The financial cost - Don't worry, universities waste taxpayer's money...

Workplace bullying contributes to a total loss of 18 million working days every year in the UK. This equates to a cost of around £2 billion each year to UK industry...

Bullying and harassment causes huge damage to a corporate brand and its employees. 30-50% of stress related illnesses stem from workplace bullying. Work performance from individuals can suffer greatly as they feel unable to operate in such a stressful environment. From a managerial position, bullying is an abuse of power or authority which attempts to undermine an individual or group of employees. From a peer, it can be persistent unacceptable behaviour that is offensive and intimidating. Bullying can often turn into malicious, insulting and humiliating behaviour that diminishes an individual’s confidence and destroys their self belief...

Through group discussions, organisations were also able to openly discuss the challenges they have faced when dealing with bullying and harassment and possible solutions. The biggest challenges that came to light were:

• Educating managers who are oblivious to their legal responsibilities and ensuring they are aware of policies
• Acknowledging that bullying is taking place
• The difference between policies and the actual working environment
• Removing stereotypes across gender, race, religion, sexual preference, disability etc
• Attracting more women into male dominated industries

The best practise solutions that stemmed from these discussions included:

• Proper investigation procedures, starting at grass roots level. Clear pathways so employees and employers know the core values of an organisation and their code of conduct
• Buy in from senior management level. Commitment from senior level leads to a cascade down through an organisation.
• Staff associations / network groups
• Taking responsibility and challenging the bullying to stamp it out

...With the cost of a tribunal process estimated at around £40,000, and the cost of replacing an employee estimated at anywhere between £8,500 and up to two to three times that person’s salary, organisations simply cannot afford to ignore the issue of bullying...

From: http://www.prlog.org/

From HEFCE we know: 'Higher education institutions are legally independent corporate bodies. Their councils or boards of governors are responsible for the effective management and future development of their affairs. They are ultimately responsible for all affairs of the institution.' And 'Staff complainants should seek advice through their union representative. All institutions have grievance and whistleblowing procedures.' Wow!

In other words, financial mismanagement due to workplace bullying - and the waste of taxpayer's money - are of no interest to HEFCE. Has HEFCE ever calculated how much money is lost through workplace bullying in HEIs? Has HECFE ever held accountable any HEI in this respect?

HEFCE's mission statement: 'Working in partnership, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) promotes and funds high-quality, cost-effective teaching and research, meeting the diverse needs of students, the economy and society.' HEFCE you are failing your own mission.

Our message to UCU's inaugural Congress...

UCU's inaugural Congress meeting takes place 30 May - 1 June 2007 at the Bournemouth International Centre. This includes meetings of the higher education and further education sector conferences.

Congress and sector conferences are the supreme policy making bodies of the union. Congress decides policy on all matters not particular to any sector; sector conferences decide policy on all professional and employment matters particular to a sector, subject to any fundamental principles of policy appropriate to and established by congress.

Our message to all delegates (Congress and Sector conferences) on workplace bullying in academia, is simple...


A trip down memory lane June 3rd 06 from postings on this blog - one year ago...

Quotes from emails:

'...After 2-3 years of inaction and no support from my union, with the last few months on medication and receiving mental health councelling, all this while on suspension because I tried to expose institutionalised bullying, and while I watch the serial bully being promoted and taking over my office, I very reluctantly decided to write to the top persons in my union a very polite letter reminding them that I have not received the support I needed. This is the reply I received: "Our union does not have a specialist on workplace bullying to deal with your case now. We do not normally use any specialist consultant..."

'...After the TUC (Trades Union Congress) I will be writing to the ILO, and then last I will resign my union membership making sure that the media know why...'

'...The trade unions already see, realise, understand the plague of bullying in the workplace. They are quite happy with it. That is the way things are meant to be. One man's [or woman's] workplace bullying is another man's [or woman's] strong management / flexible workforce mantra...'

'...It is one thing to have my employers not understanding bullying, and it is another thing if the union itself is ignorant...'

'...I have no doubt that unions and TUC are hopeless [with workplace bullying]. I still think it is worthwhile showing the world how hopeless they are - at a cost of a stamp...'

'...The TUC general secretary will say that he has no powers to intervene in the affairs of an individual trade union. The TUC is simply the trade union's trade union... I would have been relatively happier if my trade union had maintained indifference. They ended up working against me by destroying and delaying documents, passing confidential info to my employers, all sorts of things...'

