DESTROYED IN COURT

0407 TRIBUNAL 1998 GRIEVANCE

[This is one part of my submission to the Tribunal]

This grievance, my first in a decade of working for the OUBS, contained significant criticisms, by me of OUBS management actions, which were whistle-blowing in nature. In particular, it focused on the bullying, not just of myself but of others, which had taken place in previous years. It probably contributed to the eventual decision by Open University senior management to institute an 'Establishment Review' of OUBS - only the second such investigation in OU history. More important, it eventually came to be seen in this light by OUBS management, and, indeed, it provided a pivotal input to later events; when it was first disclosed to the new Dean, Roland Kaye, in 2000. Indeed, the full history of my whistle-blowing, which my subsequent (1998) grievance recorded, seems to have become an especially important factor behind later events; where the pattern – my intervention and whistle-blowing followed by management bullying and harassment – continued unabated into the period covered by this claim. It is, however, largely unrecorded as a separate aspect of later events - since by then it was an accepted fact of life. The crucial exception to this later silence was contained in Roland Kaye’s decisive email to OU Personnel Department in 2001 where he simply stated that –  in the context of this “…file of his correspondence…[my 1998 grievance]…possibly the only way to shut him up is to empty his pockets.” Accordingly, this whistle-blowing material still has direct relevance to the case in hand.

In earlier times, however, this bullying came to its first very damaging peak when Rob Paton slanderously reported the rumours then circulating; at a public meeting which was part of the (Marketing) Chair selection procedure. On the positive side of the equation, the dramatic effect of the resultant stresses, especially the impact on the disability which resulted from my diabetes, was such that this was at last formally recognised by OUBS management. When the position finally became intolerable, in terms of the increasingly overt bullying, I complained formally; by starting a grievance procedure – albeit a necessarily highly confidential one. In particular, the full history of such whistle-blowing, which it recorded, became an especially important factor behind subsequent events; as was stated by Roland Kaye in his later, crucial, email (below) on the chair selection process to OU Personnel Department. In this he angrily stated that this dossier of information showed that my behaviour been unacceptable for many years, and at the same time he libellously described this behaviour as ‘poisonous’ and ‘questionable as to mental state’; before going on to spell out how he proposed to ‘…shut him [me] up…’!

14. As early as 1990, I successfully called upon the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) to overrule, in the national interest, the OU Vice Chancellor’s (VC’s) decision to veto the Ethiopian project. The bullying – by OUBS management (but not the then VC) - started soon after that, though it escalated dramatically in 2000. However, as a highly principled academic, my regular interventions - in a similar whistle-blowing vein - continued. Consequently, in 1993, I became embroiled in the rather unsavory withdrawal (unbeknownst to OU Senate who had made the award and who alone had the authority to withdraw it) of the honorary doctorate to be awarded to the President of Ethiopia. This was politically very sensitive, since it showed the British Ambassador’s actions - as well as those of the OU - in an especially bad light. As well as evidencing my continuing whistle-blowing (in the email below), in this case to the FCO in the UK, this also records my resignation - as a matter of principle - from the post of Director; even though this important project was later to be a key element in the OUBS receiving the Queen’s Award for export achievement.

15. This was an early example of my determination to put moral principle before personal convenience. Indeed, as might have been predicted, when a solemn promise - not to put on my record any reference to these attacks on my integrity – was broken, a subsequent addition to a covert personnel file within OUBS was libelously published later in order to damage my reputation in the context of the 2001/2002 grievance procedure. This personnel file was, indeed, not just illegal (in terms of the Data Protection Act) but was maliciously edited and distorted to appear to blame me.

