Leeds Metropolitan University has saved £75,000 a year by implementing a scheme to tackle workplace stress.
John Hamilton, head of safety, health and wellbeing at the university, put the scheme in place over two years ago in reaction to bullying and harassment issues that had surfaced.
The scheme is based around a self-help website for staff, and attracted 6,000 hits in its first three months.
When it was first created, the website tackled over 75 topics including stress, fitness, and coping with money worries or grief. Now, it covers more than 200 areas of advice, support and guidance.
The university also held a staff development event in 2009 which supported the scheme, with over 60 events including exercise classes, health assessments, stress management techniques, and self-help sessions.
An occupational health referral scheme was also set up for staff, with treatments for a number of health problems.
Results of the scheme include: the university now saves £75,000 a year in wages; stress-related absence is down by 16%; and the accident rate is now at just 64.7 per 100,000 employees, compared to the sector average of 325.
Hamilton said: “The most important thing about the programme is that staff feel that the university cares about them and their wellbeing.
“It is a great atmosphere to work in and, because of that, motivation and productivity have improved and absence levels are down, proving that a happy workforce is a successful one.
"What has been really important has been the buy-in from senior management. They know this initiative is good for our employees. Morally, it is the right thing to do, but it also makes complete business sense.”
From: http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk
August 23, 2011
August 20, 2011
Exactly who is pulling the strings?
Serial failures barred from further bidding for grants - 19 March, 2009 'From 1 June, the council will ban repeatedly unsuccessful applicants from submitting proposals for a year. Those who do submit will be asked to take part in a mentoring programme.' - reported by Zoe Corbyn
This thread - which was just refreshed by someone adding a post - has been blocked by THE. In the thread academics are critical of EPSRC policies. It would appear that despite what the editor of THE says - pressure is being put on THE not to have threads that are critical of policies in the way that they used to do. If we do live in a democracy - as is claimed - actions such as this ought to be a cause for concern. Exactly who is pulling the strings behind THE and blocking voices that are critical?
By Anonymous
This thread - which was just refreshed by someone adding a post - has been blocked by THE. In the thread academics are critical of EPSRC policies. It would appear that despite what the editor of THE says - pressure is being put on THE not to have threads that are critical of policies in the way that they used to do. If we do live in a democracy - as is claimed - actions such as this ought to be a cause for concern. Exactly who is pulling the strings behind THE and blocking voices that are critical?
By Anonymous
August 18, 2011
Why Cameron Dick’s workplace bullying reference group will fail bullied Queensland teachers - again
Queensland Education and Industrial Relations Minister Cameron Dick has established a workplace bullying reference group “to ensure that Queensland’s framework for dealing with workplace bullying remains valid and effective.”
To understand why the deliberations of Mr Dick’s reference group will have little impact on the bulling in Queensland workplaces, you need to consider whose interests are being represented by the bodies who have been invited to join the reference group - the Queensland Council of Unions, employer representatives and legal and academic experts. Each of these bodies has a significant conflict of interest in dealing with workplace bullying - many of their members either are the workplace bullies, or are in the business of protecting the workplace bullies, or are funded by the workplace bullies. The bodies on the reference group will protect their own interests well, but there will be nobody on the reference group to really represent the interests of bullied workers.
The Honorary President of the Queensland Council of Unions, for example, is John Battams, General Secretary of the Queensland Teachers Union. The QTU is the largest registered industrial organisation in Queensland. It has 43,000 members - classroom teachers, principals and education department administrators, all together in the same union.
When a Queensland classroom teacher is bullied by their school principal, many other administrators may become involved in the situation - supporting and encouraging the bully principal, providing advice to the bully principal, etc. So QTU officers have to balance the need of the individual union member to be protected from workplace abuse against the need of their many bullying members to be protected from the consequences of their bullying, mobbing, incompetence, negligence, malice, defamation, falsification of the official records, etc, etc. And so a bullied classroom teacher may find that, instead of being actively defended from workplace abuse, they are instead advised that there is no hope of justice and that the best thing to do is to “accept the things you cannot change”, because Queensland teachers who “fight it” are mentally and physically destroyed. The union seems to have adopted a ‘learned helplessness’ approach to dealing with workplace bullying.
