DESTROYED IN COURT

0423 TRIBUNAL - MASTERS WORKLOAD

[Part of my submission to the Tribunal]

The evidence included in my ‘Causal Factor’ report shows that the most immediate problem in 2000/2001, in terms of my deteriorating health problems, was the excessive workload. In this context, my commitment to the management/development of a new programme and course (Masters in Marketing and B851) eventually led to a dramatic, but unexpected, increase in my workload. In essence, my eventual workload came to represent something like five times as much new material as initially specified; supported by a team only a third of the original size and with less than two thirds of the time to complete this work!

46) At the time (in 1998/1999), however, I was happy to take on the new (B851) course, since I believed it would greatly enhance the portfolio of masters courses offered and extend the OU’s then uniquely high standard of education to a large number of new students; as well as provide an invaluable pilot for the range of new Masters courses OUBS was then, at the behest of the Dean, planning to launch. In any case, the planned additional workload was then - by my standards - quite achievable. Indeed, I even suggested that a modified B885 might by itself suffice.

47) Problems only started to emerge as the later development got under way. Even then the OU blueprint, which is the OU's formal specification for the content of a new programme, spelled out a course design which did not require any totally new material to be developed.

48. The first formal course proposal, however, suggested some new topics which the course team were starting to put forward. Thus, one unit on anthropology and one on politics (as well as one on design) were introduced at Professor de Chernatonay’s influential suggestion – where he was the Professor of Marketing responsible for the discipline overall and could have in effect vetoed any developments - increasing the number of new units to five overall. On the other hand, there was still a very strong course team - which included all seven members of the marketing group as well as four outside experts – who were available, under my supervision, to write all the new material needed for the course; and coordinate the work of outside authors. By September, however, Haider Ali was the first casualty - having a heart bypass - and the minutes sounded a note of alarm; specifically asking management for more manpower; which, in the event, was never provided. Even, after his return, Haider was no longer allocated to participate in B851.

49. The main point to be taken from the minutes of the November CTM (Course Team Meeting) was, however, that the workload would still be evenly spread across all members of the team. In fact this never happened and I had to oversee all the units myself.  Even so, Judith Margolis agreed to write the whole of the ecommerce element, assisted by an OUBS regional manager; though this again did not happen – when he was redirected to work on regional issues and Judith contracted breast cancer - and I had to take on writing the majority of these units myself. Another team member agreed to write one unit and oversee another one; though she later had to revoke on this, due to being redirected to other work commitments (again on regional activities). The B822 team also agreed to write a unit - but never managed to do this.

50. The detailed responsibilities at this point were laid out in the table provided in the January 2000 CTM minutes. Even then I was to be author of only two units, whilst also overseeing three more being written by outside authors. It is important to note that these workload figures only relate to the base workload, without any allowance for leave (which, used in effect as a contingency reserve, had been the saving grace in respect of my 2000 figures). Accordingly, the actual load was three times the maximum I had previously coped with; without the option of trading off against any leave.

51. By August 2000, however, the pattern had changed dramatically. I was overseeing all the units as well as writing four double sized units and two supplements - an overall level of 11 units for me to author as well as supervising all the other units! This is best summarised in table form, with a comparison between the original spec and the final one - alongside the equivalent figures for the earlier development of B885:

52. The workload problem was compounded by the resignation of my line manager (and his absence on leave for most of the year prior to that event) and senior management's subsequent refusal to accept any responsibility for the line management role; as evidenced by the transcript abstract from the two centres meeting along with the associated minutes. This was despite the fact that OUBS management had recently received a damning report from outside consultants which clearly stated that the workload situation inside OUBS was unacceptable, indeed out of control, and that the state of the manpower planning was seen by its academics as deplorable. At the same time the OU’s computerised workload reporting system failed. As a result, my only recourse was to regularly highlight the problems through the MBA Board – and (as this had no role in the context of line management, though the Dean attended its meetings and was well aware of the situation) this proved ineffective in terms of alleviating my workload.  The evidence, due to be provided by the OUBS Director of the MBA Programme at the time and which was supposed to rebut these claims, was ultimately never produced at the Tribunal.  In his absence, the Dean claimed that I had no fewer than three line managers (including the Director of the MBA) at the same time. On the other hand, despite the length of time he had worked in OUBS, he seemed to get confused about how the (team) course production system worked; apparently thinking that course managers ‘managed’ the development work and that the chair was only responsible for academic standards.

53. The transcript of the key ‘two centres’ meeting also indicates the Dean’s typically intemperate responses, by that time, to my suggestions for relieving the problems; along with his evasion of the issue of us having no line manager. As I had no alternative but to deliver the B851 course, since students had already started the MA programme, and I had been told that any increment in salary - vital for my pension (as was later recognised in the OU’s Grievance Brief) - depended on my successful delivery of the course, the only solution available was for me to push myself to the very limits of my endurance for a year. My sole consolation was, as I several times explained to OUBS management, that I would be able to recuperate when I took my subsequent study leave. This is why the unexpected – malicious - withdrawal of that study leave had such a direct impact on me during the meeting of 6 November 2001.

[back]     [home]

hits