Legal and other costs - the University of Leicester and others

This is a response to the helpful information-gathering exercise being undertaken by AcademicFOI.Com: see www.academicfoi/com/untoldstories and the report posted on the bullied academics website on 4th April 2010 ('So you want to know how some universities waste taxpayer money and who the biggest offenders are?').

As someone who has, in the last three years, brought legal proceedings against the University of Leicester, the University's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Robert Burgess, and the University's (now former) Director of Personnel Services, Dr Alison Hall (see the item posted on this website on 21st January 2010 - 'About the University of Leicester'), I would be interested to know why the information regarding the University of Leicester runs only from the 'Period since Dec 2008', when information was sought for 'the last 3 years'.

I wonder whether my two Employment Tribunal claims against the University, Professor Burgess and Dr Hall, lodged in November 2007 and July 2008 respectively, should have been included in the figure in the first column (Question 1).

If the figure showing 'the total expenditure on legal expenses ... in relation to the above disputes' (Question 5) had covered all claims 'submitted to the employment tribunal service' (Question 1), not just claims that were settled (Questions 2, 3 and 4, and 'Summary', 3rd entry), and if Leicester's figure in the first column should have included my claims, I imagine one could confidently assume that the figure in column 5 for Leicester would be significantly higher. Such reasoning would of course apply also in relation to any other institutions in a similar position.

For information, the University of Leicester has been assisted in my case by both a firm of solicitors (Mills & Reeve LLP) and Counsel (Mr Sam Neaman of Littleton Chambers).

In addition to costs resulting from claims brought in courts, not tribunals, other expenditure affecting figures for legal costs would be sums spent on legal assistance relating solely to dealing with grievances (including negotiations aimed at securing a compromise agreement before legal proceedings were brought). In my case, four grievances were presented between March 2005 and August 2006, while I was still in employment, and two grievances were submitted after I resigned in May 2007. A written response of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Burgess, in respect of my fifth grievance indicated that the University had consulted its solicitors from the time I submitted my first grievance.

Other costs might be those associated with appointing external mediators or members of grievance panels. For example, the chairperson of a grievance committee appointed in my case was a barrister and part-time employment judge, Mr Mark Sutton of Old Square Chambers.

There may be an additional category of expenditure in disputes of the kind mentioned in the AcademicFOI.Com information. In November 2006, while I was still an employee of the University of Leicester, I submitted an Employment Tribunal claim alleging disability discrimination against the University alone. I withdrew the claim in February 2007 for health reasons. I am in possession of papers - obtained through a subject access request under the Data Protection Act - showing that shortly after that claim was lodged, certain of the University employees referred to in the claim were each offered 'up to a maximum of £1,000 (inclusive of VAT)' towards obtaining 'independent legal advice from an employment law specialist', for which 'invoices or claim forms' were requested. It was said that the University's solicitors, who would be preparing the University's defense, would be able to supply the contact details of such a specialist if that would be helpful. I do not know whether this offer was made to all of the relevant employees. For example, I have no evidence of Professor Burgess or Dr Hall having been included in that group. I also do not know whether those whom I know to have been recipients of the offer accepted it.

Glynis M. Truter

Prisoners of Fear

It seems that there are some academics who find themselves in situations so oppressive as to make them afraid to sign the petition.

IT IS THEN UP TO THE REST OF US TO SIGN THIS PETITION ON THEIR BEHALF.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying/

Australia: Staff and students back Newcastle University bully claims

More former and current University of Newcastle staff and students have spoken out about bullying at the institution, claiming a culture of "intimidation" exists.

More than 20 people contacted The Herald in response to yesterday's report about an academic who says she suffered years of harassment after reporting plagiarism in 2003.

It took the university more than five years to investigate the allegation and two staff members were counselled regarding "acceptable publication practices" last year.

Dr Michelle Adams's case will go back to the Industrial Relations Commission tomorrow. University Vice-chancellor Nick Saunders has strongly denied a culture of bullying at the institution.

A former geographer, who worked in the same faculty as Dr Adams, told The Herald she was forced to leave the university following a "major breakdown" due to years of bullying.

The academic said she also supported a student in a plagiarism claim, this time against another student. The woman, who signed a confidentiality agreement when she left, said the university had a history of "eliminating people who report misconduct because they do not want it exposed".

"I felt very isolated and bullied throughout the whole thing."

