Dear Mr Kafka...

In lieu of the seven percent solution

Like most people, I've had my share of joints. The Sunday ones which are a bit of a rarity these days. The type that are immensely satisfying when they slide together like... well a dovetail. The big fat ones that have on a few occasions led to a recurring theme many readers will be familiar with: a floor, a foetal position, a green face, a swift conversion to the nearest available religion in order to allay the creeping certainty that your increasingly laboured insufflations are to be your last, a desperate attempt to retain some semblance of dignity, a rigid repudiation of an almost canonical desire to expel your full stomach content (including the lining) at a velocity close to light speed over the nearest excuse for a threadbare Wilton. For that reason I've decided to eschew the latter in favour of a churchwarden pipe and a forty five pound a day crack habit. I do of course jest. But I do take some considerable enjoyment from a pinch or three of rough Kentucky Nougat shag stuffed almost to overflowing into a polished briar bowl.

But of late it's the aching ones that have insinuated themselves into the everyday. Despite being rather irksome, these I can deal with utilising the oft-used traditional remedy of swearing. Or should I say I did, as my right foot's this week taken out a grievance against my mouth and my jaw's been suspended pending a disciplinary investigation. This is of course silly. But on a more serious note - and I hope this article can help others in a similar situation avoid pitfalls - it deals with a novel type of joint that has inculcated itself into my routine far more insidiously than the odd appalling rheumatic twinge in a right hallux. I have unwittingly become habitué to another abhorrency, a type of joint that is I believe peculiar to either Employment Tribunals (or possibly other matters of a legal nature). The particular joint to which I refer is in some circles known as the 'Joint Bundle'. A definition and an explanation is in order.

The new kid in town

For those new to this blog, I am currently taking my former employer - the University of Salford - to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. I lectured in International Studies and was the branch secretary for the UCU. I was dismissed in 2009 for allegedly bullying and harassing two members of staff through writing satirical exposes based on the former VC's monthly electronic newsletter. This is the general context. 

Back to matters in hand. The 'joint bundle' for an Employment Tribunal (ET) consists of all the documents that both parties wish to be entered as evidence. As the employer most usually has the resources available, it is expected that they will collate all documents and order them date-wise into the bundle which is then provided to both parties as well as one each for the three Tribunal panel members. In order to ensure that this is achieved in a timely fashion, Case Management Orders are provided by the Tribunal which must be rigidly adhered to on pain of circumcision. I jest with ye further. Breaching the deadlines within CMO's will largely leave one's foreskin intact but can be punished by a not inconsiderable fine and possible forfeit of your claim. For anyone who is moderately organised, this all seems reasonable and easily manageable... or so it should be. As one might expect, an Employment Tribunal and all the concomitant preparations is a highly charged affair and as such, the joint bundle is a highly contested arena as is the issue of document disclosure.

That absurdity of a beard'll not get ye past us. Begone ye fecker!

Document disclosure or lack thereof

One can almost taste the next salty statement issuing forth from your collective lips - how does one know all the documents available have been disclosed by the employer? Well the short answer is that one doesn't. An example may enlighten. There is no provision in the University of Salford Disciplinary Procedure for disclosure of documents which by any stretch of the imagination places any alleged miscreant at a distinct disadvantage. The Procedure at 3.1.5. states that 'members of staff have a right to':

be treated fairly and consistently. This includes representation, the right of appeal, and the right to be provided with all the evidence and relevant documentation prior to attending a disciplinary hearing.(1)

The sting in the tail here is the word 'relevant'. And who decides what's relevant? Hazard a guess. Clearly, an allegation of bullying and harassment is a serious matter so there is one document that should be disclosed to you. It's called the complaint.

Where is the complaint?

Only an unreconstructed dolt would welcome the idea of being treated unfairly and inconsistently. But it is entirely within the realms of possibility that one can be treated consistently yet unfairly. The two are not necessarily correlates. To elucidate. Let's explore a hypothetical case such as my own.* 

You've been accused of bullying or harassing two people by writing about them in a satirical manner. Yet the alleged 'victims' of the bullying or harassment haven't made any complaint against you. There's no record of any complaint. Neither have they made a witness statement to HR regarding the alleged bullying or harassment. It seems that no one on the employers' side has thought it necessary to invite the alleged 'victim[s]' to an informal or formal meeting to discuss the alleged bullying. No note of such meeting exists. Indeed so important is this issue of alleged bullying and harassing that the investigating manager doesn't think it's necessary to interview the two 'victims' or take statements from them.

And just to reassure you that you've not been engulfed by a particularly malevolent universal parallelogram, the non-existence of any complaint has been confirmed from the horses mouth so to speak. Both the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel Mr Philip Hopwood and the former executive director of finance Mr Simon Attwell (the chap who chaired this writer's appeal hearing against dismissal) admitted under the withering cross examinatory skills of the 'persistent' Mr Eric Longley during last week's Employment Tribunal, that there were indeed no complaints. You see it's all very consistent.

