Manchester ET condemns Institutionally Racist culture at MMU
Institutionalised racial discrimination is defined in the Stephen Lawrence report in a variety of ways one being as follows:
"The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the way institutions may systematically treat or tend to treat people differently in respect of race. The addition of the word 'institutional' therefore identifies the source of the differential treatment; this lies in some sense within the organisation rather than simply with the individuals who represent it. The production of differential treatment is 'institutionalised' in the way the organisation operates".
On the 24th April 2005 the Times Higher Education Supplement in an article titled “ MMU denies Racism claim” reported on Manchester Metropolitan’s University’s continuing abuse of its ethnic minority members, and the view of the union, UNISON that it was institutionally racist and its race policies lip service MMUArticle.pdf. The Vice Chancellor, Dame Sandra Burslem, the following week, in a letter to the THES editor strongly rebuked the Union for its comments press.jpg.
However on the 6th June 2005, the Manchester Employment Tribunal gave an unprecedented decision in legal history in the case of Dr. C. D’Silva vs Manchester Metropolitan University (Case no: 2409906/03-2404779/04) and found the Vice-Chancellor Dame Sandra Burslem, Professor Barry Plumb Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Leach, Head of the Department of Chemistry, Professor Maureen O’Neal Pro-Vice Chancellor, Mr Bill Hallam Human Resources Director, Mr. Peter Gibb Employee Relations Manager and Dr. Julia Dickinson Principal Lecturer in Chemistry guilty of racial discrimination in the absence of Dr D’Silva or his witnesses giving evidence to shift the burden of proof MMUJudgeR.pdf. The claimant at this time was on three month's extended psychiatric leave due to his harassment by the University’s management prior to and after his case. The fact that the respondent Manchester Metroploitan University a flagship of the racial Equality Challenge Unit and CRE, identified as exmplar in race discrimination makes the victory extremely significant.
On his return to work later in 2005, Dr D’Silva was again forced to file two new claims in the Employment Tribunal which were to be heard on filling of the extended reasons of his judgement MMUJudge.pdf. However on supplying the extended reasons the respondents decided to appeal the judgment on the grounds of perversity.
Background The claimant, Dr D’Silva, joined MMU as a senior lecturer in the academic year 1993-4, bringing with him a generous research grant from the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). He was led to believe by the head of department, Professor John Leach, that he would be provided time for research and facilities consistent with an established University Department. Nonetheless, Prof. Leach gave Dr D’Silva a heavy teaching timetable of 18 hours per week and laboratory classes of up to 30 students rather than the pre-requisite maximum of 15 students per member of staff due to the health and safety implications and stress. His own facilities for research were negligible and the postdoc that he was supervising was allocated half a bench in the laboratory, unlike the more generous space and facilities allocated by Professor Leach to his jointly supervised, University-funded undergraduate students.
The Response
Professor Leach refused to address Dr D’Silva’s above issues and those of racial discrimination raised in his Performance Development Review (PDR) but bullied him, trying to undermine his self-esteem using univestigated comments from students and hearsay from other members of staff.
In April 2001 Dr D’Silva raised again his ongoing issues with his Head of Department and his then racial harrassment by the Research Coordinator of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) who informed him he was going to end his research career unless he worked for him (‘shined his shoes’). The Head of Department refused to investigate Dr D’Silva’s complaint of harassment and informed him he would ‘teach him a lesson’ for requesting he do his duty in regard to this matter, which was seen by the ET to be an act of racial incitement.
A month later in August 2001, Dr D’Silva found himself the subject of a performance investigation initiated by Professor Leach supported by Personnel for failing to accept a joint studentship with the then Research Coordinator, his racial harrasser. This was the University’s first attempt to undermine his claim of racial discrimination & harrassment.
Then, Professor Leach and Human Resources canvased two sets of teaching complaints against him and witheld documents about his Ministry of Defence (MOD) grant to create further performance issues to discredit him. In a meeting with Professor Leach, Derek Cowley (Human Resorces) and a NATHFE representative, Dr D’Silva was informed that he had been removed from the RAE 2001 exercise which he saw at that time to be a deliberate attempt to undermine his career and chances of promotion to Reader or Professor as publications submitted to the RAE 2001 exercise were part of the promotion criteria.
In 2001 Dr D’Silva & Dr Waquar Ahmed (Asian) from the same Department both applied for Readership and/or Professorship. On surprisingly finding that both he and Dr Ahmed with more than 60 refereed papers and a greater number of conference papers did not obtain a Readership or Professorship, Dr D’Silva realised that he had been discriminated against. The benchmark for Readership and Professorship was about a dozen papers and it had been accepted that they were in low impact Journals.
The Union and the CRE
On contacting his local NATFHE branch for assistance on all his matters Dr D’Silva was directed to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) for assistance. The CRE helped him file a Tribunal claim in September 2002 against MMU which was to be heard in September 2003 in regard to all the above issues. NATFHE’s Senior solicitor Michael Scott advised him to file a grievance against Professor Leach with the Head of Human Resources, Mr Bill Hallam. But Mr Hallam denied him a grievance in breach of the Race Amendment Act 2002. However NATFHE’s Senior solicitor cited irrelevant case law and defended the University’s position to deny him merits for his claim and legal assistance in breach of the Unions duty of care.