Another former academic, Stuart Pearson, said he chose to leave rather than put up with bullying. Dr Pearson described what he witnessed at Newcastle as "vicious" and "dysfunctional".

"When you leave you realise just what the place is like, it's like a weight lifts off your shoulders," he said.

Two other academics, who still work at the university, said cliques and bullying were part of the institution's culture and had been for a long time.

The pair, who work in the same school, said people with dissenting voices were hounded into submission or bullied out.

"In so many cases the bullies are actually rewarded for their actions and when staff see this happening it creates a culture of fear," one said.

The university did not respond to The Herald's request for comment yesterday.

From: http://www.theherald.com.au

So you want to know how some universities waste taxpayer money and who the biggest offenders are?

5,528 UK university staff signed non disclosure agreements (NDA) over the last 3 years.

366 resulted from employment tribunal claims that were settled prior to hearings.

These settlements involved payments to staff of £4.4M and legal costs of £7.1M.

A total of 810 staff submitted claims to employment tribunals.

64 were settled without signing NDAs.

2,361 staff have signed NDAs in connection with research projects. More than half of these were at just one university.

2,801 have signed NDAs for reasons other than tribunal claims or research such as restructuring, grievances or disputes.

The Questions:

Q1 Over the last 3 years how many current or former university staff have submitted claims to the employment tribunal service?

Q2 How many of these were settled prior to a full hearing date?

Q3 How many of these settlements involved the insertion of a non disclosure (commonly known as gagging) clause in the terms of the settlement?

Q4 What is the total figure that has been paid out in these settlements?

Q5 What has the total expenditure on legal expenses been in relation to the above disputes?

Q6 Over the last 3 years how many current or former staff have signed non disclosure agreements purely in relation to the confidentiality of research activities?

Q7 Over the last 3 years how many current or former staff have signed non disclosure agreements for reasons not covered above?

Top 5 Employment Tribunal Claims
Manchester 40
Leeds Met 31
UCL 27
Birmingham 25
LSE 23

Top 5 Settlement NDAs
Manchester 26
Birmingham 20
Bristol 17
UCL 15
Manchester Met 11

Top 5 Settlement Costs
Liverpool John Moores £ 362,108
Manchester £ 247,881
Bristol £ 165,000
East London £ 156,210
Cambridge £ 148,505

Top 5 NDAs For Other Reasons
Manchester 669
Glasgow Caledonian 247
Cumbria 148
Plymouth Marjon 131
West of Scotland 136

Check how your university rates: http://www.academicfoi.com/untoldstories/

Problems in the Osteoporosis Research Group at Sheffield University

Senior academic staff at the University of Sheffield have faced considerable criticism over their handling of longstanding scientific and other problems within the osteoporosis research group headed by Professor Richard Eastell (1, 2).

This statement follows procedures carried out by the University in reaction to recent press reports (3, 4).

In the opinion of many, the University have not dealt with these problems in a realistic way. A tangled web of procedures have been employed in an apparent attempt to avoid necessary action, and to protect Professor Eastell.

The University maintain that their procedures are 'robust' despite much worrying evidence to the contrary (see Statement to Redundancy Appeal Hearing - 18 Mar 2010). Professor Eastell has received considerable funding from industry.

Several academic staff, including myself, have complained about pressure placed upon them to publish scientific reports for commercial companies which do not reflect the underlying data. Staff have complained about suppression of publication, and that publications have been generated in the absence of data. Academics who have complained have seen their research and reputation blackened and undermined. Colleagues have been encouraged to present the work of these academics as if it was their own and to sign misleading statements of attribution.

At the centre of the recent press reports was a very simple event. As an experienced, professional and highly qualified post doctoral fellow and as a radiologist, I decided to submit two meeting abstracts without the explicit consent of Professor Eastell. I submitted these abstracts without the consent of a pharmaceutical company. I did not invite other scientists whose work I was criticizing to co-author the abstracts with me. I received a direct order from the University to withdraw the second abstract within 24 hours. I failed to respond to this order. I have still failed to follow this order.

Yesterday (23 March 2010), the University held a promised 'independent review' of its actions (4). The University have attempted to give the impression that they wish their actions and the context of these actions to be judged through such a review. This review replaced disciplinary procedures which should have taken place. Having initiated this 'review' it would have been expected that the University would have provided an honest and complete summary of the context they wished to be reviewed. The University did not however provide such information (see Statement to Independent Review - 23 Mar 2010). The purpose of the University in calling for such a review is therefore unknown.