It's in the Code

The UoS Code of Practice for Dealing with Harassment and Bullying is quite clear on this matter:

"... complainants must understand and accept that copies of all notes and correspondence concerned with the complaint will be given to the alleged harasser at his/her request."

It goes on to say that:

Formal resolution may be pursued where the individual regards attempts at informal resolution as inappropriate, or informal attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful. The formal complaint should be made in writing to the Head of School... [i]t must be understood by the complainant that any such formal complaint, and any further written communications will be passed to the alleged harasser... [o]nce an individual has made a formal complaint he/she is entitled to expect managers to instigate a formal investigation... [n]o further action will be taken without the consent of the individual concerned. The matter will be dealt with as confidentially as possible but in some cases the allegation may be so serious as to require immediate action (such as invoking the Disciplinary Procedure or involving the police)...(2)

Where are the witnesses?

So you decide that as no verbal or written complaint has been forthcoming as per the University's own Code, nor a witness statement provided to you laying out any complaint, it's reasonable enough to take the initiative and ask the alleged 'victim[s]' to testify at your forthcoming disciplinary hearing to explain how they were bullied and harassed. They refuse. You've also written in a satirical manner about two Vice Chancellors so you invite them to give evidence as to how they've been bullied and harassed but oddly enough they also refuse. They didn't make a complaint either but clearly a lack of complaint is no barrier to being designated a bully and harasser despite what the employer's own rules say. You attempt to follow this thread of Carrollian logic to its denouement but you immediately conclude that maybe you should exchange the daily crack habit for the more mundane and profitable pastures of an extended LSD induced feedback loop.

My dear chap, like your arse, you'll find the document referred
to down there in two parts

Au revoir jus-naturale?

Now except in the realms of a piece of fiction written by a chap called Kafka, one might imagine it might be quite difficult building the meanest sort of defense against allegations of bullying and harassment where complaints do not exist. By any sense of what's known in the trade as fairness or 'natural justice', a reasonable person might have discerned in the distance the muted peal of an alarm bell or two or at least the cordite stench of a latent structural paradox in crisis. Given this elemental Gordiana, you find that inevitably, the bony finger of unemployment beckons.

Dear Dr... I'm afraid it's irrelevant... irrelevant... irrelevant...

If one is experiencing this kind of difficulty in the run up to and during a disciplinary hearing, it follows that once lawyers are involved (on their side as one is hardly in a position to afford legal representation) the job becomes incrementally arduous. The alleged perpetrator of vileness (the Conscientious Claimant) wants to collate as much documentary evidence as possible but the employer is under no obligation to make documents (other than those used in the disciplinary process) available. One can seek through the Tribunal a Document Disclosure Order but they're about as likely to be granted as a back-dated UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq.

You could elect to utilise the Freedom of Information Act which is an essential tool. It's also largely useless tool. If one's employer is a public authority, they can refuse any of your FOIs on the grounds of say vexatiousness and like a brown immovable thing covered in bark, one is largely stumped. However, there is a small hint of daylight in this crepuscular envelope. It's known as a Subject Access Request which resides under the glorious aegis of the Data Protection Act 1998. I've had occasion to make two SARs and some very interesting documentation and emails have come to the fore.

It's not uphill but it is a shitty job all the same

Even if you manage to lay your hands on the documents through friends and the odd voluntary disclosure of a ream of emails by some unknown individual, there now ensues a battle for relevancy. You receive documents under the Data Protection Act and some are shall we say discommodious to say the least. Like an over-extended ball-bag, this leads to much toing and froing. Even within the Tribunal  this contestation continues. The Conscientious Claimant says that the extensive series of emails between the above two members of staff that were received anonymously, do indeed indicate a close friendship and should therefore go in your 'unagreed' bundle. The Respondent's barrister say they're not relevant and objects to the Tribunal judge a little too successfully. The Conscientious Claimant asks that a recently received copy of a rather interesting report into appointments in a business school should go in. The Respondent's lawyers again oppose its inclusion again stating it's not relevant. Yep, that one's also ruled out. You think this rather odd as you'd sort of mentioned both these issues in a highly satirical publication or two, which played no small part in raising the two issues to the fore in the first place.

Praise be and hallelujah... hallelujah... hallelujah!

Some days it appears that not much is going your way. But, having rejected the notion that the world is going to end next year, I also wish to avoid diving headlong into the perfidious waters of conspiracy theorem. Besides, I now have a lovely crisp copy of the TCM Executive Summary and interesting reading it makes too. An associate but not someone who is involved in any perceived wider campaign with my good self, has decided to put it online so you too can read it by clicking just here. In closing, I'd like to thank Chris Sheehy for providing us with access to the TCM Executive Summary.

