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