In June 2002 I met Ann Bligh in Cairns and I told her that bullied Queensland teachers were being advised to ‘accept the things you cannot change’ because there was no hope of justice. I was whistleblowing, although I did not realise it at that time. I just thought that I was telling the Minister of Education something that she really needed to know. I expected Anna Bligh to be shocked by my disclosure, and to react in the manner that Stephen Smith reacted when he was told about the abuse at the ADF Academy. I expected Anna Bligh to jump about, wave her ministerial arms in the air and tell her senior public servants that the situation was completely stupid, and that this would not do - that Queensland teachers must be protected from workplace abuse.
For a while, I believed that this was what had happened. I was given repeated reassurances that the bullying was under control and I retired in July 2002, a happy whistleblower, believing that I had done what I saw as my duty to other Queensland teachers.
Several hundred other Queensland teachers also retired in July 2002, taking the first of the teachers’ $50,000 ‘career change’ packages. I was told that many of these ‘career change’ teachers were escaping from workplace bullying situations.
A workplace bullying reference group was set up, and in 2004 Queensland implemented a code of practice to help Queensland employers prevent workplace bullying and harassment.
But little seemed to have actually changed in Queensland schools. In 2007 Deidre Duncan and Dan Riley of UNE surveyed 800 Australian teachers. They found that 99.6 per cent of the teachers claimed to have experienced bullying in the workplace. Queensland teachers were over-represented in the survey, suggesting that, five years after I had whistleblown to Anna Bligh, and even after many hundreds of teachers had taken workplace bullying escape packages, workplace bullying was still rife in Queensland schools.
You would think that these shocking research findings would ring alarm bells in the Queensland department of education. You would think that the results would prompt a lot of union agitation. But not in Queensland. And so, nine years after I first whistleblew about the workplace bullying in Queensland schools to Anna Bligh, another workplace bullying reference group has been set up with no body to represent the interests of bullied workers. And no submissions to the reference group have been requested from bullied workers.
Cameron Dick must ensure that the voices of bullied Queensland workers are heard by his reference group, and that their experiences are taken into consideration.
What do bullied Queensland teachers need? They need some independent research into the effectiveness of departmental workplace bullying polices. We need to understand why the departmental policies are failing bullied teachers. They need to be respected. They need to have equal rights with their students. And most of all they need the right to engage in professional discussion, without the fear of ‘payback’ allegations. I would suspect that the repression of professional discussion in Queensland schools is a significant factor in the failure of public education in Queensland. There is little point in employing well qualified teachers in Queensland schools if these teachers are going to be driven into ill health and out of work for trying to do their job to the best of their ability.
The department of education promotion system fails Queensland classroom teachers. Any teacher who is interested in becoming a school principal should be required to demonstrate a sound comprehension of departmental polices before they are considered for ‘acting’ or promotion positions. School principals need to demonstrate that they are literate enough to read the workplace bullying policy documents produced by the reference groups, and they need to demonstrate that they are intelligent enough to apply the workplace bullying policies to their own behaviour. The failure to maintain this professional standard in Queensland schools is negligence. When school principals do not read, or cannot properly comprehend, departmental policies, classroom teachers are exposed to workplace abuse.
The education department investigation process also exposes Queensland teachers to the risk of workplace abuse. It is much too easy for a school principal to make ‘payback’ allegations against a classroom teacher. And it is much too easy, if a teacher disproves these allegations, for the principal to change the allegations.
It is much too easy for a principal to make falsified records of meetings, to ‘record’ imaginary meetings, to ‘lose’ all or part of records supportive of a teacher, to refuse to hear or to record evidence supportive of a teacher, etc, etc. It is much too easy for a principal to place these falsified documents secretly on a teacher’s departmental records.
School principals should be required to provide teachers with a written copy of any allegations. The person making these allegations should make the statement in their own words. The allegations should concern specific facts. The teacher should also be provided with a statement of their rights in this situation, and with a copy of the relevant departmental policy document. Teachers should be allowed the time and opportunity to check the facts, to gather evidence, and to respond to the allegations in writing. Teachers should be provided with independent legal advice. The teacher’s response to the allegations should be properly considered by an officer with no conflict of interest in the situation.