If anyone would like to provide me with a copy of the full TCM Group Report you can email it to me at vagrantsintheworkhouse@gmail.com

NOTES and REFERENCES

* For the avoidance of doubt it's not really hypothetical case but a real one.
(1) University of Salford  Disciplinary Procedure, Revision Date, 12 May 2008

(2)University of Salford Code of Practice for Dealing with Harassment and Bullying (ref: Harassment and BullyingcodeofPractice/29.01.04

Related articles

• Employment tribunal reforms will further erode workers' rights (leftfootforward.org)

The Intrinsic Asymmetry of a Position Taken

All men dream but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.

T E Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Just to show that I'm not just some sort of Marxian serial oppositional type or part of a fanciful wider campaign that is likely the by-product of paranoia-induced wet-dreams, I'd like to say publicly and for the record that I agree with University of Salford Vice Chancellor Martin Hall. Ignoring for one moment the wholesale cacophony of nasally ralphed Aldi's Fruit 'n' Fibre, my concurrence with Hall is ever so slightly contingent. Clearly some elaboration is necessary.

The meat and two veg of it

I've received in my inbox a recent article penned by Martin Hall which raises some interesting themes such as (but not exclusively) academic freedom, dissent within the Higher Education system and suppression. The article concerns an audit report conducted by the South African Council on Higher Education (CHE) on the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) which has rather lamentably been suppressed by the CHE after a complaint of bias in the report by the University's Vice Chancellor Malegapuru Makgoba. This was alluded to in a previous post on this website.

Hall explains that "[t]he ostensible reason for abandoning the audit was the leak of a letter I wrote to the then chairperson of the HEQC a few weeks after our audit panel finished its work -- the letter was published in The Mercury in January 2009." He argues with considerable justification that the leaking of his letter to the press was not enough on its own to provide the excuse to suppress the Report. The timeline indicates that Hall who chaired the UKZN Audit Panel in October 2008, at the request of Makgoba delivered an oral feedback session on completion of the report that was widely circulated and published online prior to the writing of his letter. It was delivered from a fourteen page summary of the report. Now this sounds oddly familiar.

Culture and Discipline

Some of the findings in the report were critical of UKZN citing a 'culture of hostility' and the use of disciplinary action against staff who raised worries about academic freedom within the University. Hall writes "We had recommended that, rather than taking disciplinary action against staff complaining of violations of academic freedom, UKZN’s council and executive management should take a conciliatory approach." Weeks later, the University decided to instigate disciplinary action against two academics, professors Nithaya Chetty and John van den Berg who were delegated by their colleagues to bring their concerns about the erosion of academic freedom within UKZN to the attention of the university senate. Despite several failed attempts to have their case heard at senate, in discussing the issue with their colleagues was enough for the management of UKZN to instigate disciplinary action citing the old chestnut and catch-all  'bringing the university into disrepute' as grounds for the disciplinary action. For Hall, this was '... a direct affront to the audit panel and to the HEQC.'(see below at 1)

This Martin Hall wants the UKZN report released

Benefits of releasing the report

Hall is clear on what the positive benefits to UKZN would have been if the report had been released in its entirety:

"Were it to have been released, our audit report would have been found to be a thorough and balanced evaluation of one of South Africa's leading universities. It details and commends significant achievements and presents a range of evidence-based recommendations for continuing improvement. The report’s reasoned and evidence-based findings on institutional culture and academic freedom would have helped the university move on from a difficult phase in its history. The Higher Education Act of 1997 seeks to "respect and encourage democracy, academic freedom, freedom of speech and expression, creativity, scholarship and research".

Hall's final sentence is rather apposite considering he has come under recent criticism on his own blog for what are seen by some as attacks on the rights of free speech at University of Salford. Nithaya Chetty and John van den Berg provide a carefully nuanced analysis of the wider trends in HE that have provided the medium for the development of a culture of bureaucratisation underscored by discipline at UKZN:

"The context for this particular scandal is a trend that has engulfed all universities over the past few decades — the bureaucratisation of higher education... [e]lected deans and old-style administrators have long gone. They have been replaced by executives and managers. Some vice-chancellors fancy themselves to be CEOs... [f]ound wanting, they distrust rational debate and decision making. Faced with obstacles, they turn to orders and threats. Beset with problems, they resort to bureaucratic systems. Collegiality is consigned to the dustbin and an industrial labour relations model is imposed. Academics are no longer senior members of their institutions, but employees dictated to by lawyers in industrial relations departments... [b]ureaucracies take on lives of their own. Excessive paperwork, endless inquiries and perpetual organisational change have demoralised and marginalised academic staff. The long February 2006 strike at the university was as much about this as pay. And, above all, bureaucrats dislike public scrutiny, so clamped down on links between academics and the press."(3)

What's sauce for the goose...

