I, DIAMOND VERSI of xxxxx, Oxfordshire, WILL SAY as follows:
1. I was employed by Keble College ("Keble") since 6 March 1989. I was born on 10 August 1947, am 57 years old and was born in Zanzibar. I am of Asian origin. I was dismissed by Keble on 2 April 2004. I have issued a claim in the Reading Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract against Keble and for race discrimination and victimisation against the Bursar of Keble, Roger Boden. I believe that I was unfairly dismissed by Keble. I also believe that I have been discriminated against and/or victimised by Keble and by Roger Boden on the grounds of my race or ethnic origin.
2. The grounds of my complaint are as stated in the Application to the Tribunal at pages 1-7 of the Tribunal bundle.
3. I am a part-qualified member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. At page 872 of the bundle there are listed my examinations. To complete my Association membership and to become a fully qualified Chartered Certified Accountant, I must complete three further papers.
4. I commenced work experience in accountancy in 1965. Thereafter I completed A levels and a university degree in chemical engineering. I commenced employment as a trainee Accountant in 1973 following my degree. Since 1973 I have been employed as an Accountant save for a gap of 2 years when I was self-employed in Zaire. My curriculum vitae is at pages 870-871 of the bundle.
5. In 1989 Keble sought to appoint a College Accountant. The document explaining the appointment of the College Accountant is at pages 126-127 of the bundle. I applied for the post of College Accountant by letter of 6 January 1989. My letter and curriculum vitae of 1989 are at pages 128-130 of the bundle. I completed a pre-employment interview form, which is at pages 131-132 of the bundle. In late January 1989 I attended an interview with Keble and was subsequently verbally offered the post of Accountant. A copy of the offer letter dated 1 February 1989 is at pages 133-134 of the bundle. I accepted the offer in writing on 2 February 1989 and this letter is at page 135 of the bundle. The commencement date of my employment was 6 March 1989. At pages 136-138 and 140 references from my personnel file show my aptitude for work and good conduct.
6. It is necessary to raise the historical issue of my pension with Keble and the background to my membership of the University's Superannuation Scheme. At page 142 of the bundle my employment statement confirms that I am eligible for membership of the Keble College Staff Pension Scheme. Previously I had been employed with University College Oxford between August 1980 and September 1985. Upon leaving University College for employment with Oxford Magnet Technology Limited, I took a refund of the contributions that I had paid in to the USS scheme. It was a rule of the scheme that if I ever joined a USS organisation again and paid back the refunded contributions, plus 4% interest I would be able to claim back those years at the later date.
7. Upon joining Keble I became aware that Keble had signed a Deed of Accession to USS in April 1975 that stated all academic and academic related staff must join the USS scheme. At page 171-172 a letter from the University Superannuation Officer and at pages 195-196, 201-202 and 209-210 letters from the USS confirm the signing of the Deed by Keble. Keble did not follow this Deed and I was entered into the Scottish Life Scheme, along with the other non-academic staff. I had raised this query prior to 1995 and I refer you to pages 154 and 160-162 of the bundle. In 1995 I negotiated a deal between Keble and the University of Oxford to transfer the Keble College scheme into the University scheme or University of Oxford Staff Pension Scheme (OSPS). This saved the College a lot of money and was a better scheme for those within it. OSPS would not accept me as a member nor three other employees. The reason for them declining to accept us as members was that they said we should have belonged to the USS scheme because we were academic related staff. However, due to this discrepancy I had missed a deadline for a change in the rules and was therefore not able to put my 5 years contributions back into the scheme. I raised a grievance in relation to this and the matter was referred to Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS) and consequently I entered into an Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) procedure with the USS. Pages 182-213 refer to my complaint.
8. USS reconsidered the position, reprimanded the College for not following the Deed and permitted me to become a member of USS and put back in the 5 years contributions with 4% interest. I was therefore not disadvantaged. I refer you to pages 209-210 of the bundle. In her letter to the USS at page 205 of the bundle the warden states that the USS membership was not offered to academic related staff. This is not true as Mrs Robinson, the college librarian, was a USS member and she was an academic related staff who was not in the Oxford University Calendar. At page 182 of the bundle I referred to this membership in my memo of 1st September 1997.
9. The relevance of this point is that if I had been transferred to the OSPS scheme my contribution would have been 5%. I had to join the USS scheme because OSPS would not accept my membership. The Bursar at the time who was Mr Ken Lovett (KL) felt that it was appropriate for any staff who had to join the USS scheme and make employees contributions of 6.35%, an increased contribution of 1.35%, should be compensated by an increase in salary of 1.35%. At page 173 of the bundle there is an authorisation from KL for an increase in payment of 1.35% for the members of staff who were disadvantaged. In reality this applied to myself and Deborah Rogers. At no time have I applied a 1.35% payrise without proper authorisation. At page 174 there is a memo from me as a trustee of the then pension scheme agreeing to the arrangement.