'...I have first hand experience of one particular union that has sat on its hands twice, in cases I have seen and been involved in. That union of shame is XXXXXX. No wonder so many health workers live in fear, there is no protection whatsoever...'

***************************************
'...The actions of my union have damaged my mental health and sense of trust far worse that the bullying of my employer...'
***************************************

How we cope with the pain...

Feeling mistreated can hurt, especially when it comes to the heart (1). An 11-year study of 8000 senior civil servants in London found that those who strongly agreed with the statement "I often have the feeling that I am being treated unfairly" had an increased risk of heart attack (hat tip pharmagossip ).

Out of the 567 people who agreed very strongly with this statement, 51 suffered a heart attack or severe chest pains, known as angina. By comparison, 64 out of the 966 people
who felt mild mistreatment had these heart problems. The results appear in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2,3).

There is growing evidence that despair can have all sorts of ill effects on the body (4, 5). Wrongly suspended and bullied doctors frequently suffer permanent ill health, and many have committed suicide or have experienced myocardial events (6, 7).

Doctors who have been suspended (often for whistleblowing) have a mortality rate of over 2%. This is higher than the mortality rate for open cardiac surgery and is entirely induced by employers. The mortality falls principally into two categories. (a) clinical depression ending in suicide and (b) myocardial infarction. Myocardial infarction is four times more common among suspended doctors than other doctors of the same age and sex. It has been recommended that affected individuals should take low dose asprin to reduce the risk of cardiac events (7).

This posting is dedicated to my pathology colleague, Dr Chris Chapman who died on 4/11/98 at the age of 56. Chris Chapman was a Principal Biochemist at Leeds General Infirmary working in conjunction with Leeds University, was made redundant after alleging corruption and fraud in the research being carried out. He was sacked the day before his 50th birthday to avoid paying him pension. He was re- instated following his legal victory. In a saga characterised by whitewash and obfuscation, inquiries were held to clarify the facts before a number of senior academics were given early retirement and replaced. However, this was too late for Chris.

See also

• Jean Lennane. The canary down the mine: what whistleblowers' health tells us about their environment [Link]
• Lennane K.J. "Whistleblowing": a health issue. British Medical Journal, 1993. 307: 667-670 [Link]
• Yamey G. Editorial: Protecting whistleblowers. Employers should respond to the message, not shoot the messenger BMJ 2000;320:70-71 [Link]
  

-------------------------------------------------------
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog: Take good care of yourself - the health hazards of truthtelling.

Happy Birthday...

This blog is one year old. No time to celebrate and little to be proud of. During this time we had around 20000 visits from 60 different countries, the majority of which came from the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. On average we receive every week one story of abuse, harassment or bullying in academia - mostly by managers. The pattern is well-known and well-established. The contributors to this blog wish to thank you all for your support. We now have some voice and a very long way to go...

Judgements of UK Employment Appeal Tribunals involving universities

• Association of University Teachers

UKEATS/0072/05 Practice -and- Procedure / Striking-out/dismissal - DR L LIU -and- THE ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS - THE HONOURABLE LADY SMITH 07/02/2007.

UKEATPA/0666/05 Practice -and- Procedure / Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke - MR S DEMAN -and- (1) ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS (2) MR D TRIESMAN (3) MR B EVERETT (4) DR G TALBOT (5) DR J DE GROOT - HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC - 26/09/2005.

EAT/142/03 & EAT/266/03 Practice -and- Procedure / Estoppel or Abuse of Process - MR SURESH DEMAN -and- (1) THE ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS (2) DR D TRIESMAN (2) MR P COTTERELL (3) MR A KETT (4) MR P MITCHELL - MR RECORDER LUBA QC - 02/07/2003.

E/746/99 Race Discrimination / Inferring discrimination - DR S DEMAN -and- ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS AND OTHERS - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (P) - 05/02/2002.

• Bradford

UKEAT/572/03 Race Discrimination / Direct - MR S DEMAN -and- (1) UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD (2) MR P BUNTING (3) MR S R ICE-BIRCHALL - His Hon Judge BIRTLES QC - 05/11/2003.

EAT/597/02 Practice and Procedure / Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity - MR S DEMAN -and- (1) UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD (2) PROFESSOR GRACE ALDERSON - His Hon Judge J BURKE QC - 22/05/2003.

• Brighton

EAT/747/02 Disability Discrimination / Disability - UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON -and- MS T TABARY-PETERSSEN - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WALL - 09/06/2003.