The Crime and Misconduct Commission ‘devolution process’ also fails Queensland teachers. When a teacher first makes a disclosure to the CMC, the teacher may not realise the full extent of the corruption. The CMC have a policy of handing over about 98 per cent of disclosures to the department of education for investigation. And the department of education seem to have a policy of allowing principals and senior public servants to investigate themselves, and to find themselves innocent of any allegations. These senior departmental officers then declare the case ‘closed’ and instruct that any further letters from the teacher should be filed and disregarded.
If the teacher has made a Right to Information application, the RTI documents seem to be delayed till a few days after the teacher’s case has been declared ‘closed’. Then the RTI documents are released, the full extent of the corruption is exposed and the teacher’s protests are filed and ignored.
‘Independent’ departmental investigations also seem to be controlled by the senior departmental officer whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint. This officer is able to limit the independent investigation, to limit the documents ‘considered’ by the investigator and to prevent the investigator from asking certain key questions.
Thousands of dollars of taxpayers money seem to be being wasted on education department ‘independent investigations’ which have been set up to fail.
During the nine years since I first made my disclosure to Anna Bligh, she has often returned to Cairns, but Mrs Bligh no longer takes the risk of sitting down and listening to the concerns of bullied classroom teachers. She stands behind a barbecue, laughing at us and handing us sausages. Its the ‘let them eat sausages’ approach to ministerial responsibility.
Bullied Queensland teachers need an education minister who will really listen to their disclosures and they need a union that will fight for their right to work free from the fear of workplace abuse.
Robina Cosser worked as a teacher and advisory teacher in England, New South Wales and Queensland. She now edits the Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles website and is a vice-president of Whistleblowers Australia.
Whistleblowers Australia is working with the National Whistleblowers Centre in Washington to have 30 July recognised as International Whistleblowers Day.
Robina Cosser M.Ed. (SYD)
Editor : The Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles!
Editor : Whistleblowing Women
Vice President and Schools Contact : Whistleblowers Australia
From: http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au
To understand why the deliberations of Mr Dick’s reference group will have little impact on the bulling in Queensland workplaces, you need to consider whose interests are being represented by the bodies who have been invited to join the reference group - the Queensland Council of Unions, employer representatives and legal and academic experts. Each of these bodies has a significant conflict of interest in dealing with workplace bullying - many of their members either are the workplace bullies, or are in the business of protecting the workplace bullies, or are funded by the workplace bullies. The bodies on the reference group will protect their own interests well, but there will be nobody on the reference group to really represent the interests of bullied workers.
The Honorary President of the Queensland Council of Unions, for example, is John Battams, General Secretary of the Queensland Teachers Union. The QTU is the largest registered industrial organisation in Queensland. It has 43,000 members - classroom teachers, principals and education department administrators, all together in the same union.
When a Queensland classroom teacher is bullied by their school principal, many other administrators may become involved in the situation - supporting and encouraging the bully principal, providing advice to the bully principal, etc. So QTU officers have to balance the need of the individual union member to be protected from workplace abuse against the need of their many bullying members to be protected from the consequences of their bullying, mobbing, incompetence, negligence, malice, defamation, falsification of the official records, etc, etc. And so a bullied classroom teacher may find that, instead of being actively defended from workplace abuse, they are instead advised that there is no hope of justice and that the best thing to do is to “accept the things you cannot change”, because Queensland teachers who “fight it” are mentally and physically destroyed. The union seems to have adopted a ‘learned helplessness’ approach to dealing with workplace bullying.
In June 2002 I met Ann Bligh in Cairns and I told her that bullied Queensland teachers were being advised to ‘accept the things you cannot change’ because there was no hope of justice. I was whistleblowing, although I did not realise it at that time. I just thought that I was telling the Minister of Education something that she really needed to know. I expected Anna Bligh to be shocked by my disclosure, and to react in the manner that Stephen Smith reacted when he was told about the abuse at the ADF Academy. I expected Anna Bligh to jump about, wave her ministerial arms in the air and tell her senior public servants that the situation was completely stupid, and that this would not do - that Queensland teachers must be protected from workplace abuse.
For a while, I believed that this was what had happened. I was given repeated reassurances that the bullying was under control and I retired in July 2002, a happy whistleblower, believing that I had done what I saw as my duty to other Queensland teachers.
Several hundred other Queensland teachers also retired in July 2002, taking the first of the teachers’ $50,000 ‘career change’ packages. I was told that many of these ‘career change’ teachers were escaping from workplace bullying situations.