16. Even so, I have never avoided my social responsibilities in terms of political activities; from those I undertook as a councillor in the local community, where (on behalf of the Association of District Councils) I successfully persuaded the DoE to modify its Green Belt policies, to those on the international stage. In the latter case, even in my student days I was one of the founders of the Student Anti-Apartheid movement – organising, for example, a demonstration of something like 10,000 students in Trafalgar Square. In addition, I personally initiated the moves which led to the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Later, whilst in Ethiopia, I personally acted as the main diplomatic conduit between the Western Ambassador group and the President; and, as such, was personally involved in the negotiation of the terms of the $1 billion loan from the World Bank. Yet more important, I personally negotiated on behalf of the Western ambassador group the covert terms which – unknown by their governments (which was one reason why this had later to be kept secret) – successfully led to the end of the restarted civil war. Later still, following the hiatus about the revocation of the President’s honorary doctorate (and my associated whistle-blowing) recorded above, I was personally asked by its government to convey to the FCO its wish that the UK ambassador be replaced; which, after a suitable time, the FCO acceded to.  Even so, despite being a successful international diplomat, at the opposite end of the scale I have always hated the debilitating nature of office politics – often publicly stating as much - and will go to almost any length to avoid them. Indeed, this was one reason – knowing well (as one of its alumni) its high ethical values - I chose to join the OU.

17. In my memo of May 1993 which was provided in preparation for a meeting with the then new Dean, David Asch, I recorded my first formal stress complaint of many. More important in the context of the impact on my work environment, I also indicated the damaging results of my workload even then. This memo was the first I had on record which forcefully highlighted the impact on my mental health and, in particular, in terms of my physical condition. These issues were eventually resolved at the meeting with the then Dean, as reported in the subsequent memo and confirmed by my CDSA (Career Development and Staff Appraisal) later in the year.

18. However, the memos, of May 1993, between myself and the new dean were also important early indicators of the subsequent history of (‘office’) political power plays in OUBS and especially of Roland Kaye’s very direct involvement in them. The crucial incident’ revolved around a ‘complaint’ by an ESRC fellow who – advised by Roland Kaye - bizarrely objected to being given extra responsibility as Chair of the B885 course; though my intention clearly had only been to give her greater teaching experience for the upcoming round of lectureships. The real reason was, as it later turned out, that David Asch (unlawfully flouting the rules of the OU) had already covertly promised her the job; and she incorrectly thought I was stopping her from getting it.

19. This incident, which should have been trivial, was used by Roland Kaye as a vehicle for leveraging his position within the School and undermining my own position within it. Seemingly, this was the starting point for a number of ‘anonymous’ personal attacks across later years. Indeed, despite an agreement that nothing would be put on my personal record, since the process had been deliberately kept ‘informal’ by the then Dean (not least because I had been given no opportunity to rebut the false charges), OUBS management maintained a covert file (illegally hiding this from me even when I formally requested to see all my personnel files under the terms of the Data Protection Act; rationalized to the Tribunal by Katie Stocks, the OUBS manager responsible, as merely “…an administrative error”! The summary of this presented to the Tribunal was libellously biased towards reporting events which were selected, and distorted, to be damaging to my reputation! [Indeed, a major element of the OU’s case during the hearing relied on a continuation of this malicious – and demonstrably false – gossip, ten years after the alleged events had taken place, in order to blacken my character].

20. This earlier behaviour by members of OUBS management was apparently designed to undermine my powerful position in OUBS and/or to neutralise a perceived threat on my part against its own more controversial actions; in particular its attempts to take power away from the School Board and concentrate it under the new Dean. It was well known that, as one of the most respected and popular managers in OUBS at the time, my intervention(s) in support of David Asch’s first election campaign – shortly before - had been decisive; and it was expected that my future interventions would be as influential, as indeed they were.

21. My growing personal problems at that time, caused by both the workload and the bullying, were however evidenced mainly in terms of my urgent requests to reduce the stress levels, which were already leading to deterioration in my health (especially in terms of my diabetes). Thus, even then, this placed OUBS actions firmly in the context of my acknowledged disabilities; at that time primarily in the form of my diabetes, which was well known even to that earlier OUBS management.

