In defence of academic freedom

The 1988 Education Reform Act says this about academic freedom:

(2) In exercising those functions, the Commissioners shall have regard to the need— "(a) to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions;"(1)

I put forward controversial and unpopular opinions and lost my job. Surely as an academic, I was entitled to protection under this piece of statute law?  According to my skeleton arguments provided to the Employment Appeal Tribunal last week, the University's entire disciplinary process including the sanction imposed upon me (dismissal), as well as the conclusions drawn by the Employment Tribunal should have been framed by this piece of legislation. So important is it that the University have incorporated it into their Royal Charter at section 13.

A definition of academic freedom and why it exists

The level of protection afforded to academics is unique in employer-employee relations. By the way, this is not to suggest that academics are special. It's a by-product of the function universities play in society, at the forefront of cutting-edge research, analysis and as cauldrons of contentious, innovative ideas and theories. It's what drives society and technological advancement forward. The more conservative or traditionalist minded might argue that academic freedom should only offer protection to academics whilst acting and producing ideas and theories within their particular fields of knowledge. It's an interesting argument. It's also entirely mistaken.

Academic freedom as a human right - a European perspective

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights expands upon this:

"35. In this connection, the Court underlines the importance of academic freedom, which comprises the academics' freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction (see paragraph 21 above)."(2)

I'll posit for the record the assertion that academic freedom in our public universities must be regarded as sacrosanct by academics, the trade unions who represent academics and lecturers, and wider society. It must be defended at all costs. Why? Well the ECHR elaborated on why academic freedom is vital for democratic societies:

"21. In its Recommendation 1762 (2006), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the following declaration for the protection of academic freedom of expression:
“...
4. In accordance with the Magna Charta Universitatum, the Assembly reaffirms the right to academic freedom and university autonomy which comprises the following principles:

4.1. academic freedom in research and in training should guarantee freedom of expression and of action, freedom to disseminate information and freedom to conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction;...

4.3. history has proven that violations of academic freedom and university autonomy have always resulted in intellectual relapse, and consequently in social and economic stagnation;...”(3)

It's a debate that's raging in Canada. If as academics, we lose the right to speak out or publish freely on the way our universities are run or on important matters of public concern in our universities and other issues outside the rarefied atmosphere of academia, what might this mean for the rest of society? Societies would become stagnant. Industries moribund. If the freedom to question and speak out is lost in our universities, the corollary of this would be that our political systems would become even less accountable and increasingly opaque. Yet as we daily lose civil and political rights as the market takes over functions and services once provided by democratically elected councils and the state, the erosion and assaults on academic freedom becomes another battle line. It's intimately linked in the wider sense, to the marketisation of Higher Education and the student as a 'consumer' of knowledge and the walking piggy-bank to the HE sector. According to the mantra, managers should manage, academics should research and teach. Never the twain should meet.

July the 4th and the decision of the EAT

It's within this context that I wish to discuss the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal last Wednesday 4th July, to not permit me to raise the issue of important Article 10 convention rights to freedom of speech in particular, academic freedom of speech. It might be worth reiterating for the benefit of the judiciary and the professionals that labour within the legal system, that all law must be applied within the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human  Rights as established in 1950 by the then Council of Europe. Human Rights don't have to be raised, its a given that they exist.

The logic behind the EAT's refusal was that I had not fully pursued the matter of my human rights in the Employment Tribunal last year. Apparently if they are not pursued in the lower tribunal, they cannot be then raised in the higher tribunal. I find this odd given that I'd raised them in my appeal because of the the ET's reliance on their interpretation of 'academic freedom' which according to European law is considered central to Freedom of Speech. But don't take my word for it.

An Employment Tribunal's interpretation of 'academic freedom'

If one peruses the Employment Tribunal's judgement, one can read the Tribunal panel's interpretation of academic freedom:

"43. We think it is worth noting that freedom of expression is very important in universities but primarily applies to academic freedom to make whatever statements are justified in the academic’s view founded in their research, knowledge etc. It does not apply across the board to any issues arising with[sic] an academic institution."

"44. We appreciate the claimant's position that it was felt that there were elements of corruption involved but there were legitimate ways in which the claimant could have raised these issues and the fact that he did not attempt to do that, we think, was unfortunate and ill-judged. (4)

Firstly, before we sink our teeth into the meatus of the matter, it's worth reiterating that the ET raised the matter of academic freedom in their judgement. Therefore, the conclusions they drew in relation to their judgement concerning my authorship and the distribution of the Vice Consul's Newsletters, as well as the sanction imposed by the employer against me (dismissal) and whether this was fair or unfair, was informed by the ET's interpretation of 'academic freedom'.