A workplace bullying reference group was set up, and in 2004 Queensland implemented a code of practice to help Queensland employers prevent workplace bullying and harassment.
But little seemed to have actually changed in Queensland schools. In 2007 Deidre Duncan and Dan Riley of UNE surveyed 800 Australian teachers. They found that 99.6 per cent of the teachers claimed to have experienced bullying in the workplace. Queensland teachers were over-represented in the survey, suggesting that, five years after I had whistleblown to Anna Bligh, and even after many hundreds of teachers had taken workplace bullying escape packages, workplace bullying was still rife in Queensland schools.
You would think that these shocking research findings would ring alarm bells in the Queensland department of education. You would think that the results would prompt a lot of union agitation. But not in Queensland. And so, nine years after I first whistleblew about the workplace bullying in Queensland schools to Anna Bligh, another workplace bullying reference group has been set up with no body to represent the interests of bullied workers. And no submissions to the reference group have been requested from bullied workers.
Cameron Dick must ensure that the voices of bullied Queensland workers are heard by his reference group, and that their experiences are taken into consideration.
What do bullied Queensland teachers need? They need some independent research into the effectiveness of departmental workplace bullying polices. We need to understand why the departmental policies are failing bullied teachers. They need to be respected. They need to have equal rights with their students. And most of all they need the right to engage in professional discussion, without the fear of ‘payback’ allegations. I would suspect that the repression of professional discussion in Queensland schools is a significant factor in the failure of public education in Queensland. There is little point in employing well qualified teachers in Queensland schools if these teachers are going to be driven into ill health and out of work for trying to do their job to the best of their ability.
The department of education promotion system fails Queensland classroom teachers. Any teacher who is interested in becoming a school principal should be required to demonstrate a sound comprehension of departmental polices before they are considered for ‘acting’ or promotion positions. School principals need to demonstrate that they are literate enough to read the workplace bullying policy documents produced by the reference groups, and they need to demonstrate that they are intelligent enough to apply the workplace bullying policies to their own behaviour. The failure to maintain this professional standard in Queensland schools is negligence. When school principals do not read, or cannot properly comprehend, departmental policies, classroom teachers are exposed to workplace abuse.
The education department investigation process also exposes Queensland teachers to the risk of workplace abuse. It is much too easy for a school principal to make ‘payback’ allegations against a classroom teacher. And it is much too easy, if a teacher disproves these allegations, for the principal to change the allegations.
It is much too easy for a principal to make falsified records of meetings, to ‘record’ imaginary meetings, to ‘lose’ all or part of records supportive of a teacher, to refuse to hear or to record evidence supportive of a teacher, etc, etc. It is much too easy for a principal to place these falsified documents secretly on a teacher’s departmental records.
School principals should be required to provide teachers with a written copy of any allegations. The person making these allegations should make the statement in their own words. The allegations should concern specific facts. The teacher should also be provided with a statement of their rights in this situation, and with a copy of the relevant departmental policy document. Teachers should be allowed the time and opportunity to check the facts, to gather evidence, and to respond to the allegations in writing. Teachers should be provided with independent legal advice. The teacher’s response to the allegations should be properly considered by an officer with no conflict of interest in the situation.
The Crime and Misconduct Commission ‘devolution process’ also fails Queensland teachers. When a teacher first makes a disclosure to the CMC, the teacher may not realise the full extent of the corruption. The CMC have a policy of handing over about 98 per cent of disclosures to the department of education for investigation. And the department of education seem to have a policy of allowing principals and senior public servants to investigate themselves, and to find themselves innocent of any allegations. These senior departmental officers then declare the case ‘closed’ and instruct that any further letters from the teacher should be filed and disregarded.
If the teacher has made a Right to Information application, the RTI documents seem to be delayed till a few days after the teacher’s case has been declared ‘closed’. Then the RTI documents are released, the full extent of the corruption is exposed and the teacher’s protests are filed and ignored.
‘Independent’ departmental investigations also seem to be controlled by the senior departmental officer whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint. This officer is able to limit the independent investigation, to limit the documents ‘considered’ by the investigator and to prevent the investigator from asking certain key questions.