Apart from managers at UKZN, few would disagree with the thrust of Chetty and van den Berg's arguments. Writing in the Mail and Guardian, on the 28th January Shirley Brooks argues that the recent disciplinary action and the suppression of the full report is indicative of a culture of managerialism which now pervades UKZN:

"The audit panel's chair, professor Martin Hall, has made known his unhappiness with this outcome and argued that by agreeing to gag the report the CHE is complicit in suppressing important information that is legitimately required by the UKZN community and the public... [o]ne aspect of the problem lies, I feel, in the enabling environment created by the increasing hold of managerialism on South African universities. Managerialism provides the space for top management to make use of legalistic processes to stifle dissent within an institution. The individual who is critical of the direction in which the university is going, and attempts to engage others in the institution as well as top management about this, finds him or herself in a parlous position... "(2)

My Dear Dr Argonaut, your request for bona fide information concerning 
the Golden Fleece is deemed both vexatious and silly so shit off

...should be sauce for the gander - shouldn't it?

On Friday 18th of February I received from Head of Information Governance Mr Matthew Stephenson an email. It read:

"Dear Dr Duke, I write in response to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 received by the University on 21 January 2011. The University considers that this request is vexatious and is therefore not required to provide the information requested in accordance with section 14(1) of the Act..."

This refusal concerns my January FOI request for the Executive Summary of the TCM Group report. Readers of this website will recall that for several months I have been seeking access to this report which was conducted at the behest of the Vice Chancellor Martin Hall into appointments in the Salford Business School. It was instigated by Hall because of anger and concern among staff in the SBS as to the probity of the appointments process within Salford SBS. Having been sacked for raising the issue of a relationship between Head of School John Wilson and then student and part-time member of staff Xiang Li (now a full-time lecturer) in the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters (deemed as bullying and harassment), I am of course keen to ascertain if other staff have raised concerns about this relationship in the report. From notes taken from the Executive Summary and entered as evidence in the recent court hearings into allegations of defamation made against this writer by the University of Salford, it would appear to be the case.

Another report under wraps

Now I can't for the life of me understand why the University would wish to keep this report under wraps. I've applied to the Tribunal for a document disclosure order. These requests have been vigorously contested by the University's lawyers and refused by the Tribunal judge. It's even more odd given Professor Hall's position over the suppression of the UKZN audit report.

Like Hall's oral presentation at UKZN, the TCM summary was delivered by UCU branch president Chris Sheehy to a roomful of UCU and UNISON reps in September 2010. I would argue that it's therefore in the public domain. To suggest otherwise would be to concur with Makgoba's intepretation of Hall's oral delivery of the audit summary where he says that "[o]ur oral feedback was not public but privileged communication...". Is this a view that Professor Hall shares?

This Martin Hall hasn't yet released the full TCM Group 
report into appointments in the Salford Business School

Hall is clear when he states that "The report’s reasoned and evidence-based findings on institutional culture and academic freedom would have helped the university move on from a difficult phase in its history." Could the same not be said for the unexpurgated version of the TCM Group report? Hall is rightly critical of the above suppression yet remains remarkably restrained with regard to the current unreleased status of the TCM report.

I therefore agree wholeheartedly with Hall. The UKZN audit report should be released in its entirety. It's called transparency and its suppression in any modern democracy is a disgrace, more so in a Higher Education  institution that espouses enlightenment values. Yet might an outsider, particularly one with the surname of Makgoba, raise an eyebrow at the non-appearance of  a report directly commissioned by Hall, one that Salford bosses appear to straining every metaphorical sinew to ensure stays firmly under wraps? For the sake of consistency the TCM Group report should be immediately released in its entirety as should the Executive Summary. Failure to do so will only fuel claims that the culture of managerialism highlighted by Chetty and van de Berg at UKZN has gained a foothold at the University of Salford. It would also demonstrate an ongoing and clear commitment to transparency and in Vice Chancellor Hall's own words would "encourage democracy, academic freedom, freedom of speech and expression..."

Related Articles:

• 'University dispute causes a crisis of credibility' at http://mg.co.za/article/2011-01-28-university-dispute-causes-a-crisis-of-credibility/
• 'Varsity's voices of dissent gagged' at http://www.mg.co.za/article/2011-01-14-varsitys-voices-of-dissent-gagged
• 'Authoritarianism just tip of iceberg' at http://mg.co.za/article/2011-02-11-authoritarianism-just-tip-of-iceberg/
• 'Feudal academy is on the road to suicide' http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=134360

(1) "One of the panel's conclusions had been that the university was at risk because of widely held perceptions that academic freedom was in jeopardy. We had recommended that, rather than taking disciplinary action against staff complaining of violations of academic freedom, UKZN’s council and executive management should take a conciliatory approach... Within a few weeks of our making this recommendation known to UKZN's vice-chancellor, the council of the university decided to continue its practice of disciplining senior academic staff who complained about violations of academic freedom. As chairperson of the audit panel I had felt obliged to bring this to the attention of the HEQC."

