Problem 5: Dealing with a working trip organised by a senior academic within the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following normal practice

As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, you have been aware for some time that a Head of Department has been, and is, treating a senior academic unfairly. Indeed, you have already admitted in confidence that there is a lot that the University has to do in order to prevent a formal accusation of failing to protect the senior academic from bullying, harassment, victimisation and unfair treatment (confidential memo to the senior academic’s Head of Department, dated 6 Oct 1998).

The same academic has just engaged in a working trip (12-16 Oct 1998) which was set up within the terms and conditions of his/her contract, following normal practice and also in accordance with some unusual stipulations by his/her Head of Department (sent by email on 24 Sept 1998). The senior academic had also raised a complaint/grievance with you, with the support of the Union, about the inconsistent information and arbitrary stipulations he/she is receiving from the Head of Department in relation to the trip. The senior academic was informed between Wed. 7 Oct 1998 and Fri. 9 Oct 1998 that you had agreed for him/her to go ahead with the trip (no formal authorisation for such trips was, in any case, required). On 16 Oct 1998, the senior academic sent a fax to the Vice Chancellor detailing prospective collaborative work/ business in the light of meetings the academic had initiated and at the behest of the Vice Chancellor’s secretary. Prior to sending the fax, the senior academic had also set up a meeting with the Vice Chancellor for the 20 Oct 1998. As Deputy Vice Chancellor, you also receive a copy of this fax from the Vice Chancellor and are asked for your advice on matters.

Unbeknown to the senior academic, you have received a note from the academic’s Head of Department sent in the academic’s absence on 12 Oct 1998 and without any warning to the senior academic, stating that he/she is “absent without authorisation”. Furthermore, in spite of your and his prior knowledge that the university has a lot to do to avoid a formal accusation of failing to protect the academic from bullying, harassment and unfair treatment (6 Oct 1998), the senior academic’s Head of Department has recommended in his note of 12 Oct 1998 that “disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of gross professional misconduct” are instigated.

As Deputy Vice Chancellor (Deputy Director), Director of Staffing, how would you proceed? Would you:


a) seek to protect the senior academic from further harm in whatever way seems appropriate
b) set up a meeting with the senior academic on his/her return to find out what is happening
c) diffuse the situation immediately by the most constructive means and seek further information ahead of a meeting with all concerned
d) set up a meeting with the senior academic and others to clarify misunderstandings, misinterpretations, inconsistencies and arbitrariness in policy and practice
e) adopt the ostrich position
f) suspend the senior colleague on normal pay and conditions until you’ve collected all evidence
g) suspend the senior colleague on normal pay and conditions and inform the Board of Governors of your intent
h) suspend the senior colleague on normal pay and conditions with immediate effect, before hearing him/her and without allowing him/her access to his/her office or colleagues
i) intimidate and harm the colleague by suspending the senior colleague on normal pay and conditions with immediate effect, without any warning and before hearing him/her and without allowing him/her access to his/her office or colleagues, and without informing the Board of Governors, and pending a disciplinary hearing for allegedly being “absence without authority”