22. Setting the pattern, the first accusation by OUBS management of harassment by me came just three weeks after my unwelcome intervention saved OUBS from becoming involved in a major copyright claim being made by the publisher, Blackwells, for whom I was the series editor. Once more, at much the same time (October 1994) and again perhaps not altogether coincidentally, I was again unjustly accused by OUBS management of ‘harassment’. In view of the untimely dissemination of this slander, by a senior lecturer (Rob Paton), I later considered taking action for defamation, but I ultimately withdrew from this – since it would have been very damaging to OUBS and the OU, and I suspected that Rob Paton had been the innocent dupe of others. With the benefit of hindsight it might have been better for all concerned if I had grasped the nettle then, for the subject re-emerged in public when I was forced in 1996 to resign the Chair of B825, the new MBA elective in marketing which was being developed. Despite my demand that the relevant documents be kept, in case any future defamation action needed to refer to them, disclosure has shown that these documents were not in fact retained [or at least were never disclosed to me]; though – against the promise that none of these unsubstantiated charges would be put on my record - a heavily (libelously) biased list of some of these events was reported by Katie Stocks later, as part of the 2001/2002 grievance; though, prior to this time, it had been unlawfully (and illegally) hidden from me.

23. The dramatic effect of these stresses, especially the impact on the disability which resulted from my diabetes (which was formally accepted as a known disability in the Defendant’s initial defence document), was such that it was at last recognised - at that earlier time - that allowance had to be made for my workload problems, at least, to be eased. Unfortunately, although the workload pressure was removed for the next year or so, it later returned.

24. In early 1998 I complained to Susan Segal-Horn, as my then Head of Centre (as well as being David Asch’s partner, and later his wife, though I was not aware of this at the time), about the poor management of the School as well as my own deteriorating position within it. Following the established pattern, of whistle-blowing followed by harassment, a couple of months later my request that the Futures Observatory, the research activity which was so important to me and my career, be given ‘research unit status’ was turned down. This was an unexpected development, since - without any support from OUBS management - this research group had already become one of the most active and influential in OUBS.

25. My later grievance, when the pressures on me became unbearable, was initiated by an email to my new Centre Manager complaining about the ongoing bullying and harassment. When there was no response from him, I forwarded the file to the VC, who then telephoned me to reassure me that he would protect my position. In response I sent an email which also stressed the problems faced by the School as a whole (in a necessarily confidential form of 'whistle-blowing' which backed up the critical comments I was making publicly at meetings of the various School boards).

26. At the time, in view of the sensitivity of some of this material which related to recent activities undertaken on behalf of the FCO (Foreign & Commonwealth Office) in Ethiopia, this had to be highly confidential. There is, though, evidence that, despite the sensitivity of this material, later OUBS management unlawfully breached the dossier’s confidentiality; and the content of this was referred to in a later report by Katie Stocks; who reported to the Tribunal that she did not regard that its designation (as ‘personal and highly confidential’) required any special security. Indeed such files might be found in a number of places, including her own filing cabinets and those of the Dean.

27. This 1998 grievance, significant parts of which clearly were whistle-blowing in nature, as was evidenced by Roland Kaye’s email, ultimately came to be seen in this light by him. Eventually, however, the then VC resolved the personal problems, caused by the bullying, to my satisfaction. My workload was reduced to normal levels and, not least, the then Dean (David Asch, who was implicated in the bullying and – of course – the fraud) resigned; though the circumstances of his resignation, as evidenced in my 1998 grievance, seemingly alerted Roland Kaye to the dangerous level of my potential (‘poisonous’) influence on his own future tenure. Indeed, perhaps realising its significance, at the Tribunal the Dean swore that he had never seen the contents of this dossier; despite the circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

28. To put all of this in context, the relevant OU guidance document (with the most important elements in this case highlighted) is the ‘OU Bullying & Harassment Policy 2002’ as well as its ‘Stress Management Guidance’. Indeed, the best basis for judging what should have happened subsequently (compared with what actually did) is to look at the comprehensive guidelines on Managing Stress. As this guide exemplifies, the OU’s published guidance on all matters of employment practice is exemplary; incorporating, as they do, the high standards the OU proudly claims for its own. Regrettably, despite the clear instructions the guidance documents contained, almost none of these rules were followed by any of the OUBS management involved later in my case; despite OU personnel management, who are supposed to be the guardians of such standards, being well aware of what was happening.

[back]     [home]

hits