DESTROYED IN COURT
0436 TRIBUNAL - MEETING ON 6 NOVEMBER 2001
[The description, in my submission, of the meeting in which I started my breakdown]
My own key face-to-face meeting was held with Roland Kaye – at his request - on 6 November 2001; just under a month after his statement to OU Personnel of his intent to destroy me financially. Accordingly, his premeditated attack included initially threatening me with an action for defamation. This exactly followed the line that he had previously threatened to take, in that earlier email to Philip Marsh; when he had stated his intention of bringing legal action to empty my pockets so that I would be forced to shut up. In fact I immediately apologized and removed any grounds for defamation. Having had this tactic neutralised, but well aware of my fragile mental state – which he had identified in that same email and which I myself had previously made known to him and OU Personnel Department - he then proceeded to revoke my agreed leave. He well knew – having been told about it by me a number of `times -that this was my route to convalescence from the overwhelming stresses of the previous year. Thus, he proved much more successful with this deliberate, premeditated, form of attack; so much so that I actually started my breakdown as the meeting progressed!
79. I was invited, by the Dean’s secretary, to this supposedly informal meeting on the basis that it was a routine ‘chat’ with my line manager. Accordingly I assumed it was indeed a simple review of my position, with my line manager, though I optimistically hoped it would also be used to resolve the stresses – arising from the grievance over the chair selection processes - which were then afflicting me. However, despite the previous recognition of my highly stressed medical condition by OU Personnel and the Dean’s clear agreement with Personnel that he was fully aware of my ‘questionable mental state’, discussion in this meeting (which it then emerged was indeed called ‘unofficially’ by him specifically in order to resolve my emerging grievance) did not - as I had been led to expect from my prior communications with Personnel - in any way try to ameliorate or even address my stress problems. Instead – as formally ‘witnessed’ by Katie Stocks (who also took minutes) – it quickly set out to be a formal confrontation. Perhaps this reflected his publicly expressed anger which was in turn possibly fuelled by the publication of the earlier gross libel. Whatever the reason, as he had planned, it was used by the Dean as an excuse to launch into an even more aggressive attack on me. Above all, therefore, the transcript clearly shows (especially on the original recording) me being deliberately driven into a breakdown; with his aggressive attack carrying on for a full half hour after I pleaded to be allowed to leave the meeting since I was experiencing a major nervous breakdown.
80. In addition to my transcript there were two other reports of this key meeting. The first was by Katie Stocks. My own response, in italic underlined, was returned the same day. As this meeting represented a pivotal event in this case, the fact that the transcript is different in significant respects from the OUBS minutes is important evidence of the OUBS management’s intention to manipulate the subsequent negotiating processes within OUBS.
81. The transcript, however, crucially showed that, in addition to strenuously trying to force me to abandon my potential grievance, early in the meeting the Dean launched into a very personal attack and then accused me of defamation, in that I had said that Mark Tulitt had claimed to be a friend of his; reporting a seemingly innocuous statement made by the consultant which I had no reason to disbelieve. This was in line with the tactics he stated would be used, in his earlier statement to OU Personnel. Even so, the defamation claim ultimately held no water. I was only reporting what I thought had been said, and did not think, even then, that it was derogatory; and I had immediately withdrawn the comment and apologised as soon as I was made aware that this was not the case. Indeed I repeated that withdrawal and apology, on the record, at the meeting itself.
82. Accordingly, he switched to withdrawal of my leave entitlement; which he – correctly, as events proved - thought would precipitate a major psychological crisis for me. As a result of this attack on my Achilles Heel, less than half way through the meeting, I truthfully told him “You are pushing me into a bloody breakdown”, followed by “I am sorry let us break up this meeting and …I will bring in the AUT to represent me…” Despite this plea (which was in line with the facts about my health that he, and OU Personnel Department, were well aware of), and my obvious state of distress, the Dean continued to bully me in a similar manner for a further half hour until my breakdown was complete!
In his summing up OU Counsel rather naively claimed that there was no evidence that I really did suffer a breakdown in this meeting; even though I had stated as much in the transcript (which had been accepted as accurate) and my GP diagnosed the condition immediately afterwards.
hits