Thousands of dollars of taxpayers money seem to be being wasted on education department ‘independent investigations’ which have been set up to fail.
During the nine years since I first made my disclosure to Anna Bligh, she has often returned to Cairns, but Mrs Bligh no longer takes the risk of sitting down and listening to the concerns of bullied classroom teachers. She stands behind a barbecue, laughing at us and handing us sausages. Its the ‘let them eat sausages’ approach to ministerial responsibility.
Bullied Queensland teachers need an education minister who will really listen to their disclosures and they need a union that will fight for their right to work free from the fear of workplace abuse.
Robina Cosser worked as a teacher and advisory teacher in England, New South Wales and Queensland. She now edits the Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles website and is a vice-president of Whistleblowers Australia.
Whistleblowers Australia is working with the National Whistleblowers Centre in Washington to have 30 July recognised as International Whistleblowers Day.
Robina Cosser M.Ed. (SYD)
Editor : The Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles!
Editor : Whistleblowing Women
Vice President and Schools Contact : Whistleblowers Australia
From: http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au
August 12, 2011
Stirling university ‘broke law’, employment tribunal rules
An employment tribunal in Glasgow has ruled that Stirling University broke employment law when it ended the fixed-term contracts of 100 of its employees without consulting the unions.
The staff in question were earning between £20,000 and £30,000 per year and could be awarded up to 90 days compensation by the employment tribunal. This would amount to a compensation payout of £500,000.
Under employment law, employers have a duty to consult with employees when making redundancies. The consultation process is designed to involve employees in the redundancy discussions and ensure that redundancies are as fair as possible.
When there is a collective redundancy situation, which occurs when over 20 employees are made redundant in a 90 day period, the employer is obligated to consult with an employee representative. If the employees are represented by a union, the representative will be the trade union representative.
The University and College Union (UCU) took Stirling University to the employment tribunal because the university failed to consult with the UCU representative on the collective redundancies.
Stirling University argued that because the employees were on a fixed-term contract, the termination of their contracts did not count as redundancies and therefore there was no obligation to consult.
Redundancy rights under employment law only apply to those with the employment status of ‘employee’ and not ‘worker’. The difference between the two terms can be difficult to make out.
In determining employment status, an employment tribunal looks at a number of factors. They will consider, amongst many other things, whether the person has worked exclusively for one company or organisation, whether tax and national insurance contributions were deducted by the employer, and whether the manager or supervisor was responsible for directing the work completed.
The Glasgow employment tribunal held that Stirling University did have a duty to conduct a collective consultation with the UCU representative and that they broke the law by failing to do so.
Stirling University claimed that it had held a number of meetings with the unions about the redundancies; however UCU said the meetings were not meaningful.
UCU Scottish official, Mary Senior, said the employment tribunal ruling is an “important victory” for the former staff, and for the thousands of university staff employed on fixed-term contracts around the UK.
From: http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk
The staff in question were earning between £20,000 and £30,000 per year and could be awarded up to 90 days compensation by the employment tribunal. This would amount to a compensation payout of £500,000.
Under employment law, employers have a duty to consult with employees when making redundancies. The consultation process is designed to involve employees in the redundancy discussions and ensure that redundancies are as fair as possible.
When there is a collective redundancy situation, which occurs when over 20 employees are made redundant in a 90 day period, the employer is obligated to consult with an employee representative. If the employees are represented by a union, the representative will be the trade union representative.
The University and College Union (UCU) took Stirling University to the employment tribunal because the university failed to consult with the UCU representative on the collective redundancies.
Stirling University argued that because the employees were on a fixed-term contract, the termination of their contracts did not count as redundancies and therefore there was no obligation to consult.
Redundancy rights under employment law only apply to those with the employment status of ‘employee’ and not ‘worker’. The difference between the two terms can be difficult to make out.
In determining employment status, an employment tribunal looks at a number of factors. They will consider, amongst many other things, whether the person has worked exclusively for one company or organisation, whether tax and national insurance contributions were deducted by the employer, and whether the manager or supervisor was responsible for directing the work completed.
The Glasgow employment tribunal held that Stirling University did have a duty to conduct a collective consultation with the UCU representative and that they broke the law by failing to do so.
Stirling University claimed that it had held a number of meetings with the unions about the redundancies; however UCU said the meetings were not meaningful.
