Education Reform Act 1988 (amended 1992), S. 202-205
202: The University Commissioners
(2) In exercising those functions, the Commissioners shall have regard to the need –
(b) to enable qualifying institutions to provide education, promote learning and engage in research efficiently and economically; and
(c) to apply the principles of justice and fairness
203: Duty of Commissioners
(1) The Commissioners shall exercise the powers conferred by section 204 of this Act with a view to securing that the statutes of each qualifying institution include-
(c) provision establishing disciplinary procedures determined by the Commissioners for dealing with any complaints made against any member of the academic staff relating to his appointment or employment;
(d) provision establishing procedures determined by the Commissioners for hearing and determining appeals by any members of the academic staff who are dismissed or under notice of dismissal […]or who are otherwise disciplined; and
(e) provision establishing procedures determined by the Commissioners for affording to any member of the academic staff opportunities for seeking redress for any grievances relating to his appointment or employment.
(2) No provision such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) [redundancy] or (b) [good cause] above which is included in the statutes of a qualifying institution by virtue of section 204 of this Act shall enable any member of the academic staff to be dismissed unless the reason for his dismissal may in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the institution) reasonably be treated as a sufficient reason for dismissing him.
Articles of Government (effective on 2 December 1994)
(At Council Chamber, Whitehall, 16 Feb 1993, by the Lords of her Majesty's most honourable privy council, their Lordships, in exercise of the powers conferred on Them by the said section 124A (3) (of the Education Reform Act 1988, 1992) are pleased to, and do hereby, make an instrument of government of the University higher education corporation as set out in the Schedule to this order, which shall come into force forthwith: Schedule. Instrument of Government referred to in the foregoing order)
In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 125 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the University Higher Education Corporation makes the following Articles of Government in accordance with which the University shall be conducted:
2.1 The University shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Education Acts 1944 to 1993, any subsequent Education Acts, any relevant regulations, orders or directions made by the Secretary of State, or by the Privy Council, and subject thereto, in accordance with the provisions of the Instrument, these Articles and any rules or bye-laws made under these Articles.
Provisions by the Commissioners (Board of Governors) re. Education Reform Act
7 Cases of Discrimination
7.1 A member of staff affected by behaviour which s/he feels is in breach of the University's Equal Opportunities Policy and General Supporting Statement, and which s/he feels unable to resolve with the individual concerned, should, if possible, report such behaviour to his/her manager or head of department. There may be circumstances in which this is inappropriate, in which case the behaviour should be reported to any other member of staff with whom s/he feels able to discuss the problem.
7.2 The aggrieved member of staff must accept that, in order to take the matter further, s/he will be required to lodge a formal complaint or grievance, and in doing so will pass the responsibility for dealing with the problem to the University. The complaint/grievance should be submitted to either the appropriate manager or to the Head of Personnel, who will ensure that the allegation is properly and sensitively investigate, and that the member fo staff is given appropriate support and protection.
8.2 Grievance against a manager/ head of department
8.2.1 If the grievance relates to a member of staff’s manager or head of department, and it is considered inappropriate to discuss the issue further with this individual, the member of staff should refer the issue to the next appropriate level of management
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Friday, 10 August 2007
Problem 4: Dealing with a grievance raised by a senior academic
As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, you are aware that a Head of Department has been, and is, treating a senior academic unfairly subsequent upon the academic having raised a grievance with him of plagiarism of his/her work (which has still not been addressed), and that the senior academic is being bullied. Such treatment also includes the Head of Department preventing the senior academic from attending conferences for professional development, from presenting research papers at conferences and from publishing (all part of the academic’s permanent contract of employment, and which other staff in the Department are engaged in).
On 5 Oct 1998, an incident occurs in which the senior academic is then suddenly treated inconsistently in relation to a working /academic trip (to two different places and which includes an international research conference between 12-15 Oct 1998). The trip has been set up in accordance with the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following usual practice, and the academic has also followed some unusual stipulations by his/her Head of Department (emailed on 24 Sept 1998). No procedures existed for working / academic trips.