I believe that the University have refused to renew my employment contract specifically in order to prevent publication of scientific findings and to prevent publication of an atlas of radiological images. These images would allow debate about the interpretation of drug trials. The University have maintained that access to these data and images will be prevented by the University upon termination of my contract of employment. I have however agreed to remain attached to the University for no salary until fellow scientists are permitted the opportunity to examine the science in whichever forum I choose. During a redundancy appeal hearing, the University suggested that suppression of scientific findings through redundancy is not a valid ground for appeal against redundancy at Sheffield University.

The so called independent review of yesterday has not yet reported, but was not encouraging. Given the desperate manoeuvres to prevent scrutiny and transparency, it seems unlikely that this will help the University to restore its reputation. In contrast to the intended disciplinary procedure (3, 4), this 'review' is not subject to appeal. It is outside the University's procedures. No witnesses were heard. Such was the desire for transparency that the University found it necessary to inform me the day before that the 'review' would be held in secret. They informed me that I would not be permitted to know or to listen to the arguments the University provided, or to listen to the testimony of Professor Eastell. I was refused the right to tape record the reading of my own statement. Furthermore, the University provided a set of documents to the review which made it impossible to believe that the University really wish to have their actions examined as they maintain they do (See Statement to Independent Review - 23 Mar 2010). The University have not responded to explain why reviewers were associated with the University of Sheffieldor why they could not be selected by anyone other than the University itself.

The University of Sheffield called for this review itself because it wished to give the impression that the University wanted its actions to be judged honestly and transparently. As such, the decisions of the University remain inexplicable.

References

1. Statement to Redundancy Appeal Hearing (18 Mar 2010), Dr Guirong Jiang
2. Statement to Independent Review (23 Mar 2010), Dr Guirong Jiang
3. February 18 2010 Contractual ties trip up radiologist
4. March 4 2010 Volte-face in radiologist case
5. PDF copy of this Press Statement (24 Mar 2010)

From: http://www.fracturedefinition.uk.com/index.html

University of Salford - Suspension of Staff

Freedom of Information Request - 19 January 2010

Dear University of Salford,

1. How many University of Salford employees have been suspended in each of the last three years (2007, 2008 and 2009)?

2. Please state how long each suspension lasted.

3. Please indicate the nature of the alleged offence, and any disciplinary action taken against each member of staff (eg termination of employment, written warning, etc.)

4. For staff suspended on full pay, please provide the total amount paid to them while they were suspended.

5. Please also supply the total cost of the suspensions in 'real terms' i.e, the cost of covering the members of staff suspended by either the provision of cover or overtime payments made to existing staff who had to cover the normal jobs of the suspended staff.

Yours faithfully,

R. Pritchard

-----------------------

University of Salford - 2 February 2010

Dear Mr Pritchard,

I write in response to your request for information made to the University of Salford under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 via www.whatdotheyknow.com. This request will not be processed because it, along with a number of other requests, is being treated as vexatious
under section 14(1) of the Act.

Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice.

You have the right to complain against the handling of your requests. If you wish to complain, please set out in writing your ground(s) of complaint and send to Matthew Stephenson, Head of Information Governance, at the address below.

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner at the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545 700, website www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Matthew Stephenson

Head of Information Governance
Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
Salford
M5 4WT

-----------------------

19 February 2010 - Dear University of Salford,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of Salford's handling of my FOI request 'Suspension of Staff'.

I am dissatisfied by your response. You have refused my request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. You have not given any reasons at all to support your decision. In fact, I think you've just made it up!

I put it to you that it is the University of Salford's flagrant disregard for the Act that is vexatious.

I believe that the University of Salford is in breach of at least the following sections of the Act:

1: General right of access to information held by public authorities
14: Vexatious or repeated requests
16: Duty to provide advice and assistance
17: Refusal of request

and probably others too.

This request has a serious public interest and it certainly isn't frivolous. It relates to serious concerns raised in several fora about the University of Salford and its use of public money, and in particular its use of its disciplinary processes against members of staff. You have provided no arguments at all to support your decision to reject this request as vexatious.

I wait in hope for the outcome of your internal review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...