EAT/0637/00 Unfair Dismissal / Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason - MR N G WILSON -and- UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) - 09/09/2001.

• Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust

UKEAT/0651/05 Race Discrimination / Direct - DR VIVIENNE JEAN LYFAR -and- BRIGHTON & SUSSEX UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS TRUST - HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCMULLEN QC - 31/01/2006.

• Brunel University

UKEAT/0307/06 Practice -and- Procedure / Admissibility of evidence - (1) BRUNEL UNIVERSITY (2) PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ -and- (1) PROFESSOR VASEGHI (2) MS G WEBSTER - HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANSELL - 17/08/2006.

UKEAT/0757/04/DA & UKEAT/0222/05/DA Trade Union Rights / Action short of dismissal - PROFESSOR SAEED VASEGHI -and- BRUNEL UNIVERSITY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PUGSLEY - 12/08/2005.

UKEAT/0730/04 Race Discrimination / Burden of proof - MS G WEBSTER -and- BRUNEL UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON - 14/12/2004.

UKEAT/0757/04/DA Trade Union Rights / Action short of dismissal - PROFESSOR SAEED VASEGHI -and- BRUNEL UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON - 08/12/2004.

• Canterbury Christ Church

UKEAT/0428/04 Contract of Employment / Wrongful dismissal - MR WILLIAM GIRLING WRIGHT -and- CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE - HIS HONOUR JUDGE SEROTA QC - 06/04/2005.

• City University

UKEAT/0851/04 Sex Discrimination / Aiding -and- abetting - MR A MOYHING -and- (1) HOMERTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS (2) BARTS AND THE LONDON NHS TRUST (3) TOWER HAMLETS PRIMARY CARE TRUST (4) CITY UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON - 03/03/2005.

EAT/1065/02 Unfair Dismissal / Other - MR S DEAMAN -and- CITY UNIVERSITY - HIS HON JUDGE McMULLEN QC - 18/10/2002.

• East London

UKEAT/0495/04 Practice -and- Procedure / Compromise - UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON -and- DR D HINTON - HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANSELL - 24/09/2004.

• Edinburgh

EATS/0020/03 Practice -and- Procedure / Application/Claim - MRS ANNE MURRAY or FINLAY -and- UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 29/08/2003.

• Glasgow

EATS/0018/05 Practice -and- Procedure / Application/Claim - DR ABDOLREZA AHARI -and- (1) UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW (2) HCI (SCOTLAND) LTD - HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC - 31/08/2005.

0067/02 Race Discrimination / Direct - MRS DOROTHY KALEKYE OLWA -and- (1) NORTH GLASGOW UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2) MISS MARY McGINLEY - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 22/03/2004.

EAT/74/01 Procedural Issues / Employment Tribunal - UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW -and- MR RAHUL JINDAL - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 31/05/2001.

• Grampian University Hospital Trust

EAT/291/02 Unfair Dismissal / Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal - MRS MYRA H NIXON -and- GRAMPIAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 21/10/2002.

• Greenwich

UKEAT/0875/03 Practice -and- Procedure / Compromise - MRS J MAYO-DEMAN - UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH & OTHERS - HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC - 15/06/2005.

EAT/1114/02 Practice -and- Procedure / Costs - DR S M VAEZI-NEJAD -and- UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH - His Hon Judge D M Levy QC - 11/07/2003.

EAT/1114/02 Practice -and- Procedure / Striking-out/dismissal - DR S M VAEZI-NEJAD -and- UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH - His Hon Judge D M Levy QC - 11/07/2003.

UKEAT/942/01/RN Race Discrimination / Victimisation - MR PHILTON MOORE -and- THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH (2) RUSSELL BROCKETT - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON (P) - 03/06/2003.

EAT/882/02 Sex Discrimination / Direct - MS S MILNER -and- THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH - MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC - 11/03/2003.

• Huddersfield

EAT/596/02 Sex Discrimination / Burden of proof - THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD -and- DR P R WOLFF - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON (P) - 16/07/2003.

• Kent at Canterbury

EAT/474/02 Time Limits / (no sub-topic) - MS M FITZGERALD - UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBURY - HIS HON JUDGE CLARK - 18/03/2003.

• Kingston University

UKEAT/0008/07 Sex Discrimination / Victimisation - DR R BENVENISTE -and- KINGSTON UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL - 28/03/2007.