Secondly, the ET's interpretation of Academic Freedom is simply wrong in law. According to the law, academic freedom does apply across the board to any issues arising within an academic institution. It's the '...without restriction...' bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009].

Thirdly, according to the law, the Vice Consul's Newsletters were a perfectly "legitimate way" to raise such matters of corruption and corporate governance. It's the "...freedom to distribute knowledge and truth..." bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009]. Academic freedom as laid out in the judgement of the ECHR, ensures that any mechanism by which one wishes as an academic to raise important matters, is legitimate. In arguing that they were not, the ET have erred in law and breached my Article 10 rights.

Lastly, the only limitation placed upon academics exercising their right to academic freedom of speech (which is a qualified right), is that they act within the law or that they do not violate the rights of others. Now this is the interesting part because the ET have accepted that I produced the Vice Consul's Newsletters in order to highlight issues pertaining to corruption and corporate governance. So it's implicit that there's a public interest issue at stake here. Moreover, the University never claimed that the Newsletters or the contents were 'illegal'. Indeed, the University have never denied any of the allegations contained within the Vice Consul's Newsletters. In fact their own external TCM Report concluded in 2010 demonstrated that managers had manipulated the appointments process in the Salford Business School. 

Taking on the establishment:
It's a shit job... but someone's
got to do it

The value of night-soil versus the value of 'truth'

Now that's a huge night-soil cart load of information to take in. But there's one further little silage-nugget that may give my former colleagues within the Salford branch of the UCU as well as non-union academic and teaching members of staff some cause for concern at Salford. You see according to the judgement of the Employment Tribunal, truth is no guarantee of protection under the aegis of academic freedom. It sounds a little perverse doesn't it? Again, consider the paragraph below of the ET's judgement:

"23.13 It has been suggested from time to time, including at the Tribunal, that the Respondent should have investigated the truth of the allegations before dismissing the claimant, however, the issue was clearly how the matter had been raised allowing the matters to willy nilly enter the public domain and the failure to follow legitimate pathways."

We've already dealt with the 'legitimate pathways' aspect above. It is however, an astonishing admission by the ET that the establishing of the truth (the truth of the allegations in the Vice Consul's Newsletters) by the University in their internal investigations, really should play no part in the University's internal disciplinary procedure on this matter.

An idealist doltmund?

Call a chap a bit of an idealist but surely any reasonable person would conclude that in order to prove that the contents of the Vice Consul's Newsletters were 'malicious' as alleged by the University, and demonstrate that they brought 'the University into disrepute' as alleged by the University, one would need to investigate the 'truthfulness' of the allegations, wouldn't one? If the University found upon completion of their investigation that the issues in the Newsletters were indeed true as I stated in the Employment Tribunal, then how could I bring the University into disrepute. It would already be there. It's quite logical really. It's a bit like blaming a newspaper reporter for bringing an MP and the government into disrepute because he happened to report that the aforesaid MP fiddled his expenses.

Wetting the bed

Look at it the other way round. If all a chap is doing is spreading untruths or truths for that matter, that are not rooted in matters pertaining to public interest or matters of public concern in a publicly funded institution, then 'malice' could easily be concluded and proved. Some elaboration might be necessary. There is no public interest in an academic at University of Fleeceham publishing a document that states that Manager A wets his/her bed, which may be the truth. There was a public interest in publishing a document that focused on bullying and the manipulation of the appointments process in the Salford Business School as highlighted in the Newsletters. Of some note, it was also highlighted in the University's own TCM report published in 2010 which looked into these matters within the Salford Business School. This is more pertinent when public monies are involved. Did the TCM Report bring the University into disrepute...? 

Doin' the right thang

So you see, it may be the case that senior managers and certain staff members were upset about the content of the Newsletters. That happens when a privileged and powerful minority are publicly held to account. The ET accepted that I was only interested in matters of corruption and corporate governance and my reason for producing the Vice Consul's Newsletters (see paras 23.2, 37 of the ET Judgement). According to Sorguc v Turkey [2009] I was perfectly within my rights to author and publish the Vice Consul's Newsletters. It places no restrictions upon how I or any other academic staff at Salford or in any other university in Europe choose to raise such issues.