Yours faithfully,

R. Pritchard

---------------------

And an example of wasting taxpayer money: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1602900.ece

Workplace Bullying In Academia: A Canadian Study

Ruth McKay & Diane Huberman Arnold & Jae Fratzl & Roland Thomas, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 20, Number 2, June 2008

Abstract

This paper examines the results of a workplace bully survey sent to faculty, instructors and librarians at a mid-sized Canadian university in 2005. The potential sources of workplace bullying by colleagues, administrators and students are examined. The survey determined that workplace bullying is of particular concern for employees that are newly hired or untenured. The systemic nature of this phenomenon and the spillover effect from one job domain to another are identified. The findings indicate costs for the university linked to workplace bullying. Costs include increased employee turnover, changed perception of the university by employees and reduced employee engagement.

Introduction

Workplace bullying is a prevalent and challenging issue for organizations and their employees. Not only is the problem a legal issue, it also impacts the health and welfare of workers. Academics are not immune to bullying behaviours. Students, colleagues and administrators may all partake in, or be subject to, bullying. Workplace bullying is defined by Einarsen and Raknes (1997) as repeated actions and practices of an unwanted nature that are directed against one or more employees. They may be carried out deliberately or unconsciously, but clearly cause humiliation, offence and distress. These actions and practices may interfere with job performance and/or cause an unpleasant working environment. Namie and Namie (2003) define workplace bullying as “the repeated, malicious, health-endangering mistreatment of one employee (the target) by one or more employees (the bully, bullies). The mistreatment is psychological violence, a mix of verbal and strategic assaults to prevent the target from performing work well. It is illegitimate conduct in that it prevents work getting done.” Namie and Namie (2003) note that bullying impacts employee happiness both personally and in terms of job satisfaction and engagement. In providing a definition for workplace bullying in an organization, it is important to use a broad definition that allows for interpretation, acknowledging the subjective nature of experiencing inappropriate behaviours at work (Rayner et al. 2002). A number of terms are used to define essentially the same phenomenon. The most frequently used terms include mobbing (Leymann 1996), harassment (e.g. psychological harassment or workplace harassment) (Québec Commission 2006; European Agency for Health and Safety at Work 2006), and bullying (Einarsen and Skogstad 1996). According to Einarsen and Mikkelsen (2003: 3) these terms “all seem to refer to the same phenomenon, namely the systematic mistreatment of a subordinate, a colleague, or a superior, which, if continued, may cause severe social, psychological and psychosomatic problems in the victim.”

...there are recognized costs associated with workplace bullying. Employees subject to bullying are more likely to leave their job. Studies by Rayner (1998) as well as Savva and Alexandrou (1998) found the turnover rate of bullied employees was about 25%. Also, of those experiencing bullying, over 30% said they intended to leave the organization (Rayner 1998; Quine 1999). According to a U.S. study by Namie and Namie (2003), examining the fate of the bullied, 38% of employees left their job voluntarily for health reasons and 44% were terminated using employer-controlled methods. Workplace bullying is also linked to negative working conditions, decreased worker happiness, health and safety issues and reduced organizational productivity (Marais and Herman 1997). For example, a University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology study estimated that the effects of workplace bullying leads to between one-third and half of all employees’ stress-related illnesses (Personnel Today 2004).

...Our study is unique in that it examines the experience of workplace bullying among academics in Canada. While there has been research completed in this domain, it has been infrequent, and completed primarily outside Canada. University-based studies have been completed in the United Kingdom, Finland and New Zealand. Secondly, some studies focus on samples that include a large representation from non-academic staff, such as secretaries and administrators, which dilutes the experience of the academic. In this study, the only non-academic group included is librarians. The addition of a small group of librarians into the study does not dilute the results as the librarians interact on a daily basis with students. Thirdly, the workplace experience of the academic impacts the education of students and the behaviours they take with them into the workplace...