UKEAT/0393/05 Practice -and- Procedure / (no sub-topic) - DR R BENEVISTE -and- KINGSTON UNIVERSITY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSON - 21/12/2005.

• Leicester

EAT/1419/99 Procedural Issues / Employment Tribunal - MS R SUNLEY -and- UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOOPER - 15/03/2001.

• Lincolnshire and Humberside

EAT/775/00 & EAT/1444/00 Unfair Dismissal / Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason - UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLNSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE -and- MR T LANE - MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC - 13/12/2001.

• London

UKEAT/0118/06 & UKEAT/0119/06 Race Discrimination / Victimisation - DR J MEHTA -and- UNIVERSITY OF LONDON & OTHERS - HIS HONOUR JUDGE BURKE QC - 21/06/2006.

UKEAT/0123/05 Working Time Regulations / Worker - DR M TARIQUEZ-ZAMAN -and- UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (LONDON DEANERY OF POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL & DENTAL EDUCATION) - HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCMULLEN QC - 27/06/2005.

EAT/1409/01 Race Discrimination / Direct - MR P SINGH -and- UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST - His Hon Judge J BURKE QC - 27/09/2002.

• London Guildhall

EAT/664/98 Race Discrimination / Direct - MR D K DASS -and- LONDON GUILDHALL UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P) - 21/06/1999.

• London Metropolitan University

UKEAT/0286/06 Transfer of Undertakings / Dismissal - LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY -and- 1) DR K A SACKUR AND OTHERS 2) MR R THOYTS 3) MR G ROBERTS - HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCMULLEN QC - 17/08/2006.

UKEAT/0252/06 Race Discrimination / Victimisation - MR C HENRY -and- LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY HIS HONOUR JUDGE BURKE QC - 07/07/2006.

UKEAT/0344/04 Race Discrimination / Victimisation - LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY (PREVIOUSLY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH LONDON) -and- MR C HENRY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE SEROTA - 19/11/2004.

UKEAT/0846/03 Race Discrimination / Indirect - MRS S H LANE -and- LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE D SEROTA QC - 28/10/2004.

• London South Bank

EAT/279/03 & EAT/280/03 Race Discrimination / Aiding -and- abetting - (1) MR A ANYANWU (2) MR O EBUZOEME -and- (1) MR O EBUZOEME (2) LONDON SOUTH BANK STUDENT UNION (3) LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY - HIS HON JUDGE D SEROTA QC - 11/08/2003.

• Luton

EAT/865/99 Unfair Dismissal / Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal - MRS P IGBOLEKWO -and- 1) THE UNIVERSITY OF LUTON 2) MRS B BURDEN - HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC - 18/12/2000.

• Manchester Metropolitan

EAT/640/99 Disability Discrimination / Reasonable adjustments - DR R E J RUDZKI -and- MANCHESTER METROPOLITIAN UNIVERSITY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK - 27/06/2000.

• Middlesex

UKEAT/0134/05 Equal Pay Act / Out of time - DR N THATCHER -and- (1) MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY (2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION - HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCMULLEN QC - 10/06/2005.

• Napier University

EATS/0052/02 Sex Discrimination / Direct - ALBERT JOHN TITTERINGTON -and- (1) JOHN ENSOR (2) NAPIER UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 31/10/2003.

• Oxford

EAT/294/02 Race Discrimination / Inferring discrimination - DR C C ANYA -and- (1) UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (2) DR S G ROBERTS - HIS HON JUDGE ANSELL - 04/02/2003.

• St Andrews

UKEATS/0025/05/RN Unfair Dismissal / Constructive dismissal - MR DECLAN QUIGLEY -and- UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREW - THE HONOURABLE LADY SMITH - 09/08/2006.

• St Martin and St John

UKEAT/0196/06 Part Time Workers / (no sub-topic) - MRS M R DENNISON -and- THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ST MARK AND ST JOHN & OTHERS - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ELIAS (President) - 19/07/2006.

• Sheffield

UKEAT/0304/05 Race Discrimination / Victimisation - MR S DEMAN -and- (1) PROFESSOR DAVID OWEN (2) THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAN - 15/03/2006.

EAT/201/01 Procedural Issues / Employment Tribunal - DR A M S ZALZALA -and- UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD - HIS HON JUDGE CLARK - 29/11/2002.

• Sheffield Hallam

EAT/6/99 Disability Discrimination / Reasonable adjustments - MR M MURPHY -and- SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK - 11/01/2000.