In the Head of Department’s email to the senior academic on 24 Sept 1998, he suddenly described the working trip as ‘leave of absence’. However, the senior academic had not requested leave of absence for 12-16 Oct 1998. The senior academic had set up a working trip in accordance with the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following usual practice (which is normally to notify him of the trip, although this courtesy is not always followed by other staff at the University). The senior academic organised meetings at two different academic institutes, paid for the trip (the Head of Department stipulated that it was to be at no extra cost to the University), and submitted the insurance form for processing in the Personnel Department in the usual way (2 Oct 1998). This was accepted.
On 5 Oct 1998, the senior academic suddenly received an email from the Head of Department stating that he/ she did not have his permission to go to one of the places (where the senior academic had set up a student and staff exchange link). Permission was in any case not required for such trips.
As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, you are contacted on 5 Oct 1998 by the senior academic: he/she raises a grievance about the Head of Department’s behaviour towards him/her and requests your urgent assistance. From 7 Oct onwards the union is also engaged with you on this matter; it has been engaged with you since 25 Sept 1998 on matters relating to the senior academic’s working environment, the fact that he/ she has been removed from the timetable which has just been handed out to students (28 Sept 1998) and has still not had his/her workload negotiated properly as is required by the Head of Department.
As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, how would you proceed? Would you:
a) seek to protect the member of staff from further harm in whatever way seems appropriate
b) liaise constructively with the union and sort matters through them
c) send out a memo about health and safety at work
d) seek further information ahead of a meeting with all concerned
e) adopt the ostrich position
f) actively support the Head of Department to the detriment of the member of staff and without his/her knowledge
g) entrap the senior academic by allowing the union and senior academic to think that you are supporting them whilst you are secretly supporting the Head of Department in his actions to harm the senior academic
On 5 Oct 1998, an incident occurs in which the senior academic is then suddenly treated inconsistently in relation to a working /academic trip (to two different places and which includes an international research conference between 12-15 Oct 1998). The trip has been set up in accordance with the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following usual practice, and the academic has also followed some unusual stipulations by his/her Head of Department (emailed on 24 Sept 1998). No procedures existed for working / academic trips.
In the Head of Department’s email to the senior academic on 24 Sept 1998, he suddenly described the working trip as ‘leave of absence’. However, the senior academic had not requested leave of absence for 12-16 Oct 1998. The senior academic had set up a working trip in accordance with the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following usual practice (which is normally to notify him of the trip, although this courtesy is not always followed by other staff at the University). The senior academic organised meetings at two different academic institutes, paid for the trip (the Head of Department stipulated that it was to be at no extra cost to the University), and submitted the insurance form for processing in the Personnel Department in the usual way (2 Oct 1998). This was accepted.
On 5 Oct 1998, the senior academic suddenly received an email from the Head of Department stating that he/ she did not have his permission to go to one of the places (where the senior academic had set up a student and staff exchange link). Permission was in any case not required for such trips.
As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, you are contacted on 5 Oct 1998 by the senior academic: he/she raises a grievance about the Head of Department’s behaviour towards him/her and requests your urgent assistance. From 7 Oct onwards the union is also engaged with you on this matter; it has been engaged with you since 25 Sept 1998 on matters relating to the senior academic’s working environment, the fact that he/ she has been removed from the timetable which has just been handed out to students (28 Sept 1998) and has still not had his/her workload negotiated properly as is required by the Head of Department.
As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, how would you proceed? Would you:
a) seek to protect the member of staff from further harm in whatever way seems appropriate
b) liaise constructively with the union and sort matters through them
c) send out a memo about health and safety at work
d) seek further information ahead of a meeting with all concerned
e) adopt the ostrich position
f) actively support the Head of Department to the detriment of the member of staff and without his/her knowledge
g) entrap the senior academic by allowing the union and senior academic to think that you are supporting them whilst you are secretly supporting the Head of Department in his actions to harm the senior academic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)