A number of researchers have looked at workplace bullying in academia. Raskauskas (2006) completed a study examining six New Zealand universities where 65.3% of academic staff reported that they had been bullied. The majority of these bully events involved only one person acting as the bully. The study also examined the nature of the bullying. Most frequently reported were behaviours that intimidated, undermined authority,humiliated an individual in front of colleagues, displayed mood swings and tantrums and involved yelling and shouting by colleagues. In the New Zealand study, more than 50% of the sampled employees reported the bullying to an individual in authority, 37% to their union and 31% to human resource departments. In 2005, Boynton completed a workplace bullying survey of academic staff in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The survey identified that bullying affected between 12% and 25% of university staff. In addition it found that 66% of those being bullied were considering leaving their job or were trying to leave. In the study, issues of bullying were most pronounced around lower grade abuse, petty insults, spreading rumours, verbal abuse as well as subtle sexism and racism. The research also found that many universities suffer from organizational cultures that institutionalized bullying (Boynton 2005; Lipsett 2006). Einarson and Skogstad (1996) completed a study of Norwegian public and private organizations including a university. The survey concluded that 5.2% of university employees reported being subject to workplace bullying. Björkqvist et al. (1994) examined a Finnish university finding that 30% of men and 55% of women had been subject to some form of harassment within the previous year and 32% of employees had witnessed others being harassed...

Have people been bullied?

The survey began by asking respondents to define workplace bullying in their own words. The respondents identified issues of power, intent, abuse and intimidation. For example one respondent wrote “(b)ullying is when one individual uses power to influence another individual to do, say or feel things that they don’t want. It is an abuse of power...” The respondent was next provided with a list of 60 behaviours identified as workplace bullying. The respondents were asked to identify if they had experienced each behaviour directed at them by an employee, a student, or had witnessed such behaviour over the last 5 years while at XYZ University. The respondents were then asked “Do you think that you’ve been bullied within the last 5 years while working at XYZ University?” This allowed the respondent to determine if the behaviours they experienced constituted, in their view, bullying. The majority of the respondents, 52%, replied “yes”, 38% “no” and 10% replied “not sure.” Those who responded “no” were re-routed to questions about witnessing bullying behaviour and behaving in a way that could be viewed by others as bullying.

How long has this been going on?

Of the HBB respondents, 21% said the behaviours have been going on longer than 5 years and 16% noted it was currently occurring. A majority of the HBB respondents reported having experienced five or more separate experiences over the 5 year reporting time. Of those who had witnessed behaviours identified as bullying, 30% said it had been going on longer than a year. A similarly high frequency of bullying incidents was found by Raskaukas (2006) in her survey of New Zealand universities, where 38% of the respondents reported being bullied ten or more times over the selected 1-year reporting time.

Who is doing what?

The largest groups identified by the respondents as initiating inappropriate behaviours were peers (64%), persons with power over you (45%) and students (27%). When the number of were initiated by peers, 34% by people with power over the respondent and 32% were by students. The survey made a distinction between “incident” and “experience.” An incident was defined as “one behaviour, one time” and an experience as “multiple behaviours and/or multiple occurrences.” This would mean a number of incidents, initiated by the same person or group of people for the same purpose, would lead to one experience. The behaviours initiated by employees as well as witnessed that occurred most frequently were: patterns of not taking your concerns seriously (experienced by 48% of respondents), ignoring or overlooking your contributions (48%), gossip or malicious rumours spread about you (41%), belittling remarks made about you (41%) and made in front of others (31%), and, unwarranted and unprofessional remarks (41%). The most frequent behaviours used or engaged in by students that were noted by respondents were: purposely interrupting class to distract class (experienced by 24% of respondents) and to communicate lack of respect (24%), challenging your authority (21%), gossip or malicious rumours spread about you (19%), questioning your decision excessively and/or aggressively (15%) and unwarranted and unprofessional remarks (15%).

Severity, Location and Motivation of the Potential Bully

The most notable behaviours experienced by the HBB group were rated four or five (extreme) out of five in severity by 57% of the HBB respondents and a three out of five by 34% of the HBB respondents. Based on a question asking the respondent to identify the location for the inappropriate behaviour and the respondent being able to select more than one location, 47% of the respondents said the inappropriate behaviour occurred through e-mail, 36% in an office or workspace when alone with the potential bully and 23% in the classroom. Forty-four per cent of the HBB said that the most severe forms of bullying took place through e-mail. The majority of the respondents believed the initiator of the behaviours intended to cause them harm. The respondents were asked what they thought motivated the person who engaged in these behaviours. The respondents noted a wide range of factors. For example, one respondent stated that the motivation of employee(s) was “power games, paranoia, gender discrimination (and) manipulative approach to management.” A second respondent identified the motivators as “misdirected politics, opportunism (and) liberalism.”