Wrong in law

There is no court higher than the ECHR. Law established in Strasbourg trumps even the UK courts. 'It's unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right' according to section 6 (1) of the 1998 Human Rights Act. The University as a public authority, acted in a way that is incompatible with my article 10 rights. As an academic, I was entitled to the protection afforded to academics in the University's own Charter, the Education Reform Act 1988, and in European Law. Indeed, I should still be entitled to this basic human right. In upholding the University's decision to dismiss me as fair, the Employment Tribunal have compounded a breach of my Article 10 rights. This has been further compounded in that the ET clearly erred in law with regard to their narrow interpretation of 'academic freedom', one that bears little resemblance to that as established in law.

Perfunctory... a nice word

What's more, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dealt with this important breach of my human rights in a perfunctory manner in deciding to refuse me permission to discuss the breach of my Article 10 rights at the hearing. In doing so, the EAT has in my view committed a more serious breach of my Article 6 rights:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."(5)

In the context of employment law, human rights may be irksome. It might explain why in my opinion the EAT chose instead to bat this contentious issue into the long grass.

Twenty one days

The Tribunal also refused me permission to appeal which is standard. So now I have 21 days to lodge my appeal with the Court of Appeal in London. I find it odd that at a national level, my own union hasn't picked up the baton on this one. They've twice refused me funding for legal representation.** It's down to lil' 'ol' me, with only a single penny to rub against the trouser of a threadbare de-mob suit, who finds himself not only fighting for the rights of academics to enjoy academic freedom in the UK, but the fight to gain access to some notion of equality of arms and justice within the wider UK courts system.


Notes and references

*This does refer to the Salford Business School prior to the investigation conducted by TCM Group and not the Salford Business School of today.
** I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Salford UCU branch including its President Chris Sheehy, the membership, the Committee and the branch officers for continuing to help support my fight for justice. The UCUS have been invaluable in providing some financial support by covering ancillary costs associated with my ET and EAT hearings. Without this support, I would have holed me below the hemline many years back. I hope the branch will continue to support me in this battle to protect and and reaffirm 'Academic Freedom' as laid out by the ECHR.
(1) Education Reform Act 1988, section 202, (2) (a) 'Academic Tenure' sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/section/202

(2) Sorguc v Turkey 17089/03 [2009] ECHR 979, paragraph 35
(3) Sorguc v Turkey, para 21
(4) Reserved Judgement Dr Gary Paul Duke v University of Salford, Manchester Employment Tribunals, 16th November 2011, paragraph 43.
(5) Schedule I, Human Rights Act 1998, sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com

The Fisherman's Rationale

Sheriff: 'Do ye swear to tell something that approximates the truth...'
Disinterested Smithy: Piss off!

True to our promise, this week we explore the involvement of one Mr Keith Watkinson in Duke-related matters of a disciplinary nature. For the uninitiated Mr Watkinson is the current Executive Director of Human Resources at the University of Salford. Mr Watkinson reports directly to Dr Adrian Graves, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar. In the important position he holds, Mr Watkinson would work to what we might agree to describe as 'basic codes of professional practice'. For an idea of what this might or might not mean, readers may wish to visit the Vice Chancellor's blog. Given the sheer extensiveness of the documentary evidence to hand allied to his witness statement, we can only do Mr Watkinson justice in any real sense of the word over a series of postings.

Enter the statement of the Executive Director of Human Resources

It's worth noting that this supplementary witness statement was provided by him on the 6th April 2011 after two days of Tribunal hearing on the 1st and 2nd March 2011. Indeed he sat in on at least one day of the hearing. So it was written with the benefit of a certain degree of hindsight. The rationale for producing this statement was to provide the University with a response to a specific section of my own witness statement regarding a 'Without Prejudice' meeting the day before my disciplinary hearing. More on Mr Watkinson's interpretation of the events of this meeting at a later date.

The Golden Thread

On perusal, it became quite clear to us that Mr Watkinson addressed a whole raft of issues in his statement that were in our view well outside that originally requested by University lawyers - indeed in the region of twenty four additional issues! It was in our opinion an attempt by the University to counter contentious and sticky matters: what we might call 'smatter'. Much of this smatter was raised by previous cross examination of Phillip Hopwood and former Finance Director at UoS Simon Attwell. We were grateful for the University in providing this statement as it presented the opportunity to raise issues concerning the overall process in way the three other University witnesses could never do. Mr Watkinson provided the golden thread that ran through the general process . You can read his entire witness statement here. 

