University Challenge - Undermine Trade Unionism through Lies

Joint Statement from SOAS UNISON and SOAS UCU on the Dismissal of SOAS UNISON Branch Chair, Joseph Stalin Bermudez "Dear Colleagues "As we predicted, the School's hand-picked Star Chamber has rejected Stalin's  appeal against dismissal. Graham Furniss, Ian Brown and Matt Craven, advised by Peter Mitchell the HR Director, would appear to share the same perverted sense of justice as Sharon Page who sacked Stalin in February. "SOAS UNISON, UCU, and the Student Union, along with several voices on Academic Board, had called for a genuinely independent panel to hear the appeal. The School rejected that. Presumably they had no confidence in an independent panel to produce the result they wanted. "Stalin was absurdly accused by Sharon Page of a perceived "threat to kill" a colleague in September 2008. In fact, the original complaint contains no such allegation. The perception explicitly relates to alleged "death  threats" in 2007. Those allegations had been found to be "unfounded and unsubstantiated" in an earlier grievance hearing. Never mind. The investigating managers and Sharon Page fell over themselves to use those unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations to support the complainant's perception. Sharon Page made her decision to dismiss Stalin on her perception of the complainant's perception. An more unsafe conclusion could not be imagined. "There was, however, an eyewitness to the alleged incident, Pablo Grisales, a cleaner working temporarily in the post room. One might have expected the investigating managers to ask for a written witness statement, but that is not what happened. Pablo was called into an intimidating meeting with three managers present (Richard Poulson, Sian Jones and an OCEAN manager) and was read out a prepared statement which he was not shown and which he was asked to confirm. He was given no opportunity to qualify that statement (indeed, he was prevented from doing so) or to provide his own independent statement of events. That unsigned "statement" then became the "witness statement". No written report of that investigatory meeting was provided except for the manager's file note. "At the disciplinary hearing Pablo attended in person to provide his own witness statement which supported Stalin's recollection of events that there had been no threats. But this was dismissed by Sharon Page as a fabrication and she chose to believe the non-existent "witness statement" from the investigatory meeting. She decided to privilege the "evidence" of the managers' claim that Pablo had verbally confirmed their prepared statement over that of Pablo's. What else could one expect at SOAS? Obviously a black cleaner is less reliable than two white managers. "Here's what Sharon Page actually said: "In my role as Chair I was being asked to conclude whether two long serving and trusted managers were telling the truth, or whether Pablo Grisales had changed his recollection of events. On the balance of probabilities I concluded that I believed the two managers. I was satisfied that the evidence by (the complainant) and the SOAS managers was on balance far more credible than that of Jose Bermudez and Pablo Grisales." "What kind of reasoning is this? Pablo had not “changed his recollection of events” because he was never given the opportunity to give his recollection of events during the investigatory meeting. The managers were clearly not witnesses to the events. And just why is the complainant's view "far more credible" than Stalin's or Pablo's (the only independent witness to the incident)? Prejudice can be the only explanation. To say that this borders on downright racism would be an understatement. Sharon Page made her decision to dismiss Stalin on her perception of the complainant's perception. One white manager's perception of a white complainant's perception of a black employee. No contest in SOAS. "The greatest lack of credibility in this whole affair is in the way the incident was investigated and the how the decision to sack Stalin was arrived at. Even more incredible is the conclusion of the "payroll" appeal panel which could regard Sharon Page’s conclusions as being in any way “reasonable”. Quite frankly, this stinks. The whole SOAS disciplinary process has been brought into utter disrepute. "We cannot allow this to pass. As promised, UNISON and UCU will make available all the documentation and evidence relating to this case so that our members can make up their own minds. UNISON are currently balloting for industrial action and UCU will support them taking such action. Meanwhile a genuinely independent panel of professors will be established to examine the evidence and documentation and reinvestigate this miscarriage of justice. "Sadly, SOAS management seem to want to drag us back to the state of industrial relations at the end of 2005. If this is the case then both unions are ready to respond."