss of career earnings if the employee's accusations are upheld. This is because when it comes to the award of compensation, the employee's ability to secure future employment is a key factor. The tribunal cannot ignore the severely diminished employment prospects that will result from adverse press coverage that has taken place as a result of the proceedings.

Tribunal procedures provide only limited circumstances where restrictions can be placed on reporting. And the requirement for hearings to take place in public reflects the important principle of open justice in a democratic society. So the power to restrict reporting is principally only available in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct - typically sexual harassment - to avoid deterring women who have potential claims for sexual harassment from bringing a claim for fear of the damaging publicity that may ensue.

Once a restrictive reporting order is in place, the media is not allowed to report the case in such a way that would lead members of the public to identify anyone making, or affected by, the allegations. Deliberate breach is a criminal offence.

Yet surely both the employer and the employee in a case should be able to apply to have such an order granted - at least for a limited period - where it is known that a serious allegation is to be made during proceedings and which, given the nature of press reporting, could fundamentally damage their reputation.

It can no longer be in the public interest that the normal rights of the press to communicate information to the public should remain unrestricted in these types of cases.

It's clearly time to look again at the rules governing restricted reporting orders.