First contact

For those who have not had the pleasure of first contact with Mr Watkinson, he seems rather unassuming and during the Tribunal, he sported a rather fetching assortment of facial hair. But it's his involvement within the overall process including the disciplinary process of another certain frontal bristler we're concerned with, not his chin. So to business. According to his statement, Mr Watkinson's involvement within the overall process was rather limited:

'Whilst I provided advice and support from a procedural prospective in relation to the implementation of the University's disciplinary procedure, I didn't take any decisions with regards to the process regarding Dr Duke, nor did I seek to influence the disciplinary outcome.'(1)

Robin: Goodly sir..! does a game of passeth the shitty stick take your fancy this fine morn?
Moneybags: Bugger off!

He also claimed that neither he nor the Vice Chancellor Martin Hall or the Deputy Vice Chancellor Graves played any role in either the 'independent investigation' or the 'formal disciplinary process'. Parts of his statement read like the rules of a game called pass-the-shitty-stick, in which no player wants to get the rancid dog-toffee on their fingers. We will of course be exploring with a level of precision known only in the realm of quantum physics, the breadth and depth of Watkinson's 'advice' and 'support'. We will also scientifically explore (using a magnifying glass, some dental floss and a pair of tweezers) the relation these have to the 'procedural perspective' he speaks of. Mr Watkinson states that part of his role as the head of the  '...University's Human Resources Division is to advise members of staff in relation to when the disciplinary procedure might be relevant and to ensure that the disciplinary procedure is applied consistently throughout the University.'(2) This 'applied consistently' matter is something we will return to anon.

Breaches and seepages - not a new Oasis album

The Disciplinary Procedure appears to have been quite 'relevant' as it was used to suspend me on the 18th March 2009. Up until this moment, we might surmise according to the above claims, Mr Watkinson's role would have been reasonably minimal; a bit of advice here... maybe a bit of support there... To reiterate, despite the University's seeming inability to spot the difference between a poster and a newsletter, the production of the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters was the reason for my suspension. The weekend before my suspension, I'd been contacted by the press twice. And when a journalist bandies around certain key phrases like 'you're' and 'being' and 'suspended' you know some thing's up. It's also indicative of quite a serious breach in confidentiality - what's known in the plumbing trade as a 'leak' - by your employer somewhere along the line, a sentiment which even the most debased 11th century village green illiterati might agree with. It was a potentiality that Watkinson and Graves appeared to take reasonably seriously.

The inevitability of urine and the press

Now I'm prone to leaks but these days they tend to be of a urinary nature. And the only briefs to which I subscribe are of the rubber variety designed to limit the concentration of uric acid on one's best riding breeches. In his statement Mr Watkinson alleges that in responding to these press enquiries, I was taking steps to proactively brief the press. One might argue that responding (answering the phone) to enquiries from reporters hardly merits being 'pro-active' on the press front and might in normal times indicate to an outside observer with a modicum of common sense that one was being a bit 're-active'.

Rather fetching wouldn't you agree?
And not a hint of piss

Establishing a point (or two) the Watkinson way

There are however two interconnected reasons why Watkinson might wish to establish this point. Firstly to demonstrate that it was I who was ultimately responsible for the report that appeared on the 18th May 2009 in the MEN, and not University staff such as 'Uncle Tom Cobbley and all' discussing my suspension in a public area within the University. Secondly, that the University were simply reacting to press reports pro-actively placed there by a certain distinguished wearer of brogues. Thus, in producing internal and external statements, they were acting reasonably, taking necessary steps to preserve and promote the University's reputation. Mr Watkinson's statement says as much at section 13. There is an additional factor when we consider his claim that in my responding to the above queries from the press that this 'added to the damage suffered to the University's reputation' (3) Note the word 'added' here. This is important in that it serves to underline the contentious matter of the alleged damage suffered by the University through the authorship of the Vice Consul's Newsletters. One might hypothesise that if they can prove 'damage', it upholds and underscores the rather nonsensical notion of 'bringing the University into disrepute'.

Producing 'barbed' statements

Now I'm naturally an inquisitive type. I've got documents coming out of orifices that have yet to evolve in humans. One document in particular shows that the University and... well one Mr Watkinson were making preparations on the 7th May 2009 to brief the press. You can view these 'preparations' here. It might be worth flagging up at this juncture that Watkinson emphasises in bold letters that the press release '... for the THE' is 'prepared in advance'. 'In advance of what?' you might ask. Eleven days in advance of my suspension and at least nine days before my alleged pro-activeness with the press. However, the case can be made that a diligent employer would prepare draft press releases in order to respond to possible enquiries from the press.