"We reported that "interviews with cross-sections of staff and students as well as with external stakeholders suggest that there is what has been described as a 'culture of hostility'" and "that some aspects of this situation are expressed as lack of academic freedom at the university". We had "found evidence of stifled debate about institutional matters and of debates conducted in ways which obfuscate rather than elucidate issues". We concluded that "one of UKZN's greatest transformative challenges is to rise above the ingrained, destructive tendencies that are stifling debate and to create a new culture of participative and democratic debate that supports academic freedom in its broader sense". Sourced at http://www.mg.co.za/article/2011-01-14-varsitys-voices-of-dissent-gagged

(2) Sourced at http://mg.co.za/article/2011-01-28-university-dispute-causes-a-crisis-of-credibility/
(3) NITHAYA CHETTY and CHRISTOPHER MERRETT: Feudal academy is on the road to suicide, 15th Feb 2011, sourced at http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=134360

You take the high road....

A relaxed John at the helm...*

A flurry of emails and a phone call from a former colleague singing "Happy Birthday to you..." announced the departure. Yes, on a rather sombre January note, this writer has today learned that "Captain of Enterprise"* Head of School (HoS) Professor John Wilson is leaving the University of Salford for pastures anew... Scotland.

Staff are pleased

From the emails, it would appear that many staff within the Salford Business School are said to be pleased about his new post in Scotland. Moreover, it is clear that whoever steps into his shoes will have stepped into a big job. It is widely known that football loving, Preston North End supporting Professor Wilson, in his role of Head of Salford Business School, has sought to forge stronger links with China and has been there at least once.(1)

The visionary Professor Wilson has also been at the forefront of using the word 'niches' in an article (see below). He is also happy to exploit them:

"He has a firm vision of where he wants the school to go. "I think there are certain niche areas we should look at developing," he said. "We have some niche areas of international excellence, including information systems and management, statistics and operational research, gambling studies, marketing and accounting. "But I am looking to step up our expertise with some new areas, such as entrepreneurship, public management and leadership. "There are over 100 business schools in the UK, and we have to differentiate ourselves. I think we can exploit niches..."(2)

This historical and therefore different John Wilson
liked to blow his own trumpet

Hasn't he done a really good job

Vice Chancellor Martin Hall thinks he's done a good job and left the Business School with a reputation:

“This is an excellent promotion for John and I am very pleased for him and wish him every success in his new role. Thanks must go to him for his leadership of the Salford Business School and the energy he has shown in building the School’s reputation. In particular, John led the School in its successful bid to gain the prestigious Association of MBAs (AMBA) accreditation in September 2009. This marked Salford as an esteemed institution at which to study an MBA.”(3)

Professor Wilson who himself is good on TV, is also on record as being a true admirer of people like the business chap and BBC celebrity Alan Sugar who regularly fires people whilst pointing his finger: "I truly admire people like Alan Sugar..."(4) Yet unlike God** who liked to keep the seventh day free for rest and going to church, it's widely known that Professor Wilson preferred to keep the fifth day free - possibly a Friday although the exact name of the day has not been confirmed -  for research: "...I try to keep the fifth day free, mainly so that I can devote time to research..."(5) Professor Wilson has also pursued a policy of promoting "International collaboration" and is again on record as seeing  it as important for opening up "the school's profile" as well as "various opportunities for staff  and student exchanges".(6)  All interesting stuff.

The gathering clouds

More recently, a few clouds have gathered on the horizon about six miles yonder from the Maxwell Building. These clouds have assumed the shape of the TCM Group Report, which has tested Professor Wilson's natural popularity. This report, instigated at the behest of current Vice Chancellor Martin Hall in 2010, was conducted in response to anger among staff within the SBS into what were at the time recent appointments. According to Professor Hall, the TCM Report flagged up a few minor issues regarding appointments that needed a little tweaking (see previous posting). To date, the TCM Group Report has not been distributed in its entirety to staff in SBS or the wider University and the Executive Summary of this report remains a "read-only" document.

In Court

This Report became the focus of added attention during a recent court hearing on the 21st December concerning libel proceedings instigated in the High Court by the UoS against this author. During proceedings, the representative acting on behalf of this writer made clear to the Court that according to the TCM Executive Summary, Professor Wilson and certain Heads of Directorate in the Business School had been responsible for the lowering of "academic qualifications" for the recruitment to specific positions within the Business School, which was not made widely known to staff. The question was asked in the court as to "how could those close to John Wilson and Reg Lord know to apply for posts?"(7) 

What a tosser!

In reference to the appointments process raised on a ratcatchers blog, Dr Graves in his statement to the Court made the claim that "The University has clear guidelines for the recruitment of staff and evidence can be provided to demonstrate that these guidelines were adhered to in both instances."(8) The representative of this writer asked "why would Adrian Graves and Ian Austin say it (the appointments process in SBS) is all above board" (given the findings of the TCM Report), and if this is the case "why does not Ian Austin or Adrian Graves supply the TCM Report?" Two interesting questions that may be answered by Dr Graves at some stage during any future libel proceedings. However, let's not open ourselves to accusations of churlism and spoil the good news.