UCU Scottish official, Mary Senior, said the employment tribunal ruling is an “important victory” for the former staff, and for the thousands of university staff employed on fixed-term contracts around the UK.
From: http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk
August 09, 2011
Silence is not the solution...
I am becoming increasingly concerned about some of the actions being taken. What kind of pressure is being put on Times Higher Education (THE) and by whom? I contributed a lot to Carl Baybut's thread and that too was blocked. That is a thread about an academic who committed suicide partly because of his treatment by his university. Silencing stories which are in the public domain - Kingston and Southampton Solent is surely unacceptable. THE's silence on this matter should be a matter of legitimate public interest. Guardian journalists where are you?
Anonymous post
Anonymous post
August 03, 2011
Bullied at the University of Newcastle (Australia)
11 Jul 2011 7:30:24pm
I believe I was bullied out of the University of Newcastle for being a whistle blower. The University of course denies it. When I was taken by ambulance to a hospital after a failed suicide attempt in my office I was told 15-20 other people from the University had been brought in the same condition for the same reasons by two different psychiatrists. All I could think was - will it take a successful suicide for something to be done. Probably.
-----------
11 Jul 2011 3:49:20pm
I am another academic from the University of Newcastle (NSW) whose career was abruptly ended as the University decided I needed to be punished for attempting to expose bullying. So I feel overjoyed at the media attention to this malicious and obnoxious workplace behaviour.
However, it is a cop-out to state that 'Bullying is tricky territory' or that victims should seek alternative employment. There is a plethora of research that clearly identifies what bullying behaviour consistitutes. And more significantly the consequences of ignoring it. Legislation like Brodie's law needs to go National, before more working lives (and lives) are prematurely ended. All workers should have a right to be treated with respect and dignity within their workplace (and elsewhere) and should not be eliminated from their workplace if they allege bullying tactics.
The above posts are from: Background briefing - Bullying at work
July 28, 2011
Dean criticised by tribunal is promoted
Anger has been sparked among staff at a struggling university after a senior manager who told a whistleblower that he did not "do budgets" was awarded a professorship.
Kevin Richardson, dean of the University of Gloucestershire Business School, has been awarded the title despite receiving criticism from an employment tribunal last year relating to his behaviour in his former role as head of education.
The judgment found that Professor Richardson wanted business development manager Janet Merrigan - who successfully brought a tribunal under whistleblowing laws last September - to be sacked and let "nowhere near" an investigation into "significant failures" in the financial running of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Science.
It also accepted Ms Merrigan's evidence that Professor Richardson had told her and a colleague that "I don't do budgets" and to "fuck off" when they raised concerns.
The tribunal suggested in its ruling that "a spell of equal opportunities training" for Professor Richardson "would probably not go amiss".
His appointment as professor of business development comes just days before Gloucestershire's current vice-chancellor, Paul Hartley, officially leaves the institution, which is undergoing a change in key posts and an overhaul of its governance following an independent review.
According to official regulations, the vice-chancellor has final say on professorships "on the recommendation of the professorial board". A university spokeswoman said that Professor Richardson had been awarded his professorship "in accordance with university criteria and processes for this designation".
However, a member of the professorial board has resigned over the matter, while a petition has been signed by dozens of staff members in protest. One academic, who did not want to be named, said there was "massive anger" about the promotion.
Dr Hartley will be succeeded as vice-chancellor by senior civil servant Stephen Marston, the government's former director general for universities and skills, who will take over on 1 August.
Sir Peter Scott, former vice-chancellor of Kingston University and now professor of higher education studies at the Institute of Education, will take over as chair of governors in the autumn.
Meanwhile, it has emerged in council minutes that Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, personally asked Gloucestershire to ensure it drew "on the widest possible field of candidates" in its search for a new chair of council.
Gloucestershire also confirmed that before he was elected chair, Sir Peter had served on the interview panel that chose Mr Marston after Hefce put forward a number of people who could act as advisers to the process.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Kevin Richardson, dean of the University of Gloucestershire Business School, has been awarded the title despite receiving criticism from an employment tribunal last year relating to his behaviour in his former role as head of education.
The judgment found that Professor Richardson wanted business development manager Janet Merrigan - who successfully brought a tribunal under whistleblowing laws last September - to be sacked and let "nowhere near" an investigation into "significant failures" in the financial running of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Science.