An itchy knacker and the meaning of the word 'barbed'

But like an indolent itchy knacker that demands attention just before one drops off - to sleep I mean, not the illustrious gonad - something greatly irked me. Scratching my head, I wondered what Mr Watkinson meant by the phrase 'I've made the THE release quite specific and a little barbed'? 'Was Mr Watkinson practicing some sort of arcane amalgam of personnel management crossed with coarse angling?' I pondered. What exactly did he mean by the use of the phrase 'barbed-ness'? For those not working within Higher Education, the THE or Times Higher is a national publication of some prestige which is well perused across the University sector.

Contrast and compare

It's worth comparing the Notification of Suspension with the internal release and press statements made available to the THE and Manchester Evening News by the University to see if we can determine any significant differences. Well for a start the words 'the content of these posters is sexist', 'defamatory' and 'viciously attack a female student of ethnic minority' were surprisingly absent from the official allegations made against me. The bit about 'potential sexual harassment' was also distinguishable by its non-existence. But one or three of questions continued to niggle.

Why on earth would Mr Watkinson want to add such 'barbed' statements to internal and external press releases? Quite keen to continue this conversation with myself I asked me 'Is this normal procedure?' and I further added 'Could all reasonable employees of the University, who might find themselves in a similar situation to myself expect the same sort of bespoke treatment at the hands of the Executive Director of Human Resources?' Finally I adjured of myself: 'Was the trashing of a chaps reputation a direct and necessary diametrical correlate of the process of '[p]reserving and promoting the University's reputation...' as stated at section 14 of Mr Watkinson's statement?

Why did I make it barbed..? why it makes it far easier 
to scratch one's arse you inquisitive wretch!

Questions... questions...  those damnable questions!

Instead of continuing to ask myself such questions, we decided a better tactic would be to use the opportunity of the Employment Tribunal to ask Watkinson which we did in August. The Suffolkian Longley simply asked why had he added the allegation of 'defamation'. Watkinson's response was even simpler: "I don't know". Asked "Why did you make it barbed?" his response again: "I don't know". Given his centrality to adding this 'barbed-ness', and given the seriousness of these unsubstantiated allegations against me, Mr Watkinson clearly didn't know much. Two thoughts crossed my mind. 'Was he prone to randomly adding words to statements?' 'Did he just throw in the unsubstantiated allegation that the Vice Consul's Newsletters were 'sexist' because he was at a loose end that particular afternoon?'

Alarm bells in the Ol' Fire Station?

Now one might have thought that the alarm bells in the Ol' Fire Station would have been hammering away in a determined yet melancholic rendition of V.E. Day. Surely Mr Watkinson's immediate line manager, Dr Adrian Graves, in order to ensure Mr Watkinson conformed to the 'basic codes of professional practice', would have emailed back a note that went something along the lines of 'Keith, cease and desist! Your actions in adding unsubstantiated allegations to press and internal releases, could constitute gross misconduct, could very well damage the reputation of the University thereby bringing it into some serious disrepute.' Well if he did, we were never supplied with such an email under document disclosure. There might be a very good reason for this.

Upping the ante executive style?

Let's just revisit Mr Watkinson's email once more. It's worth noting that it was addressed to Dr Adrian Graves (now Deputy Vice Chancellor) and the current Vice Chancellor Martin Hall. It might be of some value to point out at this juncture that at the time this email was sent, Martin Hall was the Vice Chancellor Designate not the Vice Chancellor. 'So why is he involved at all?' you might well ask.

What did the Vice Chancellor Designate think?

So let's just rewind this a little. The Executive Director of HR, who says his role is to provide 'advice' and 'support' on procedural matters pertaining to the Disciplinary Procedure is personally producing internal and external releases to the press in which he's added a thing called 'barbed-ness'. These internal and external press releases contain unsubstantiated allegations that never formed the basis of any of the official allegations made by the University against me as part of this disciplinary process. And evidence suggests Mr Watkinson was not acting alone. He asked for comments from the Chief Operating Officer Dr Graves and the Vice Chancellor Designate Martin Hall, who according to Graves' reply, commented on the text. How did Martin Hall respond? Did he say something along the lines of 'Keith, it might be better to simply stick to the allegations made against Duke as outlined in the letter of suspension, as barbed comments and unsubstantiated allegations might be prejudicial to ongoing proceedings?' We'll never know as zero emails from Martin Hall containing any pertinent comments on this issue were disclosed.