• South Bank

UKEAT/0232/05 Disability Discrimination / Justification - MS K GUNNESS -and- SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON - 25/07/2005.

• Southampton

UKEAT/0574/05 Practice -and- Procedure / Disclosure - UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON -and- DR C K KELLY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSON - 14/11/2005.

• Staffordshire

EAT/0322/00 Disability Discrimination / Disability -and- STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) - 11/12/2001.

• Strathclyde

EATS/0003/02 Procedural Issues / Employment Appeal Tribunal - MR SHASHI KUMAR -and- UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE & 3 ORS - THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON - 26/06/2002.

• Sunderland

EAT/1341/01 Race Discrimination / Indirect - DR R E RUDZKI -and- UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND - HIS HON JUDGE J R REID QC - 19/07/2002.

• Surrey

UKEAT/0045/03 Disability Discrimination / Disability - MRS A OLDFIELD -and- UNIVERSITY OF SURREY - His Hon Judge J BURKE QC - 11/06/2003.

EAT/462/00 Disability Discrimination / Disability - DR G A MOWAT-BROWN -and- UNIVERSITY OF SURREY - HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC - 10/12/2001.

• Thames Valley University

UKEAT/0479/06 Contract of Employment / Wrongful dismissal - DR Z GUERNINA -and- THAMES VALLEY UNIVERSITY - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ELIAS (PRESIDENT) - 21/12/2006.

• University College London

UKEAT/0078/05 & UKEAT/0107/05 Practice -and- Procedure / Perversity - CAMDEN PRIMARY CARE TRUST AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON -and- RACHEL SKITTRALL & OTHERS - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK - 07/06/2005.

EAT/962/95 EAT/1236/95 EAT/717/96 Contract of Employment / Breach of Contract - URSULA RINIKER -and- UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON - THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P) - 23/08/1999.

• Victoria University of Manchester

EAT/167/99 Sex Discrimination / Direct - DR V LEAVERS -and- THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK - 21/02/2000.

EAT/1375/98 Procedural Issues / Employment Tribunal - MR S DEMAN -and- VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER - HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK - 28/09/1998.

• Warwick

UKEAT/1223/02 Disability Discrimination / Victimisation - MS YAEL KAHN -and- (1) THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK (2) PROFESSOR ABDUL PALIWALA (3) PROFESSOR MIKE MCCONVILLE - HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCMULLEN QC - 27/04/2004.

UKEAT/0822/03 Unfair Dismissal / Reasonableness of dismissal - MR EDWARD NEEDHAM -and- UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK - THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE COX - 17/03/2004.
------------
From: http://www.iol.ie/~stuartneilson/bullying/
The above are some cases that made it to the Employment Tribunal stage. How many have never made it?

A cult figure...

According to ‘Personneltoday.com’ – the online magazine for business and HR personnel: An employment lawyer has gained a cult business after suggesting on his blog that the unfair dismissal law should be scrapped. Mark Ellis, a solicitor at business consultancy Ellis Whittam (who provide corporate support), said the law benefited lawyers and staff at the expense of the UK economy.

"Are the feelings and the personal hardship suffered by an individual employee more important than the success and happiness of UK plc?" he posted earlier this month. There were 41,832 unfair dismissal claims in 2005-06, according to the Employment Tribunal Service. But Ellis told Personnel Today that if organisations were able to sack people they didn't like, productivity would soar, and there would be more work and money for everyone.

"If an employer doesn't like someone - as long as it is not a case of discrimination - then why should they have to go through a six-month procedure to tick the right boxes?" he said. An increasing number of "litigious employees" and no-win, no-fee lawyers were taking advantage of employment laws, he added.

Employers leapt to agree, and there was even a comment - albeit non-committal - from Conservative Leader David Cameron's office. And Peter Schofield, director of legal and employment affairs at manufacturers' body the EEF, told Personnel Today: "There is a legal regulation for almost every detail of the employment relationship."

We suspect that Mr Ellis’s ‘cult’ status does not come from the thousands (?) of victims/targets of workplace bullying who ‘experienced’ what a recent ACAS study highlighted: ‘… how claimants dismissed as “futile” internal grievance procedures aimed at resolving disputes within organisations. Complaints were made about how the submission of a grievance by an employee was often triggered by disciplinary action by employers and how they could work against achieving a satisfactory resolution; it was also thought to be difficult to find colleagues to represent them, that there were often unnecessary delays and the involvement of unsuitable managers who, in a number of cases, were felt to have been complicit or active in the original discrimination experience.’

