DESTROYED IN COURT
0422 TRIBUNAL - DEFAMATORY INTERVENTIONS
[This was another part of my submission, which in the event the Tribunal misused!]
During the grievance process, a ‘feedback’ document was provided (published) to OUBS/OU management by Mark Tulitt. This was sent to OUBS management, at least, even though I personally had refused to accept it. As such it was an actionable libel, since it contained gross untruths and libellous statements. Indeed, it was nothing less than a carefully crafted character assassination; which concluded that (claimed as a matter of fact) I “…would not effectively handle an influential level job with people management or [questioning my probity] commercial management responsibility”. Flying in the face of the clear facts contained in my CV, it also falsely and libelously said that I never had been able to effectively handle an influential level job with people management or commercial management responsibility. It must be assumed that OU, and especially OUBS, management – especially the Dean (who had been provided with a copy and had offered it to other members of OU staff) - were gravely tainted by it during the subsequent proceedings.
65. During the actual second round of recruitment, my application was summarily rejected by the external consultant, as I was unexpectedly deemed by him to be unsuitable to appear on the shortlist submitted by him to the OUBS. Apart from my email to the Dean, which as he had requested (as the start of a process of everyone providing their CVs – which was never followed through) was circulated to the whole School, which included my comments on the Chair process as well as my CV, this had resulted in a rapid exchange of emails with Mark Tulitt concluding with an intemperate response from the ‘independent’ consultant which – as one indication of his overall approach - concluded that I was “patronising, opinionated and insulting”. I subsequently, for only the second time ever, formally requested help from the OUAUT – the previous time had been when I was defamed earlier in the 1990s - following this up with copies to them of my CDSAs which proved that the reasons for my rejection were invalid.
66. Indeed, the consultant's formal reason for not putting me forward then was my 'personal style'; which he found unsuitable for working in OUBS, despite (as my submitted CV amply demonstrated) my 13 years of very successful work in the School; amongst other things as Centre Head, Ethiopian Project Director and a successful chair, for almost all of that time, of various course teams - as well as previously, successfully, holding senior management positions in industry and elected local government prior to that! Interestingly, in view of the emphasis placed on management abilities, the candidate finally awarded the Chair, whilst a very agreeable and deferential individual, had almost no management experience.
67. During the dialogue about my rejection from the short-list on the second round of recruitment, as prompted by the OU, Mark Tulitt had offered to provide me with ‘feedback’. Fortunately, I rejected this offer on the basis that the legal disclaimers he demanded were unacceptable, since they severely limited my legal rights of reply; and, in particular, would have barred me from starting any action for defamation.
68. Accordingly the document was first received by me two years later - on the 26th September 2003, as part of the parcel of disclosure documents provided by the OU - so I was not previously aware of its existence, or even of the possibility of any libel or other defamation, before this date; though it was clearly received by the Dean before the end of September 2001. It has therefore only recently become clear to me that the ‘feedback’ he and Roland were offering (‘publishing’) to personnel across the OU was in fact an actionable gross libel. The defamatory aspects of these actions are not, however, to be the subject of this tribunal since it is due to be run in the High Court. On the other hand, its impact at the time on OU management – as well as in the grievance procedure - must still be of significant concern in the present case.
In fact, as emerged
during the Tribunal proceedings, the Dean had sent copies to the managers in
Personnel; and had heavily promoted this ‘feedback’ to them; mentioning this no
less than eight times in his key email of 11th October. In response
to their negative reactions, though, he had then tried to have all copies of it
destroyed; thus, by attempting to have this key evidence destroyed (something he
seemingly did to other documents, where large numbers of records were shredded
on the move to the new building), he Conspired to Pervert the Course of Justice
– the crime for which Geoffrey Archer received four years imprisonment!
69. Consequently, the fact that this libelous attack, at the very least recklessly indifferent to the truth of the ‘facts’ presented, must have had a most damaging effect on OUBS and OU management, not least the Dean. Furthermore, in view of Roland Kaye’s ‘angry’ comments to OU Personnel, which in their own right were libelous (claiming that my behaviour was ‘poisonous’, was ‘questionable as to mental state’, and ‘has been unacceptable for a number of years’; all in the context of his view that ‘a discipline warning’ should be issued to me), his offering Mark Tulitt’s original libel several times to personnel within the Open University (OU) meant that its republication was clearly intended by him to be malicious. Thus, it evidently was published by Mark Tulitt – and republished within the OU - in the full knowledge of the damage it would cause to my professional reputation. In the subsequent two years this indefensible series of libels has not been retracted by any of the parties involved or redress made; nor had I even previously been made aware of its existence. Indeed, I – not knowing of the existence of this libel - subsequently had my professional career, and my private life, significantly damaged – indeed destroyed - as the publishers would clearly seem to have deliberately intended by this recklessly malicious attack on my reputation.