It also accepted Ms Merrigan's evidence that Professor Richardson had told her and a colleague that "I don't do budgets" and to "fuck off" when they raised concerns.
The tribunal suggested in its ruling that "a spell of equal opportunities training" for Professor Richardson "would probably not go amiss".
His appointment as professor of business development comes just days before Gloucestershire's current vice-chancellor, Paul Hartley, officially leaves the institution, which is undergoing a change in key posts and an overhaul of its governance following an independent review.
According to official regulations, the vice-chancellor has final say on professorships "on the recommendation of the professorial board". A university spokeswoman said that Professor Richardson had been awarded his professorship "in accordance with university criteria and processes for this designation".
However, a member of the professorial board has resigned over the matter, while a petition has been signed by dozens of staff members in protest. One academic, who did not want to be named, said there was "massive anger" about the promotion.
Dr Hartley will be succeeded as vice-chancellor by senior civil servant Stephen Marston, the government's former director general for universities and skills, who will take over on 1 August.
Sir Peter Scott, former vice-chancellor of Kingston University and now professor of higher education studies at the Institute of Education, will take over as chair of governors in the autumn.
Meanwhile, it has emerged in council minutes that Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, personally asked Gloucestershire to ensure it drew "on the widest possible field of candidates" in its search for a new chair of council.
Gloucestershire also confirmed that before he was elected chair, Sir Peter had served on the interview panel that chose Mr Marston after Hefce put forward a number of people who could act as advisers to the process.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
July 12, 2011
Open Letter re Race Discrimination Claim at Manchester Metropolitan University
To: Board of Governors, Vice Chancellor Professor John Brooks and Chancellor Dianne Thompson - Manchester Metropolitan University
We are writing to express our grave concern at the dismissal of Dr Claudius D’Silva, a senior lecturer in Chemistry and Environmental Science, who has worked without blemish for MMU since 1993. We protest against the use of a charge of “gross misconduct” against Dr D’Silva for bringing a race discrimination claim against MMU. We note his case is still ongoing in the employment tribunal.
We urge you to ensure that the University’s disciplinary procedure is not used to undermine the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We urge you to move to restore the good name of MMU in the field of race equality. We also urge the Board to investigate bullying and the use of ‘gross misconduct’ charges against employees at MMU.
We call on the Board to demonstrate MMU’s commitment to fair employment practices and to reinstate Dr D’Silva to his previous position without loss of standing or earnings.
We are writing to express our grave concern at the dismissal of Dr Claudius D’Silva, a senior lecturer in Chemistry and Environmental Science, who has worked without blemish for MMU since 1993. We protest against the use of a charge of “gross misconduct” against Dr D’Silva for bringing a race discrimination claim against MMU. We note his case is still ongoing in the employment tribunal.
We urge you to ensure that the University’s disciplinary procedure is not used to undermine the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We urge you to move to restore the good name of MMU in the field of race equality. We also urge the Board to investigate bullying and the use of ‘gross misconduct’ charges against employees at MMU.
We call on the Board to demonstrate MMU’s commitment to fair employment practices and to reinstate Dr D’Silva to his previous position without loss of standing or earnings.
June 29, 2011
Denis Rancourt
This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like at "Canada's university". Renowned workplace mobbing expert professor Kenneth Westhues concluded in a 2009 written report that the dismissal of full and tenured professor Denis Rancourt was an "administrative mobbing".
Watch the video: http://youtu.be/I0HZDN6xXZ8
Watch the video: http://youtu.be/I0HZDN6xXZ8
June 26, 2011
Plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University
I would like to submit written evidence on "plagiarism" at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). I have been fighting for years to expose the truth about plagiarism at the University but to no avail. I have recently written to the Rt. Hon Mr John Denham MP, Secretary of State for DIUS and Professor Paul Ramsden, Chief Executive for HEA regarding this issue. I have also formally written to HEFCE and QAA asking for the issue to be thoroughly investigated.
It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence of plagiarism at the University without protection against future litigation. The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University, nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.
I understand the only available pathway to divulge the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is through the "Parliament Protection Privilege"...
1. Background information
I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January 2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains. This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles, scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.
2. Competing interest declaration
I declare that I do not have any competing financial interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at the University... Additional substantial evidence will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic impropriety at the University.