Impact of Bullying on Work

Experiences with bullying behaviours changed the respondent’s productivity at work. It changed the quantity of work the respondents completed (31% of HBB) and the quality of the work completed (24% of HBB). The following comment provides an example of the impact bullying behaviours can have on an employee’s perspective of the work environment and productivity: “more time wasted...need to talk it out with a colleague (more than once) before I could focus.” In addition, the HBB group expressed an interest in leaving the university. Thirteen per cent said the action they were considering taking or were taking, due to the experience they had with workplace bullying at the university, was to leave their job, while 25% said they were searching or had searched for a new job.

Impact and Spillover

The reactions that received five out of five, denoted as a strong response, included: stress (by 55% of HBB), frustration (49%), anger (47%), demoralization (39%), powerlessness (37%) and anxiety (35%). Two additional reactions received four out of five: exhaustion (33%) and irritability (28%). The most likely impacts on the respondent of the behaviours was a change in the respondent’s view of XYZ University (71%), change in their interest in work (56%), problems/changes in sleep patterns (53%), change in their flexibility in dealing with people and challenges (42%) and created a problem or changes in concentration (40%).

There were also specific comments made about the impact of bullying in one job domain within the university impacting an individual’s ability to operate in another job domain within the university.

Problems started with one person in administration (who) acted totally inappropriately. He made my life a living nightmare. This impacted my self esteem and my ability to operate effectively in the classroom. Within several weeks of the bullying starting from this administrator I found my classes became a breeding ground for student incivility. A number of students started making personal attacks on me. The way I was treated outside the class impacted my ability to teach.

I remember the first time a student took aim at me in the classroom. I was so surprised that the student could be so self absorbed and selfish. It impacted the whole class. Then someone who had an impact on my job at XYX started asking questions about my performance. This was done both in front of people and when alone with the individual. One problem area had created another problem area.

While I provided details on my various experiences at XYZ the experiences cannot be fully isolated. It has been more like a snowball rolling down a hill. I felt so frustrated and angry I could not hide it. One event leads to another leaving me unable to manage the whole job...

Lack of Responsiveness by Administration

Respondents, in trying to deal with the (potential) bullying, were more likely to talk to the union (31% of respondents) or a lawyer (15%) rather than equity services (13%), a person in a position of authority (11%) or human resources (4%). When asked if the respondents had reported the behaviours, 49% responded “No, I do not think it would make a difference” while 29% said “No, I think it would negatively impact my job, 27% said “yes”.

Response of University Administration

A recurring theme among the respondents has been a lack of action by the university administration to deal with the problem of potential workplace bullying after being informed or approached about the behaviour. For example, comments from a number of respondents note the lack of adequate response and resolution to their concern:

The issues just hang there—I don’t know where it’s going—if anywhere at all and that feels very alienating and grossly unfair. It seems that the university doesn’t like to deal with these issues and I am left to deal with it on my own.

This is a particular frustration for me. Yes, I did report it to the equity office and I have spoken to the union in the past. In both instances, the immediate and personal support I received was overwhelmingly positive and that was very important to me. However, in terms of the university actually settling the issue or having a clear process in place— well, it didn’t and still doesn’t happen.

From the top down, the main concern was to try to defuse the situation and avoid a law suit, as the person was, on top of everything else, threatening to sue. The university showed a total lack of concern with my distress. Also mediation is expensive, and the university wouldn’t pay for it.

My immediate supervisor and department head dismissed it immediately.

Management not only does nothing about protecting myself and others from bullying, I have also seen them protect those who bully. This enables the cycle to continue.

I have felt physically threatened and my complaints were ignored by management. Equity Services are the enemy! A consistent record of uselessness, a bad PR joke...

Institutionalized Element

Systemic bullying, hazing and abuse generally are identified with poor, weak or toxic organizational cultures. Cultures that are toxic have stated ethical values that are espoused but not employed, and other non-ethical values which are operational, dominant, but unstated. Such cultures thrive when good people are silent, silenced, or pushed out; when bad apples are vocal, retained, promoted, and empowered; and when the neutral majority remain silent in order to survive. Those who are most successful in such a toxic culture are those who have adapted to it, or adopted it as their own. While the study results do not define the entire organizational culture as toxic, there are indications of unhealthy subcultures, within particular departments and among some employees and students. Evidence of an institutionalized element to the university workplace bullying is found in the openness with which some employees and students are exhibiting behaviours viewed as bullying. These findings are significant when linked with the level of awareness of such behaviours and the frequency of the behaviours. This indicates a pervasive and prolonged nature to the bullying and suggests an organizational culture component to the behaviour. The lack of a policy dealing with harassment outside the Human Rights Act may be a contributing factor. It is also possible, due to lack of awareness, the individual events have not been linked together to identify the systemic nature of the issue.