It is clear to very many person that the University of Salford's loss is going to be Scotland's gain. I'm sure Professor Wilson's colleagues in the Salford Business School will be having a whip round and raising a not inconsiderable sum for his leaving present. If anyone would like to share their ideas on what sort of present he might be given, please feel free to email this writer at garypaulduke@gmail.com

In closing...

Oh, and as this writer was summarily dismissed for bullying and harassing Professor Wilson and a student/part-time member of staff from the Business School through the authorship of the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters in August 2009, would the good professor before he leaves, be good enough to back-date an official complaint of bullying and harassment for the purposes of conforming to the University's Code of Conduct on Bullying and Harassment? According to the Code, the accused is after all, allowed to see a copy of the complaint.

If he could also supply a belated witness statement to the same effect and post it via a temporal shift or a convenient space-time dedicated wormhole dated sometime before the 4th August 2009 to Watkinson of HR, that would be great!

*According to the Manchester Evening News sourced at http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/236016_captain_of_enterprise
** Genesis II, sourced at http://esv.scripturetext.com/genesis/2.htm
(1) K Freddy, Manchester Evening News, February 13th 2007 sourced at http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/236016_captain_of_enterprise
(2) K Freddy again, M.E.N. February 13th 2007,  http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/236016_captain_of_enterprise
(3) Professor Martin Hall sourced at http://staff.salford.ac.uk/news/details/2072
(4) K Freddy, M.E.N. February 13th 2007, http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/236016_captain_of_enterprise
(5) Professor John Wilson: head of the Salford Business School: Professor John Wilson, the new head of the Salford Business School, recounts a typical day, April 2007, Copyright Fenman Limited 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6778/is_2007_April/ai_n28425084/
(6) Professor John Wilson: head of the Salford Business School: Professor John Wilson, the new head of the Salford Business School, recounts a typical day, April 2007, Copyright Fenman Limited 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6778/is_2007_April/ai_n28425084/
(7) From notes taken during the court hearing 21st December 2010, Manchester District Registry, before Judge Smith and therefore public domain.
(8) Witness statement provided by Dr Graves and read to the court by Judge Smith 21 December 2010 (public domain)

If one doesn't ask... one doesn't get

Listen my grey-feathered friend... you may be a UCU member but you're
not a member of the Business School so fuck off! 

Yesterday two identical bundles of documents were delivered to (i) a District Judge, and (ii) a Mr Ian Austin.  Mr Austin - formerly of Halliwells LLP now of Heatons LLP- is a busy man. For as well as sitting on University of Salford University Council as an independent member,(1) he is also acting under instruction from the University in the University's libel claim against my good self.(2) Mr Austin has kindly provided two signed witness statements to the Court so far.

Document disclosure #1 - The TCM Group Report

A letter was also included with the identical bundles requesting that the District Judge issue a document disclosure order for the full TCM Group report and its diminutive brethren, the TCM Executive Summary. Why? As many readers may be aware, I've asked on numerous occasions for the TCM Group report and a copy of the TCM Executive summary to no avail. Apparently it contains some interesting and rather juicy information on appointments and recruitment in the Salford Business School. It's been requested under Freedom of Information via whatdotheyknow by that Shannon chap and someone called Li Na where it's been both refused and in the case of Li Na's request, remains unanswered which according to the website means the University is in clear breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I've requested it from the President of my union branch OGL (Sheehy), who neatly ducked what promised to be a particularly treacly issue, passing it rather deftly into the hands of the local UCU regional officials. I asked the regional official for a copy. The gentleman simply referred me to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unwittingly, I'd fallen headlong into a bureaucratically manufactured autosynchronous feedback loop reminiscent of the bastard progeny of the most nightmare-ish episode of the Twilight Zone and Groundhog Day. The regional official was I believe largely ignorant to the fact that I've not had much in the way of luck with my previous FOI requests to the UoS. Nevertheless, I'm glad I've kept paying my monthly subscriptions to the branch.

"Klaatu Barada Nikto" should get you a copy

And witness orders...

I've even had the temerity to ask an Employment Tribunal judge for a document disclosure order for it. The response of the judge was quite characteristic of previous requests for document and witness orders; such as the witness order for the extensive list of emails between Head of School John Wilson and lecturer Xiang Li. Yep, refused. I previously asked that the Tribunal grant a witness order for Head of School Professor John Wilson to give evidence. Also refused. I asked they grant a witness order so that Ms Li also appear and give evidence. Refused but I've become rather familiar with the theoretical concept of refusal.

History depleting itself...

