Oxford University
‘Two years after the alleged events the university grievance committee organized a re-hearing of the original Ms A complaint of April 2016, as the university needed to explain to the tribunal why an innocent man had been suspended for 11 months.'
During the Autumn of 2015, Ms A found that she would not be automatically promoted to principal investigator and group leader (PI/GL) of an Oxford University department with getting another research grant. There appeared to be a conflict of Ms A over the issue with the Nuffield department of medicine business manager and structural biology director. Ms A found that in the biochemistry department she was “recognised as being group leader”.
Knowing of her lack of proper scientific publications, Ms A was reluctant to go through a compulsory interview with the departmental research strategy group to acquire the new position. She decided to transfer to biochemistry, while needing to hide her professional failure. Ms A then accused Nuffield department of “intolerable conditions of work” and discrimination against her as a backlash to her complaint against sexual harassment on Nuffield premises. Ms A also accused her colleague Dr Oleg Iourin, with whom she had friendly relations, of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Ms A alleged that after giving her a lift home Oleg had made an (unsuccessful) attempt to kiss her when they were near her house - i.e. outside University jurisdiction, according to University understanding of events - and claimed this as a sexual assault. According to Ms A, Oleg harassed her on university premises in various ways to attract her attention - sending flowers, greetings in the canteen, etc. Oleg denied all the allegations, except giving her lift, several times. Ms A denied they were friends before her allegations, but all investigators confirmed the fact of good relations before the complaints.
Gradually preparing her story from January 2016, Ms A tried to clarify her chances in getting a PI/GL position in her department until April, when her application to bypass the Departmental research strategy group interview on the way to PI/GL position was firmly rejected. She then unleashed her thoroughly prepared story, with a delay of dates.
Originally, Ms A submitted three formal grievances. The first one was in April 2016 about sexual assault and sexual harassment from Oleg, and about inappropriate responses on behalf of human resources. On the same day she submitted an ACAS early conciliation notification in relation to Oxford University and Oleg. Nobody communicated with Oleg in connection to this notification. He was suspended from his job in May 2016.
Secondly, Ms A complained to police about a sexual assault in January, and sexual harassment until March 2016. After a one-hour informal conversation with Oleg the police decided not to uphold any of her allegations.
The third grievance was an Employment Tribunal Claim where Ms A alleged the Nuffield department of failure to address the sexual harassment carried out in the course of employment, which amounted to unwanted conduct related to sex. Such conduct allegedly created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for Ms A in her department at that time. According to Ms A, this situation should have been resolved by her transfer to the biochemistry department.
Such a goal could not be achieved without allegations of sexual harassment against Oleg. The allegation was a side-product of Ms A’s strategy against Nuffield. Ms A and her trade union representative requested to resolve this conflict by her transfer to biochemistry.
Ms A’s grievance was investigated. After long and unreasonable delays - with Ms A’s reluctance to co-operate with investigators while she waited for her transfer to biochemistry - the investigation was complete. In October 2016, two official reports were signed in which none of the allegations were upheld.
According to University policy and procedures on harassment, the head of Nuffield department should have produced his outcome decision without any additional hearings. Oleg was informed about the completion of the investigation and expected to return to his job after his suspension the previous May.
Ms A then attended a research strategy group interview where she was not allowed to have a position, and was prohibited from applying for new grants until she had any new research publications. A demand to step in and sort out the Research Strategy Group decision “to avoid further harm to Ms A’s career progression” was then made by her trade union representative, as if Ms A’s allegations against the department were correct. Such a suggestion was in strict conflict with the signed official reports.
Without any information being communicated to Oleg, Ms A’s grievance was escalated to divisional level. Oleg was left on suspension. An additional hearing of the case was created on the divisional level - although any replacement of the decision maker in this case would be a violation of University policy provisions. And, the Head of department was against depriving him the decision maker role.
Awaiting her transfer to biochemistry, Ms A was assisted in delaying her divisional panel hearing meeting for months. To enhance her position against Nuffield department, she submitted two additional complaints in January 2017: the first one again as internal complaint; the second being the employment tribunal claim “about the victimisation and backlash received” as they were handling her claim. Such additional allegations against Nuffield could not exist without the allegations against Oleg.
It turned out that organising Ms A’s transfer to biochemistry was a lengthy and complex issue. The outcome decision was further delayed together with Oleg’s suspension, whose health problems were fully neglected despite his complaints. He had developed ischaemic heart disease and had two urgent operations on his heart in January and March 2017.
Only Oleg’s complaints to the employment tribunal managed to prompt the judge to produce an order to present the amended final response from University. As a result the university produced an Outcome decision that did not uphold any of Ms A’ allegations, and on 12 April 2017 Oleg’s 11-month suspension was over. Nobody showed the decision to Oleg until it was accidently found in the tribunal bundle some 18 months later.
On 12 April 2017 Oleg submitted to the new decision maker a complaint against Ms A and accused her of being vexatious and acting not in good faith. Ms A became an officially accused liar, but several investigation Panels of different level avoided to consider malicious and vexatious aspects of numerous Ms A’ complaints, while University’ Policy on Harassment suggested so.
In April 2017, Ms A submitted an appeal against the decision of 5 April 2017.
Oleg also submitted his grievance against investigation procedures applied to him in conflict with then-valid university policy and procedures on harassment. These two complaints were clearly regarding different matters, but the university did not consider Oleg’s complaint until March 2018 - after an 11-month delay, as HR wanted this issue to be considered in parallel with Ms A’s Appeal.
However, Ms A still awaited her transfer to biochemistry and continued to demonstrate her reluctance to co-operate with the University grievance committee. This was in parallel with the announcement of her pregnancy, announced in January 2017 (and maternity leave from summer 2017).
Barrister Dee Masters investigated the second Ms A’s January 2017 grievance complaints and announced in her report:
“Ms A was denied the title of principal investigator/group leader. This is an allegation which I believe is levelled specifically at Professor DS. It appears to be Ms A’s primary complaint. I do not consider that this allegation is meritorious.”
Masters concluded her investigation with:
“After due and careful consideration, I have concluded that none of Ms A’s complaints can be substantiated.”
Ms A rejected an offer to collaborate with Dee Masters.
In March 2018, Oleg submitted an employment tribunal claim against Oxford University. And, two years after the alleged events the university grievance committee organised a re-hearing of the original Ms A complaint of April 2016, as the university needed to explain to the tribunal why an innocent man had been suspended for 11 months.
This became a motivation to find something wrong on Oleg’s part. Instead of stating whether Ms A’s allegations were supported or not supported, as per the policy, the committee manufactured two untrue statements and selectively ignored several key facts.
Then, on the balance of probability (of biased assumptions) the committee produced new “findings” about events between friends outside university jurisdiction, which were in strict conflict with Ms A’s statements and allegations about harassment.
Going outside the issues in Ms A’s Appeal of April 2017, the committee considered and discussed her transfer to the biochemistry department and removed from deliberations her complaints against Nuffield department. As a result, the committee replaced cause-consequence in her allegations.
The committee confirmed previous conclusions that there had not been any harassment, and that despite Ms A’s protests, that she had been a friend to Oleg before her complaints.
Oleg was not ‘condemned’, but no recommendation of any apology was produced, nor discipline recommended.
This was interpreted as permission to organise insulting and humiliating face-to-face training about harassment. As a result, Oleg’s health substantially deteriorated. Does Oxford University really need to have such major failures?
As told to False Allegations Watch by Dr Oleg Iourin
Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.
Comments