Eggs and another internal statement

Now a reasonable person might have thought "that's enough to be going on with now... anything else and you'll be in serious jeopardy of over-egging it." But there's a bit more, indicated by Mr Watkinson statement on page 4 and page 5, section 13. He states that another internal statement was produced by the University and sent by my Head of School Paul Rowlett to students whom I taught, in order to allay their concerns that the 'final stages of the modules were not jeopardised'. Four days after my suspension, on the 22nd May, this statement was indeed sent. Watkinson makes it quite clear that in sending it to students, it 'was a reaction to information disclosed to the press by Dr Duke.' Now this is not quite true as Mr Watkinson well knows. He confirmed under cross examination that the statement was produced and sent to my students in response to a petition they had organised in my support against my suspension. The heading of an email exchange is also eminently suggestive. It states 'Petition from Languages Students'. Yet it's also apparent and was raised in the Tribunal that even this statement was somewhat finessed and a section added prior to its sending. To view the 'before' and 'after' statement (which is at the bottom of the page) press here.

The Freedom of Information 'Champion' Dr Graves

It's during the process of discussion concerning what the content should be that Dr Graves plays a blinder when he exhorts Watkinson and other managers to 'slip in the fact that the allegations include the harassment of a female student of Chinese ethnic origin'. To access this email press right here. In his apparent eagerness to polish this little coprolite, Graves ignored a simple fact: the allegation contained in the suspension letter made no such reference to either Li's gender or Chinese ethnic origin. Now whichever way you look at it, it's not a bad representation of the University's 'FOI Champion' encouraging managers to disseminate a staff member's Sensitive Personal Information, which is of course protected under law - that piece of legislation being the Data Protection Act 1998.

What was the rationale behind Graves statement? In March, it was put to Simon Attwell by the amiable Longley that "Dr Graves' email was a deliberate attempt to smear Duke" and that Dr Graves was playing the racism card. Mr Attwell's response appeared to be an attempt to put some distance between himself and Graves when he stated that "I cannot be held responsible for the comments of Adrian Graves."

What about if I slip in the fact that he's solely responsible for the death of 
Bambi's mum, the disappearance of Flight 19 and that he 
was the second gunman on the grassy knoll ... oh yes.. I 
could also slip in that fact that he's a shite-hawk..?

Promoting respect, honesty and integrity at work

I've just re-read the University of Salford Disciplinary Procedure 2008 that Mr Watkinson places much store in. It states at section 1.1:

'...[t]he procedure is designed to encourage staff to achieve and maintain acceptable standards of conduct, to ensure the safety and well-being of staff, and to provide a fair and consistent mechanism for dealing with situations where misconduct is alleged.'

It also states at section 3.1.1 that 'members of staff are responsible for':

'... conducting themselves with, honesty and integrity to promote an atmosphere of mutual respect...'

I'll leave it to readers to decide if they believe Graves, Hall, Harloe and Watkinson have encouraged the former or conducted and promoted the latter.

Beyond the remit or beyond the pale?

By any reasonable metric tape measure, does the above not demonstrate that Watkinson went quite a way beyond his self-proclaimed remit in providing 'advice' and 'support from a procedural perspective in relation to the implementation of the University's disciplinary procedure...'? Is it usual procedure for the Executive Director of HR to produce press releases and barbed ones to boot? Maybe I've been misinformed but I thought the press office were employed to produce press releases. And what of his claim 'nor did I seek to influence the disciplinary outcome.'(4) which some might agree, rings rather hollow in light of the evidence.

The fisherman's rationale

As any serious fisher(wo)man would know that the reason for affixing a barb to a line is so that it sticks. The introduction of such 'barbed-ness' and unfounded allegations by Watkinson in an internal statement sent by the Vice Chancellor Harloe and in external press releases, was in the opinion of this author, designed to poison the well of public opinion and inflict as much reputational damage as possible. Managers at senior executive level were involved. In giving evidence Watkinson stated that both Vice Chancellor Hall and Registrar (now Deputy Vice Chancellor) Graves were "generally supportive" of the internal release. Martin Hall commented on the texts of these releases. Yet the documents supplied to us by the University under two Subject Access Requests have failed to produce any document to show that Hall intervened to stop their dissemination to staff and to the press. We've also seen how Dr Graves sought to add his own particular flourish in introducing the issue of Ms Li's gender and her 'Chinese' ethnicity into and internal statement to students I taught. Why? Because these students decided of their own volition to support me by producing a petition, and all my former students just happened to be foreign national students. We might ask how could such deliberate misrepresentation of the allegations fail to influence and prejudice the overall proceedings?