The lack of an overall policy for inappropriate behaviour means that each incident is dealt with in isolation and does not contribute to a set policy by administration for addressing this issue. There is also inconsistency across the organization regarding how workplace bullying incidents are handled. As a result, some faculty, instructors and librarians believe they are not supported when they raise concerns. This also contributes to the ineffectiveness of administrators in addressing such issues as best practices have not been established. The University Collective Agreement guarantees a climate that the academic can function in and states that academics are to behave ethically with their colleagues and students, but does not specifically address personal harassment. The Collective Agreement is between the union and the employer. It does not address employee-to-employee or student-to-employee behaviours, ignoring a significant amount of the problem behaviours identified in this study. University XYZ addresses subsets of harassment, linked to racial, sexual and disability issues, but does not provide protection for all employees against harassment, thus creating two classes of complainant. At the time this university policy was drafted, there was not the awareness and legal recourse found today on issues of personal harassment. The approach to deal with workplace bullying varies greatly depending on the level of awareness and intent of the bully, the victim and witnesses (Hoel et al. 2003). Given the growing intolerance in the courts towards harassment and the vicarious liability the employer has for the actions of the employee, it would be prudent for an organization to introduce a personal harassment policy. Without one the organization appears complicit...

Conclusion

This study has found that the academic bullying of XYZ University includes top-down bullying, by those in administrative and more senior positions, peer-to-peer bullying and bottom-up bullying by students. Given the self-selecting nature of this study, a specific percentage of XYZ University faculty and instructors experiencing bullying over the last 5 years cannot be established. However, this study determined that slightly more than 50 faculty, out of a total of 820 faculty union members, experienced bullying over the last 5 years at a level that should be of concern to XYZ University. The bullying involves multiple incidents, including different individuals behaving inappropriately. There is also a compounding effect; when an individual is treated inappropriately in one domain they may be less effective in another within their job. According to the experiences of the respondents, administration is inadequately addressing inappropriate behaviours within the organization. The respondents do not feel administration is supportive in dealing with issues of workplace bullying. Given the changing legislation, this disregard for the treatment of employees could become very costly for the organization. The obligations under contract law and constructive dismissal are filling the void in the area of personal harassment. The findings of this study support the findings of many recent workplace bully studies confirming that top-down and peer-to-peer bullying is occurring within the organization. University XYZ would be best to establish a personal harassment policy to address this problem. This study also established the systemic nature and spillover effect of workplace bullying within the organizational setting...
-------------------
Please sign the petition against workplace bullying in academia: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

Academic to argue that conviction was unlawful

An academic who was convicted of harassing a vice-chancellor is to return to court to argue that the prosecution was a breach of his right to free expression.

Howard Fredrics, who worked at Kingston University as senior lecturer in music between 2003 and 2006, was convicted in January of harassing Sir Peter Scott, Kingston’s vice-chancellor, by posting messages on a website, www.sirpeterscott.com.

Dr Fredrics was found guilty by Kingston Magistrates’ Court in his absence, having failed to appear for the hearing. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

He has subsequently indicated that he has left the country, claiming that he had received death threats from “an extremist terror group”.

The academic – who is represented by Anthony Julius, a well-known lawyer in the firm Mishcon de Reya – will argue before a district judge on 23 April that the prosecution was a breach of his right to free expression and, therefore, unlawful.

He will say that prosecution failed to “convincingly establish” that invoking the criminal law was necessary to meet a “pressing social need” and was the “least restrictive measure available” to meet that need.

Dr Fredrics will also suggest that he was denied the right to a fair trial with legal representation.

“The Crown denied me that right by proceeding with the trial in absentia, having been duly informed in advance before trial that my representatives had been forced to withdraw and having rejected my application for a reasonable period to allow for instructing new representatives,” he told Times Higher Education.

The magistrates said that the website was intended to harass Sir Peter and that the academic “ought to have known” that his actions would amount to harassment.

Dr Fredrics used the site to criticise both Sir Peter and the university for several years.

In 2008, he posted a recording of psychology lecturers telling students that they would not find good jobs unless the university scored well in the National Student Survey.

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

200 signatures, many more needed...