No, his ‘cult’ status comes from the magazine ‘PersonnelToday.com’ which represents the interests of HR, and employers. The role of HR is well documented – in the vast majority of cases, human resources do not rock the boat and rubber-stamp the unfair application of internal procedures - they often collude with the employer and participate in such procedures. In any case, their job is on the line. And of course, the ‘cult’ status is supported by employers who in effect are judge and jury when it comes down to ACAS guidelines in dealing with internal disciplinary procedures.

The CIPD (Charted Institute of Personnel Development) - the professional body for those involved in the management and development of people – have guidelines for their staff on how to do the right things when dealing with internal procedures, but have never held accountable any of their members for not doing so…

These points are of no interest to Mr Ellis. His emphasis is not on making sure that ACAS guidelines are followed properly, but rather how some cases that end up in Employment Tribunals are often trivial, and as such are slowing down UK businesses. Nor does Mr Ellis deal with the effects of unfair dismissals on victims of workplace bullying. It is like if PTSD does not exist. In many ways, Mr Ellis represents the interests of business – his clients. We also suspect that Mr Ellis has not been in touch with the Andrea Adams Trust to get the picture from a different perspective.

Mr Ellis tries to be ‘pioneering’ in his blog by suggesting that the recent review comissioned by the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) was his idea; Michael Gibbons – the person comissioned to write the report on the efficacy of the 2004 Regulations – was informed by Mr Ellis’s blog. No need to comment on such claims to fame, but worthwhile quoting what the DTI states:

‘…This consultation sets out a package of measures for taking forward the recommendations of the Gibbons review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain. The review was set up to look at the options for simplifying and improving all aspects of employment dispute resolution, to make the system work better for employers and employees. It looked at all aspects of the system, including the existing legal requirements, how employment tribunals work, and the scope for new initiatives to help resolve disputes at an earlier stage.

The consultation is seeking views on a package of measures to help solve employment disputes successfully in the workplace so that:

• Productivity is raised through improved workplace relations.
• Access to justice is ensured for employees and employers.
• The cost of resolving disputes is reduced for all parties.
• Disputes are resolved swiftly before they escalate.

The specific measures being consulted on include repealing the current statutory dispute resolution procedures; providing better help and guidance to resolve disputes at an earlier stage; and improving how employment tribunals work.’

We suspect that in principal no victim of workplace bullying has any problems with the application of fair and impartial internal moderation to resolve issues before escalation. One of the failings of the current system is indeed the fact that the vast majority of employers refuse to engage in the services of external independent consultans – there is no obligaiton on them to do so, a point missed completely by Mr Ellis, who somehow assumes that the major failing of the current system is an increasing number of "litigious employees" and no-win, no-fee lawyers taking advantage of employment laws. Why would Mr Ellis bite the hand that feeds him and critique employers for not following properly ACAS guidelines and not exercising leadership qualities in brining in independent consultants to weed out management bullying?

The DTI is calling for interested parties to respond to the review by 20 June 2007. A response can be submitted by letter, fax or email to:

Dispute Resolution Review Team
Department of Trade and Industry
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Tel: 020 7215 5000
Fax: 020 7215 0168
Email: disputereview@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Regarding Mr Ellis’s ‘cult’ status, we are confident that victims of workplace bullying have a different opinion. In his world the victims of workplace bullying are dealt with as if they have no emotions, as if unfair dismissals have no health effects - only the interests of his corporate clients exist. A real cult figure...

Whistleblower's 'reasonable belief' is sufficient: Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] EWCA Civ 174

Background

Mr Babula was a college lecturer. He became concerned that his predecessor had made remarks to students that had incited racial hatred. When he reported his concerns to the college he was ignored, so he decided that he had no option but to report the matter to the police - he 'blew the whistle'.

Babula claimed that the college's treatment of him following this disclosure left him with no alternative but to resign. He brought a claim for unfair (constructive) dismissal contending that the disclosure he made was a protected disclosure under section 43 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal struck out Babula's claim, stating that it was bound by the Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision in Kraus v Penna, which the tribunal stated was authority for the proposition that a disclosure is not a qualifying disclosure unless a criminal offence, or legal obligation, capable of breach actually existed. The tribunal said the lecturer's comments were incitement to religious hatred, not racial hatred. There was no such offence at the time, so Babula's disclosure could not be protected.