Prior to the Disciplinary Hearing last year (2009), I did write to Head of School Wilson and Ms Li asking that they appear and give evidence. After all, I was accused of bullying and harassing them. You would think that as neither HoS Wilson or Ms Li made an official complaint of bullying against me, or provided two definitive witness statements to the investigating officer Scott Mulholland at least outlining the extent of my lampoon-based delinquency, that they would both be keen to appear at the Disciplinary Hearing and astound the panel with compelling personal testament to bolster the allegations against me? Oddly enough, they didn't. Mind you, Harloe and Hall also refused my personal invitation to appear and answer questions. Apparently writing about a couple of Vice Chancellors in the same Newsletters isn't deemed to be bullying or harassment in this alternative universe.

The bastard will never find it down here

But it was the vigour with which the University's lawyers (Eversheds for the ET) opposed the granting of this order that got me thinking and that's usually always a bad thing. What on earth is contained in this report that has so many people working overtime metaphorically speaking in order to restrict access to it? The big question is why doesn't OGL release the Executive Summary widely to UCU and UNISON members and UoS staff more widely? What on earth is stopping her? It's clearly in the interests of staff across the university to know what's in it... isn't it?

Technology - it's great isn't it?

Then I thought, "maybe she's slightly busy?" But then I thought "it wouldn't take long to say make fifty or so copies of the TCM Executive Summary and hand them out to members would it?" Then I thought "I bet the branch is broke and can't afford the exorbitant costs of making fifty photocopies?" If that's the case then I'd be happy to dip into my own depleted pocket to pay for the copying. Then I thought "maybe they could eschew one or two pre-EGM light luncheons to pay for it?" I quickly self-corrected as this was patently silly. Light lunches are important and there is after all, a few bob resting in the branch account and I can't think of a more worthwhile use of the branch's sizeable financial resources. If money or time is the issue, maybe she could scan one copy and email it as a PDF to all committee members who can then pass it down in an antithetical non-sustainable business model sort of arrangement to all staff.

Yet, Christmas is very nearly upon us and I'm sure more people are concerned about what to buy their loved ones for Christmas Day. I'm concerned about the post over the holiday period. I worry about nationalised industries all the time. So I thought I'd hurry off in today's post to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, my appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal judge not to grant the requested documents. With any luck the elusive documents and emails may be disclosed prior to the Employment Tribunal in March. If not I'm sure they'll be disclosed prior to or during any forthcoming libel trial.

Another hearing in all things deem'd calumnious, defamatory and libellous....

The University of Salford

Versus

the irksome Dr Gary Paul Duke

2 o'clock promptly before Judge Smith at Manchester District Registry

Tuesday, the 21st day of December 2010,

Manchester Civil Justice Centre

One Bridge Street West,

Manchester

(1) University of Salford list of council members
(2)According to the University of Salford's own website, part 1.1.5 of University Statutes as approved by the Privy Council 21 July 2010 an " "Independent Member" means a member of the Council who is neither employed by nor a student of the University and who is considered by the Council to be otherwise independent and impartial."

• Article at Manchester Mule at  http://manchestermule.com/article/university-sues-sacked-lecturer-for-libel

In the public domain

The Court Jester

Well. It's an interesting piece of logic... wrong but interesting none the less.

I've just (yesterday) been informed by Martyn Moss by email (Mr Moss is a UCU official for the North West region), that the UCU will not provide me with the TCM Group Report or the Executive Summary as requested. You may recall, I actually wrote to the President of the UCU Salford University branch and requested the documents from her.

The Report and Executive Summary deal with the issues of appointments and the appointment process in the Salford Business School. This of course is an issue that is directly pertinent to my Employment Tribunal tomorrow. I've asked my former employer via their lawyers for a copy of both to no avail. They seem a little less than forthcoming with all sorts of information these days including the TCM Report and this Summary.

What a fool believes

Of course my union, having received this damning evidence from the University would, you might believe, be tripping over themselves to provide this vital evidence to me on the eve of the Tribunal. Oh what a fool am I.

I have clearly been living in a parallel or some sort of inverted Carrollian netherworld populated by rotund twins and top-hat wearing rabbits with possible mental health issues. It is clear that I have got it completely arse-end upwards! How silly was I in thinking that when something is in the public domain it is actually in the public domain.

That Our Glorious Leader Chris Sheehy had had verbally delivered the ten page Executive Summary to UCU members at an Extraordinary General Meeting in the Salford Business School and UNISON reps who were in attendance, might suggest it is. That she had supplied copies of the same Executive Summary to reps that are available for viewing by UCU members, might suggest it is. Apparently not so.

According to Mr Moss who now speaks exclusively on behalf of OGL with regard to matters concerning my good self, informs me that access to this document is conditional and that 'it is not in the "public" domain'. Mr Moss also closes by suggesting that I 'should seek disclosure of pertinent documents from your former employer using the tribunal disclosure procedures.' Mr Moss also now considers 'this correspondence closed'.

I thought it wise to ask Mr Moss to elaborate on why he believed it's not in the public domain and I eagerly await his response.

