|
"Pathologies" and destruction of evidence The two versions of the Corner/Esler report |
The Association of University Teachers (AUT) and their abominable solicitors (2)
David Stevenson, the solicitor who initially handled my case, made another gross and extremely costly error. He failed to advise me that I could have filed my claim under the Public Interest Disclosures Act, 1998—the whistleblower's act. This failure had significant ramifications for the way the case was subsequently brought because whistleblowers have a special protection under the law. Mr Stevenson also failed to pass information from ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service) to me or from me to ACAS, thus prejudicing the possibility of a settlement without going to an employment tribunal. He also repeatedly failed to reply to my queries. Just why did he suddenly—and with no explanation to me—suddenly hand over the case to Carol Fox, who was not qualified as a solicitor? There are a few possible explanations. David Stevenson's disappearance coincided with the University's submission of a very large dossier of papers to be included in the "bundle" presented at the tribunal. Possibly Mr Stevenson was simply too lazy to read them and passed them on to a junior who had no choice but to do what she was told if she wanted to become qualified. Another possibility was that Mr Stevenson realized that his inital flawed advice—that I could resign giving three months' notice—was bound to cause me to lose the case. Rather than take responsibility for this, he passed the case to Carol Fox, thus making her a patsy. A third, and much more likely, possibility was that there was an agreement between Mr Stevenson and Ms Fox on the one hand and between them and the AUT on the other. Mr Stevenson hands the case over to Ms Fox telling her that I'm bound to lose and that she is to humour me and concoct a report for the AUT, making it clear that I have no chance of success. The AUT are let in on this privately by Mr Stevenson so that everyone can sing from the same hymn sheet. The "solicitors" and the AUT reach an agreement that they will appear to be seen to be helpful by agreeing to support me as far as the preliminary Hearing on Directions but no further because the case has no reasonable prospect of success. (But why did they offer to support me even this far if there was no chance of success?) They also put pressure on me to ask the University to settle out of court. (I refused to do this on the advice of other lawyers who said it would weaken my position, and that it was up to the University to seek a settlement since I had brought the action.) The AUT's Legal Aid Committee then sings the hymn and says there is no prospect of success because Ms Fox (their "solicitors") has written a legal opinion saying so. Although the AUT are perfectly aware that Ms Fox is not a solicitor and that her opinion and legal recommendations are riddled with falsehoods and misleading statements, they are let off the hook and do not have to fund a potentially expensive hearing or offend a high-profile and powerful employer. Thompsons, the "solicitors" retained by the union, get to pocket a nice cheque and everybody is happy. Everyone, that is, except the union member who trusted his trade union to provide him with proper legal protection, as is their contractual duty towards their members in such circumstances. The main thing that I learned from my correspondence with AUT officials and their "solicitors" was that they were fundamentally dishonest and that the union subscriptions I had paid since 1986 were a complete waste of money. I urge all AUT/UCU members to think very carefully about why they are subscribing to this union and to consider cancelling their membership. If the union is not prepared to provide them with the legal protection they have paid for and instead does cosy deals with unscrupulous lawyers, their hard-earned fees are a swindle. Should the AUT/UCU, Thompsons Solicitors or Ms Fox wish to contest what is on these pages, I am more than prepared to answer them. I have all of the original correspondence. Back to the main story: click here... ********** Skorupski's Law: "The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality" |