The author's opinion

You see I'm of the view that by publicly adding allegations that were not part of the charges against me, it ensured that the road to informal resolution, a principal component of the University's Code of Practice for Dealing with Harassment and Bullying, was closed. Why? Because a member of staff who is an effective and industrious campaigner against job cuts and course closures is one thing. A member of staff who is an effective and industrious campaigner against job cuts and course closures AND gets elected as the UCU Branch Secretary is another. How to deal with this? Inflict a serious degree of reputational damage and as a consequence, drive a wedge between the newly elected chap and the branch membership and union officials, a point made by the facially hirsute Longley to the Tribunal.

But this has never been about defending my reputation. It's about an employee of the University being able to answer to the specific allegations being levelled, and to have a hearing in an environment that wasn't prejudiced by the unfounded allegations and deliberate misrepresentations of Mr Watkinson and Dr Graves. It's not a big ask is it?



Notes and References

Usual disclaimer: This work is the opinion of the author and is authored in to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents herein is to provide accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.


The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections so, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you feel it is necessary, which you can do by clicking here. 



(1) Witness statement of K Watkinson, dated 6th April 2011, pg 2, section 3
(2) KW; page 2, sec 3
(3) KW; page 4, sec 12
(4) KW; Page 2, sec 3

The sham nature of a disciplinary hearing

It's self-evident that he has the potential to produce satirical writings and annoy those
in positions of power... therefore with reference to the laws of Soderic, his
facial hair can never be permitted to freely associate on our grounds

As readers may be aware, last week saw the first two days of the eagerly awaited Employment Tribunal into this writer's claim for unfair dismissal. Given the body of documentary evidence submitted, it has now been adjourned for a three day hearing beginning 15th August 2011. Two University of Salford witnesses - Mr Philip Hopwood and Mr Simon Attwell - gave evidence and some very interesting issues emerged which will be forensically examined over the coming weeks. Firstly a brief chronology might assist us in our deliberations.

The ology of Chronos

April 29 2009 - GPD elected branch secretary UCU Salford

May 18 2009 - GPD suspended as part-time lecturer

May 23 2009 - First disciplinary investigation

June 10 2009 - Second disciplinary investigation

August 4 2009 - Disciplinary Hearing

August 6 2009 - GPD summarily dismissed

A cursory glance at the timeline might suggest that all is above board. Yet one or two anomalies emerged in the course of Mr Hopwood's testimony that proved... well intriguing to say the least. A little background might serve to enlighten.

All above board

In January 2011, as I've mentioned before, I was in receipt of a large number of documents which were provided under a Subject Access Request (DPA 1998) procured in mid November 2010. One among many caught my attention. It was a simple document that contained two press statements prepared by the University prior to last September's postponed Employment Tribunal. It went under the heading 'Gary Duke tribunal standby statements':

To be used if the case goes in the University's favour:"The University is satisfied with the result of the tribunal and would now like to focus on the future and, as always, to delivering excellent service to our staff, students and partners."

ln the event that the University loses:"The University is disappointed with the result of the tribunal and plans to fully consider the verdict before taking a view on how to proceed."

This is of course good practice. It demonstrates that the UoS and senior managers are even-handed, judicious and prudent doesn't it? Mr Hopwood in giving evidence concurred. For those who remember, my suspension and sacking was quite high profile both locally and nationally for a variety of reasons all of which I'll be delving into over the coming weeks. I have my own views on the legitimacy of my disciplinary hearing. I've always maintained that its outcome was a foregone conclusion. But you'd expect me to say that wouldn't you?

Nevertheless, it's one of the principal reasons for taking this to an employment tribunal. Yet despite my ongoing scepticism, Mr Hopwood assured the Tribunal that proceedings were fair and that no one could know the outcome of the hearing prior to the panel's decision being announced. I breathed a sigh of relief increasingly happy in the knowledge that the decision of the disciplinary panel could only have been arrived at during and after proper process, careful deliberation and proper consideration of all the evidence and any other substantive factors. As if to affirm this perspective, Mr Hopwood stated that they were under "no pressure to come to a decision". According to Mr Hopwood, it took the panel around two hours (2 hours) to ruminate, deliberate and adjudicate. ACAS has a considered view on this:

Adjournment before decision 52: Adjourn before a decision is taken about whether a disciplinary penalty is appropriate. This allows time for reflection and proper consideration. It also allows for any further checking of any matters raised, particularly if there is any dispute over facts.(1)

Despite severe arse-burn, his Petard has been successfully hoisted

Timeline -v- Timescale

Mr Hopwood was also very clear when he stated that there was a "timeline not a timetable"for progressing the hearing and the decision making process. Again all good and proper. However, a piece of documentary evidence was brought to the attention of the Tribunal which cast considerable doubt over the veracity of Mr Hopwood's assurances. The piece of evidence was an email.