70. Even a brief perusal of the five page ‘feedback’ report will show that it constitutes by itself an actionable series of libels; maliciously intended to terminally damage my professional career. In particular, despite the facts clearly stated in my CV [which showed me achieving excellence in a number of multinationals, not least IBM, and then distinguishing myself on international (diplomatic) stage in OUBS] he falsely says “…it was clear that your career was characterised by an important feature; you had no track record of progression within organisations you had worked for…”. This was clearly untrue, since my CV clearly showed that not only had I progressed from Assistant Market Executive in an advertising agency to General Manager in a leading multinational in just ten years, but I had actually been promoted in most of the companies for which I had worked. It goes on to say (again falsely and libelously) “…there must be something within your personal style/personality that has held you back, and contributed to the relative failures experienced when you had people management and commercial accountability”. My track record of success, personally adding revenue in seven figures to a number of these companies and being formally recognized for doing this, should have been obvious from my CV. He maliciously concluded that “…you will not effectively handle an influential level job with people management or commercial management responsibility, just as you have not done so to date after all this time.” My personal probity should never have been brought into question, where I have twice been personally trusted with negotiating deals worth a billion dollars.
71. In it Mark Tulitt often asserts that even his ‘opinions’ take on a special weight, not least on the basis of his claimed expertise built up over 25 years, “For the record: I have, in 25 years experience, helped Clients in this sector resource Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Professors in this discipline on more than a dozen occasions, let alone help in the recruitment of other senior Academics including Vice Chancellors”. What makes the libel so serious, though, is that he frequently lapses from statements of expert opinion, albeit maliciously damaging ones, to claims that are presented as substantiated facts: “Within IBM the moves of job were largely cross-functional; …all the circumstantial evidence and initial assumptions I had made increasingly proved themselves during the course of our discussion;…I concluded that the issues above were the reasons behind your chequered [sic] career and the relative lack of in-Company progression in terms of promotion/responsibility;…then there must be something within your personal style/personality that has held you back, and contributed to the relative failures experienced when you had people management and commercial accountability;…You are one of these people who has only one side of the, `intelligence' equation;…Such patronising condescension proves my assessment that you are a very arrogant man;…You have one style in dealing with everything, characterised by arrogance and talking down to people. You have no respect for other people's capability above your own.”
72. None of the many malicious comments in the report were true and, had I been aware of their existence, I would immediately have corrected the many errors of fact and highlighted the scurrilous nature of other elements. Unfortunately, as the OUBS/OU never chose to take any mitigating actions, I did not become aware of the defamation until two years later when it was included by the OU in the disclosed documents for this case. Whilst there is evidence that this libellous document was offered for distribution to a number of people (and was actually republished to some of them) and its existence certainly was publicly made known to a number of OU staff (and indeed it was heavily promoted to them by the Dean), there is no evidence that the OU ever retracted the document or withdrew the libellous allegations made in it. OU management illegally did not even make me aware of its existence when I exercised my right to examine the files held on me.
73. In particular, its existence – along with the unlawful nature of the recruitment processes - may in part help explain the very unusual nature of the key meeting with the Dean held only six weeks later. Thus, the comments it contained, along with his anger at my ‘whistle-blowing’ to the AUT, might be one reason why the Dean chose to adopt such a deliberately confrontational position in the meeting. Accordingly, it is important that my extensive rebuttal of the libel – unfortunately not possible until two years later - is noted.
What emerged during the Tribunal processes was that Roland Kaye and Mark Tuliit had an extensive exchange of covert emails, in which they discussed how to ‘handle’ me. Some of these only emerged in the middle of the proceedings since – in terms of the Dean’s own explanation – they had been held on the Dean’s own PC rather than it the correct Personnel file; something which was clearly illegal in terms of the Data Protection Act! It was clear though, from his angry comments, that the Dean still fully supported the malicious picture of me presented by Mark Tulitt; despite all the evidence to the contrary. In short, he still believed that I was poisonous, and never withdrew this claim.
hits