As the college's equal opportunities policy did not refer to religious discrimination, Babula failed to show that the college was likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation. The tribunal said he could not, therefore, have reasonably believed that a criminal offence would be committed or a legal obligation breached so there was no whistleblowing claim. The EAT dismissed Babula's appeal, but he appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed Babula's appeal, holding that Kraus v Penna was wrong in law and should no longer be followed.

In determining whether a disclosure is a qualifying disclosure, the whistleblower must show that they reasonably believed their disclosure tends to show that a criminal offence is likely to be committed, or legal obligation breached. What is relevant is the whistleblower's reasonable belief and not whether or not they are right.

The fact the whistleblower may be wrong is not relevant, provided their belief is reasonable and the disclosure to their employer is made in good faith.

Babula had identified a criminal offence (incitement to racial hatred) and a legal obligation (the college's equal opportunities policy). The question was whether or not he had a reasonable belief that the criminal offence had been or was going to be committed, or that the legal obligation had been or was likely to be breached. As his belief was reasonable, his disclosure was protected.

Key implications

This case shows that a whistleblower's belief may be reasonable even though it turns out to be wrong. Whether or not the whistleblower's belief is reasonable is a matter for the tribunal to determine.

The purpose of the whistleblowing legislation is to encourage employees to come forward and make disclosures of information that are in the public interest. To expect employees to have detailed legal knowledge sufficient to determine whether in fact an offence is likely to be committed, or legal obligation breached, works against the purpose of the legislation.

From: http://www.personneltoday.com

My dream...

Utterly Completely Useless (UCU)

Employers see workplace discrimination victims as nuisances

A new report from the conciliation service ACAS shows that people who complain at work about discrimination on grounds of religion or belief or sexual orientation often end up being treated as nuisances rather than victims. Employees who have tried to resolve disputes over discrimination under new equality regulations have ended up facing demotion, dismissal, career changes, mental health problems including depression or anxiety, financial difficulties, relationship problems and having to move house. Some even contemplated suicide.

In the first study of the impact of the employment equality regulations on sexual orientation and religion or belief introduced in 2003, research by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), on behalf of ACAS, suggests internal workplace grievance procedures are ‘flawed’ and do not provide a way to resolve these issues. This may encourage more people to resort to an employment tribunal.

Analysis by ACAS shows that between January 2004 and September 2006, 470 individuals brought Employment Tribunal claims where the main allegation concerned discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and 461 brought cases where discrimination on grounds of religion or belief was the main claim. Two-thirds of claims were brought by men.

From in-depth interviews with claimants it was found that sexual orientation discrimination cases were typically based on claims of bullying and harassment, including verbal abuse, physical assaults and unfair treatment by managers. This had led to disciplinary action or demotion for poor work performance until the claimant felt they had no option but to resign.

For religion and belief cases, claims most commonly related to terms and conditions of work that made the observance of religious practices more difficult – such as holiday arrangements. There were also examples of organisations with a religious ethos reportedly discriminating in areas such as promotion on the basis that the claimant did not have a religion or was from a different faith.

The study highlighted how claimants dismissed as “futile” internal grievance procedures aimed at resolving disputes within organisations. Complaints were made about how the submission of a grievance by an employee was often triggered by disciplinary action by employers and how they could work against achieving a satisfactory resolution; it was also thought to be difficult to find colleagues to represent them, that there were often unnecessary delays and the involvement of unsuitable managers who, in a number of cases, were felt to have been complicit or active in the original discrimination experience.

Overall, claimants felt they did not receive a fair hearing at internal grievance procedures. The cost of obtaining representation was seen to be a significant barrier in pursuing claims, and the lack of proper representation and the necessary understanding of the ‘language of the law’ was seen as being a severe disadvantage in obtaining justice from employment tribunals.

IES author Ann Denvir said “One strong theme which emerged from both sets of claimants was the tendency of their employers to respond to their complaints by seeing them as the problem, rather than the victim of unfair treatment.

“But despite the sometimes difficult experiences of submitting an employment tribunals claim many felt the process allowed them to defend against discrimination in a way they felt unable to within the workplace and to make an important symbolic gesture. Justice rather than financial compensation was seen as being the main motivation. Overall, the interviews with claimants highlighted the crucial importance of good independent advice and representation.”

From: http://www.secularism.org.uk