Dear Martin...

This origin of this email was a freelance public relations chap known as Edward Rowan. He was brought in by the University to deal with press issues around the time of my suspension and dismissal. It was sent to Vice Chancellor Martin Hall dated 31st July 2009. Under 'Subject' it said 'Email as discussed - OFF THE RECORD' and it went something exactly like this:

Martin

The email exchange below is for information. I've copied it to Adrian and Keith Watkinson.

The current timeline for next week, agreed with Keith, is that the Disciplinary Hearing will be held Tuesday 4 Aug, their decision will be announced face-to-face, in person on Thursday 6 Aug in the afternoon. I will then immediately brief my media contacts off the record. We will then distribute the news release to all media.

I have produced a draft news release (attached) which is now with Keith for his consideration and submission to the University's legal advisor.(2)

I plan to meet with Catherine Cairncross on Monday to finalise arrangements with the University Press Office

Regards Ed.

If you float you're up the road, if you drown we'll renew your contract!

A job thoroughly well done

Ordinarily, this email might not normally draw a second glance. But on closer inspection provocative questions begin to spring forth like militant Siphonaptera in a state-owned flea circus run by the tyrannical Colonel Gadfly. Readers might wish to reflect on the date. Like me, many of you might be asking how Mr Rowan, Vice Chancellor Hall and the Registrar Dr Adrian Graves could know precisely four days before the Disciplinary Hearing what the outcome was going to be? How could they know four days before that the decision would be reached and transmitted to me on the 6th August? And indeed it was. How could they know that I was going to be dismissed?

Oddly Mr Rowan hadn't prepared two statements in case any decision went my way. Why? It's not beyond the realms of fantasy in fair proceedings that one might have received a good telling off, a metaphorical slap on the back of the hands from the Disciplinary Panel with an accompanying final written warning.

It seems that neither Hall nor Graves, the two most senior officers within the University, had asked for Rowan to prepare a second press release. Shouldn't Watkinson as head of HR have flagged this up given his training? Rowan did send it to him after all for his "consideration". Didn't the University's legal advisors who must specialise in Employment Law, suggest to Watkinson and Rowan that they knock together a second press release just to be on the safe side?

I've given the University every opportunity to provide all documentation under two Subject Access Requests including the missing second statement and countless letters to Matthew Stephenson and the University lawyers reminding them of their obligations under the law. Indeed Vice Chancellor Hall wrote to me personally a few days before the ET and assured me that the University had now supplied me with all the documentation I was entitled to under the Data Protection Act. So I now have everything according to Hall! Oh... and before you ask, he didn't send any second press release.

Oh the specificity of it all...

I've read and re-read Mr Rowan's carefully drafted email to Hall... 'I have produced a draft news release...' Yes it's clear. He means there's only one. But as the Tribunal heard there is a very good reason for this and it was a simple but instructive point made by Mr Longley who is representing my good self. The reason why the University prepared two statements for the Employment Tribunal and only one for the Disciplinary Hearing was that they can exert no direct control over the decision of the Employment Tribunal. It is a different matter when it comes to their own disciplinary processes and disciplinary actions.

Below is the draft press release. It seems that Mr Rowan couldn't even get my age right nor the allegations made against me by the University not that I mind having a few years knocked off my age!

NOTES and REFERENCES

(1) Discipline and grievances at work: The Acas guide, sourced at http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=981ap=0

(2) DRAFT NEWS RELEASE - STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL PART-TIME LECTURER DISMISSED 

It is University policy not to comment on disciplinary matters concerning its staff but given these matters have already been reported in the press as a consequence of the actions of others it is incumbent upon us to comment to your enquiry. A part-time lecturer at the University of Salford has been dismissed from his post after admitting that he was the author of several newsletters defaming a number of his colleagues.

He is 38 years old Gary Duke and his dismissal followed a disciplinary hearing at which he acknowledged that he had anonymously published a series of newsletters containing malicious and personally damaging defamatory racist and sexist (not included in the disciplinary & subject to grievance so not sure we should use these words)remarks concerning fellow colleagues.

The disciplinary panel heard that the female lecturer who was the target of Mr Duke's remarks is extremely distressed by his comments.

A spokesperson for the University said "Mr Duke has been dismissed from the University's employment owing to alleagtions that amount to gross misconduct."

-ENDS-