A two-tier form of disclosure?

Now, forgive me Ms Sheehy and Mr Moss, but I feel the teensy-weensiest bit discriminated against by my own union. Why? Well it would appear that certain lay members of the UCU (those in the Business School) have privileged access to these document and while other UCU members do not. Do all our members have the right to know is the question here?

Now it doesn't look very good does it? Never mind, it'll all come out in the wash over the next few days.

Employment Tribunal

Dr G Duke v University of Salford

10:00am Wednesday 29th & Thursday 30th September

Alexandra House

14-22 The Parsonage

Manchester

Bring on the vikings

Just an update on the continuing saga that is frankly taking on Norse-like proportions that would make Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis proud.

She could send it by boat if necessary!

Yes, it's revolving around the sticky subject of access to the TCM Group Executive Summary like a redundant rogue earth-bound communications satellite. I thought it might be in the interest of UCU members at Salford and beyond, to make public my letter to our UCU branch President Chris Sheehy.

20 September 2010

Dear Chris

I have been informed that you have verbally delivered a reading of the ten page Executive Summary of the TCM Group review on Friday the 17th September in room 813 to members of the UCU including members from Salford Business School and reps from UNISON. I am also aware that specific UCU reps are allowing UCU members access to this document.

It is clear that the Executive Summary is now in the public domain and as such I would like to officially request a copy from you or the reps who hold copies. It can be supplied to me either in electronic or hard format. I wish to enter this as evidence as I am aware that it contains specific information that is central to my case being heard at the forthcoming Employment Tribunal.

Given the proximity of the Tribunal which is scheduled for next week, the 29th and 30th of September 2010, I would anticipate that it should take no longer than two working days to supply this documentation. I am happy to meet with you or the reps off campus to collect any documentation.

Should you fail to provide the documentation as requested, I reserve the right to bring this letter and your failure to supply said documents to the attention of the Tribunal.

Yours fraternally

Dr Gary Duke

I'd like to report that the Executive Summary is now in my hand... I'd like to but I can't.

It's not donned it's winged helmet or boots for that matter, nor has it winged its way to my postbox via the hand of Our Glorious Leader. Nor have I received any reply to my letter, indeed not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions

Dr Gary Duke

UCU Member: 103260

All Quiet on the Western Front

Say no more!

This is becoming tedious.

I've written once again to UCU branch President Chris Sheehy to ask that she make available to me the Frances Green Executive Summary conducted by the TCM Group into appointments. It was delivered by her verbally to members in an EGM on Friday of last week (more on this interesting meeting during the week).

I've had no answer as of yet. I did mention the issue of my impending Employment Tribunal next Wednesday and that the information contained within the ES is extremely pertinent to my case.

I know many of you reading this aren't yet members of the union. But you're entitled to know what's going on regarding appointments at UoS. I can't share the detail of the report as I haven't got it. I thought I could at least share with you the motion passed at the UCU/Unison Extraordinary General Meeting which is now whizzing between a variety of computers at UoS and beyond.

Passed unanimously at the SBS UCU and Unison members meeting 17th September 2010

An extraordinary meeting of UCU and Unison members in Salford Business School met on the 17th September 2010 to receive, inter alia, a verbal report on Frances Green’s executive summary, which investigated the processes of recruitment applied in respect of SBS academic appointments at the end of 2009. 

Members of UCU SBS are keen to restate that the concerns raised are not with the appointees but with those who are responsible for ensuring recruitment and appointment policies are fit for practice and applied fairly, justly and reasonably. The branch therefore wishes to reiterate its’ welcome to the new staff.

The following unanimous resolutions were passed

1. We are dismayed that the letter from the VC of July 2010 does not appear fully to reflect the findings and tone of Frances Green’s executive summary of her report. On the basis of this executive summary, SBS UCU and Unison members have grave concerns about the University of Salford’s recruitment and appointment processes as presently constituted and applied.

2. We call upon the University to produce appropriate policies of selection and recruitment as a matter of urgency and to implement these, on the basis of a clearly stated timescale, before any more appointments are made. SBS UCU and SBS Unison respectfully request that UCU are involved in writing these policies.

3. We most earnestly request that the executive summary produced by Frances Green be made available to all staff in the University. As there is a likelihood that staff may soon have to apply for new positions as a result of the restructuring recommended by Lauwrys, it is vital that the robustness and impartiality of appointment procedures be clearly demonstrated to all.

Limited Access - is this what unions are about?

I can't help wondering why some UCU members are allowed to access the document and not others and why two reps in the Business School are policing access to this document (you can see it if but you cannot take a hard copy away so I'm reliably informed).

Sorry chum,
no carbon-copies allowed

Moreover, if Ms Sheehy's already delivered the speech to an audience of UCU and Unison members is it not already in the public domain? Come on, stop prevaricating! Release this document to members!

Oh and by the way, as a member, I wouldn't mind a copy myself.