The Employment Tribunal 2003
In desperation Dr D’Silva engaged a race discrimination barrister to pursue his case due to the University’s threats of costs against him if he were to seek an adjournment. The case against Manchester Metropolitan, John Leach (Head of Department ) and Profesor Norman Allen (Research coordinator) was part-heard. The Pro-Vice Chancellor’s, Mr Barry Plumb's conduct was commented on two occasions by the Chairman that (a) he had breached the Race Relations Act 1976 and (b) the Race Amendment Act 2002 in regard to harassment of Dr D’Silva.
Withdrawal Agreement
The respondents knew they were to find themselves in difficulty when they took the stand. During lunch, the University's barrister and Dr D'Silva's own barrister colluded and used the Unfounded threat of costs to compel Dr D'Silva to withdraw his case. Dr D’Silva, on re-assurances that he was being given sound legal advice, was reasonable and signed a ‘no recriminations’ withdrawal agreement and withdrew his case giving the University the opportunity to save face and address his complaints informally via their own grievance procedure.
Withdrawal Terms Broken … and the Glass Ceiling
Less than eight days after withdrawl of the tribunal claim, the University broke the terms of the withdrawal. They tried to remove Dr D’Silva from lecturing on the core timetable and pursued the withdrawn complaints to discredit him. They refused to address his grievances impartially and the Vice Chancellor refused to accept the involvement of ACAS on a grievance panel and again discriminated against him in regard to promotion so he had to file four new employment tribunal claims between 2003-2004. In 2004 the University in view of the revelations in Dr D’Silva’s 2003 case finally broke the glass ceiling and appointed an Asian lecturer to Principal Lecturer and Dr. Ahmed (Asian) and Dr Bander (Iraqi) to Reader in 2004. Dr Ahmed was denied a Professorship by the Head of Department so in 2005 he accepted a Professorship at a 5 * University (Ulster) and left the Department.
Employment Tribunal 2005
A month before the hearing of his case in April 2005 as a result of further harassment by the University’s management, Dr D’Silva became ill and went on three months psychiatric sick leave. The Tribunal refused him an adjournment of his month long case and it proceeded in his absence without him or his four witnesses giving evidence or a referenced witness statement being used. All four of his witnesses had suffered detriment by the University and three had ongoing cases of racial discrimination against the University. A third member of the same Department, had also received less favourable treatment. On the 6th June 2005, the Manchester Tribunal (see above), found the Senior members of the University guilty as charged of racial discrimination.
The above judgement was some vindication in regard to the University’s treatment of Dr. D’Silva and all its ethnic minorities in the Chemistry & Materials Department. However this was little compensation for the significant expenditure of his own professional time, damage to health, research, self-esteem and his personal life, and the financial resources that he spent to obtain justice. However, the University via further legal actions delayed the publication of his Judgement until April 2006 to punish him financially. They then used the pretext of the unavailability of their counsel on two occassions to undermine the remedies hearing and in Sept 2006 they informed the O'Hara tribunal of their decision the appeal the judgement on the grounds perversity.
Due to the harassment suffered by Dr D’Silva in 2005 prior to his case, Dr D’Silva filed a new claim on his return to work in late 2005 in regard to discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Change in the Attitude of Senior Management?
That year Professor John Leach, the Vice Chancellor, Dame Sandra Burslem, and Tom Booth the Head of the Board of Governors all retired. Dr. Julia Dickinson and the Research Coordinator were moved out of the Department of Chemistry & Materials. Bill Hallam in 2007 the respondent in Colin Williams case died of cancer a few weeks before the hearing at the Leeds tribunal.
The new Chairman of the Board of Governors, Mr Benzie and Vice Chancellor. Professor John Brooks appointed in 2005/2006, despite not being involved in any of the acts of discrimination refused to hear Dr D’Silva’s grievances in breach of the statutory grievance procedure against those who racially discriminated and harassed him and refused to take any action against those found guilty so he has had to file a new case against the University in 2006.
Outcomes of other Racial Discrimination Cases at MMU
J. Reika & C. Williams’ race discrimination cases, the latter containing overt racial discrimination and victimisation like Dr D’Silva’s were ongoing with the University refusing to deal with their grievances impartially and both being forced to seek re-dress via the tribunal system. A week before his case was to be heard in the Leeds tribunal on the 25th June 2007 , Colin William under pressure settled his case with the University and retired early. J. Reika's case continued with his appeal being heard by the Board of Governors.
Dr D’Silva continues to seek justice whilst the University continues to discriminate against him and his research students. The UCU’s senior officials continue to deny him access to any legal assistance via legal aid clause 5.6 for exposing their conduct in how they undermined their members’ cases (Cafas 51).