3. Plagiarism: the case
As it was advised by committee staff, I sent to the Committee very few course work of the students' plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:
— The verbatim copying of another's work within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements. This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all of the students appear to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all the references at the back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
3.1 The majority of students are tempted to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks. This is a very serious problem in the University. The students were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence. Students were also informed when they were handed back their course work reports to reinforce the point.
3.2 The first lecture of each new semester was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector was used to advise the students how to write their assignments and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the title "Assignment general and specific comments" was handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating why it was unacceptable. Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it...
3.3 Students were also referred to the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C) regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment, when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where the ideas came from with supporting references.
3.4 Students were advised that they must avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged...
4. Although plagiarism is a very serious academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University management has not taken this issue seriously.
4.1 The University strategies to identify plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University. However, I was constantly put off by the University Management. All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected and detected.
4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and Management at the University. Most notably in May and December 2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's grievance procedures. This never happened.
4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism, the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with the University's regulations. This never happened.
4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the plagiarised assignment by 10%. I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying to cover up plagiarism.
4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism through the University's procedures but it was then converted into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not followed University procedures, which is not true... There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request). This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.
4.6 Instead of investigating and determining my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism, managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December 2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted. This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October 2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly dismissed.
5. Through the University College Union (UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January 2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench fees and unfair dismissal.
5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached. The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign the compromise agreement.
6. My health disintegrated further as can be established by reference to several medical reports including one by the University's own occupational health doctor.
6.1 My academic career is now completely ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and to my name and career is immense.
7. Conclusion and Recommendation
I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.
I believe that the allegations about plagiarism presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee. It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following recommendations:
— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
— To introduce and enforce rules to protect public interest and the reputation of the British Education against plagiarism.
— To introduce rules on personal and collective responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism at the British Universities.
— To introduce rules to protect individuals from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.
Professor El-Sayed MS
PS: Additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request. Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.
It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence of plagiarism at the University without protection against future litigation. The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University, nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.
I understand the only available pathway to divulge the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is through the "Parliament Protection Privilege"...
1. Background information
I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January 2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains. This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles, scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.
2. Competing interest declaration
I declare that I do not have any competing financial interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at the University... Additional substantial evidence will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic impropriety at the University.
3. Plagiarism: the case
As it was advised by committee staff, I sent to the Committee very few course work of the students' plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:
— The verbatim copying of another's work within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements. This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all of the students appear to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all the references at the back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
3.1 The majority of students are tempted to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks. This is a very serious problem in the University. The students were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence. Students were also informed when they were handed back their course work reports to reinforce the point.
3.2 The first lecture of each new semester was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector was used to advise the students how to write their assignments and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the title "Assignment general and specific comments" was handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating why it was unacceptable. Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it...
3.3 Students were also referred to the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C) regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment, when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where the ideas came from with supporting references.
3.4 Students were advised that they must avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged...
4. Although plagiarism is a very serious academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University management has not taken this issue seriously.
4.1 The University strategies to identify plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University. However, I was constantly put off by the University Management. All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected and detected.
4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and Management at the University. Most notably in May and December 2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's grievance procedures. This never happened.
4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism, the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with the University's regulations. This never happened.
4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the plagiarised assignment by 10%. I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying to cover up plagiarism.
4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism through the University's procedures but it was then converted into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not followed University procedures, which is not true... There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request). This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.
4.6 Instead of investigating and determining my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism, managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December 2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted. This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October 2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly dismissed.
5. Through the University College Union (UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January 2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench fees and unfair dismissal.
5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached. The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign the compromise agreement.
6. My health disintegrated further as can be established by reference to several medical reports including one by the University's own occupational health doctor.
6.1 My academic career is now completely ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and to my name and career is immense.
7. Conclusion and Recommendation
I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.
I believe that the allegations about plagiarism presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee. It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following recommendations:
— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
— To introduce and enforce rules to protect public interest and the reputation of the British Education against plagiarism.
— To introduce rules on personal and collective responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism at the British Universities.
— To introduce rules to protect individuals from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.
Professor El-Sayed MS
PS: Additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request. Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)