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment in institutions of higher education and concerns about the way the judicial system has dealt with complaints about such bullying and with those who protest (publicly or otherwise) about wrongdoing by their employers; the enquiry to be conducted with a view to addressing issues of concern that it may uncover.

Workplace bullying is a widespread problem wrecking health and careers and costing billions to the taxpayer. This problem is particularly serious in higher education. A recent survey by the Universities Colleges Union showed that as few as 45.1% of the participants were fortunate enough to never experience bullying.

Existing legislation addresses some aspects of workplace bullying, but does not deal with this problem comprehensively. There is also a perception that the judicial system does not always enforce the existing legislation fairly. Dissatisfaction with the way bullying is dealt with has led some to go public.

In response to the handling of a recent case by the courts, many academics and others expressed their indignation about the bullying that prevails in institutions of higher education, as well as the failure of the judicial system to deal with these problems satisfactorily. Similar concerns have been voiced before.

In addition to the obvious non-pecuniary benefits, addressing the problem of workplace bullying will bring about substantial pecuniary benefits in the form of improvements in the economy and cost savings to the taxpayer.

Sign the petition.

The science of bullying

It was only a matter of time before accusations of bullying would surface from Number 10 Downing Street, targeting even the Prime Minister. Buckingham Palace may be next. Over the past two decades, articles about bullying in The Times have leapt from about 200 to about 1300 per year. The increase is similar in other British and American newspapers.

Bullying is an ancient word, but today's anti-bullying movement is just a few decades old. The schoolyard was its initial focus. Policies designed to make children play nice are now widespread. Workplace bullying is the more recent concern. Has anybody not seen "The Devil Wears Prada"? A "Respectful Workplace Policy" is all the rage these days in universities, hospitals, and the public service.

What does the current preoccupation with bullying have to do with science? Not much. Like harassment, psychological violence, intimidation, and abuse, bullying is an epithet of office politics. What it means is mainly in the eye of the accuser. Calling someone a bully is often a way of speaking power to truth. If the label can be made to stick, the accuser's stock rises and that of the accused plunges in the economy of workplace rewards.

Yet evidence abounds of degradation in schools and workplaces so real, extreme and indefensible as to offend even a cynic's sense of right and wrong. Humiliation at work can and does lead to suicide, depression, heart attack, stroke, family breakdown, and many lesser ills. Targets may even lash back, go postal, shoot the place up, but this is very rare.

Next June in Cardiff, hundreds of social scientists will gather for the Seventh International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. To judge by the earlier conferences, many attendees will bring mainly the good intentions with which the road to hell is paved. Many others will report on disciplined efforts to make scientific sense of why people at work sometimes act cruelly toward superiors, subordinates, or peers.

I am among the specialists on nastiness in the academic workplace, an area of study for which one needs a wide-angle lens. Bullying flourishes in universities, as the UK blogspot, bulliedacademics, routinely documents. Criteria for distinguishing good work from bad are ambiguous. Most professors are personally invested in their work. On account of tenure and union protections, few targets of collegial hostility can be quickly fired; they must instead be slowly tortured out of their jobs. Despite nominal adherence to rules of reason and evidence, academics feel the same elemental preference as other mortals for people of their own kind - in ethnicity, race, language, social class, sex, age, and sexual orientation.

I am also among those researchers who avoid the word bullying, finding it too vague and imprecise for scientific purposes. Following the Swedish psychologist, Heinz Leymann, I study "workplace mobbing," the ganging up of managers and/or coworkers against a target, toward the end of shunning, ridiculing, punishing, and eventually eliminating him or her. This dire form of collective aggression, found in nature as well as the human realm, is clearly identifiable, and a reasonably coherent body of knowledge about it has by now been amassed.

Despite our many stumbles, disputes, false starts, and dead ends, the researchers who meet in Cardiff will keep soldiering on toward an empirically sound science of workplace conflict. To the extent we build that little science, we can then apply it effectively for keeping the larger scientific enterprise from being undermined by meanness and chicanery.

We are not at that point yet. Without conclusive evidence one way or another, scholars and activists will continue to argue about how the incidence of mobbing and bullying can be reduced. Some will press for "healthy workplace laws". Others will promote grass-roots interpersonal techniques.

Meanwhile, in workplaces as different as No. 10 and your local university, the name-calling and recriminations will go on.

Kenneth Westhues is a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

From: http://timesonline.typepad.com