10. In 1990 I had an appraisal with Dr Alan Corney, the Bursar at the time of Keble College. Dr Corney was a very good academic but I found his methods of working difficult. Roger Boden implies that there were strained relationships with previous Bursars. If that were the case, I would have lost my job a long time ago. In an appraisal there are always points of improvement with even the best employee. I refer the Tribunal to pages 144-150 in relation to the appraisal with Dr Corney. I wrote to Dr Corney requesting more money and the notes of Dr Corney's assessment of my salary are contained at page 151. Dr Corney's response is at pages 152-153 of the bundle. At the beginning of September 1990 I was offered an opportunity at Kings School, Canterbury and so I tendered my resignation in writing. This letter is at page 155 of the bundle. At page 156 there is a memo from Dr Corney. Dr Corney persuaded me to stay at the College whilst he was looking for a replacement. I agreed to stay and withdrew my resignation. This letter is at page 157. Dr Corney then sent a further memo at page 158 of the bundle.
11. In 1995 I purchased a computer and printer for my home. The invoices for this hardware are at pages 164-165 of the bundle. At pages 166-170 there are communications between myself and the Inland Revenue in relation to the equipment, which was purchased for 75% of the time for my work at Keble. In 1998 Keble provided a computer to me to upgrade my computer. My computer was then taken to Keble and used in the Junior Common Room (JCR). This is a relevant fact as Keble sought the return of the computer upon the termination of my employment on 2 April 2004. I understand that this counter-claim has been withdrawn by Keble. I believe Roger Boden must have known all of these.
12. At page 214 of the bundle you will see that there is a Project Control form. Approximately 2/3rds of the way down on the right hand side there is a space for the Accountant, that would be my position to sign off the Project Control form. This is relevant as it was later changed by Roger Boden. At pages 216-219 of the bundle Roger Boden on the 10 July 2001 reviews the staff salary and bonus proposals. Roger Boden was new at the job at this point and had carried out a favourable appraisal on me. I considered that he was learning his role at this point and therefore fully expected him to be positive in the assessment of my work. He was positive in that assessment and this is contained at page 217 of the bundle.
13. At page 220 of the bundle there is a letter from me to Andrew Hardiman. Andrew Hardiman was an individual within the Accounts Department. I was authorised to agree loans with an employee up to £2,000. Andrew Hardiman's request was for £5,000 and I therefore referred the matter in the proper manner to the Bursar, Roger Boden. Andrew Hardiman is a white male in the role of payroll assistant. His salary was approximately £15,000. Roger Boden agreed to provide the loan of £5,000 to Andrew Hardiman. The cheque was signed by Roger Boden. This is a direct comparator with the situation and request of a loan from Mrs Naheed Chaudhry that I will detail later in my statement.
14. The Tribunal will see at pages 221-257 of the bundle the Keble Staff Handbook. There is an Equal Opportunities Policy Statement at page 257. The Grievance Procedure is at page 238 of the bundle. I consider the Equal Opportunities Policy has been breached in that I have not been treated fairly because of my race and/or ethnic origin.
15. At page 259 of the bundle there is a handwritten note that I wrote following the 21 November 2002 meeting with Roger Boden. Roger called me to his office first thing in the morning and complained that I had been coming in late and finishing early. I informed him by stating that whilst he was hardly ever in the College, I had consistently worked on Saturdays and Sundays and in the evenings, staying until 11pm and further accessed the system from home to complete work. I had never complained and no one had ever enquired after my health in relation to working such long hours. This is in comparison with Roger Boden who does work very hard at times, but is able to go away when it is not too busy. Roger then proceeded to shout and scream at me on how dare I speak to him like that. I got up and left his office, as I could not tolerate being shouted at in this way.
16. I refer the Tribunal to pages 260-260j of the bundle. On 28 November 2001 Roger Boden sent me a note asking me to pay the Warden at a higher rate and compensate her for an alleged underpayment. All pay rises have to be authorised by the Governing Body and therefore this instruction was unauthorised. The Warden's pay was originally authorised as an additional Schedule III departmental allowance at a Finance Committee meeting of 4 October 1995 and approved by the Governing Body meeting of 11 October 1995. There was no need to visit this issue without getting the Finance Committee and Governing Body involved. I pointed out to Roger Boden in my email (at page 260) that the new schedule V was the old schedule III. There was no need to pay the Warden back pay with interest for the alleged underpayment as she was paid correctly. He ignored my objection and asked me to pay her a higher sum. The attached 'FC note' of 30 January 2002 shows that the Finance Committee authorised a rise to schedule II without knowing that Roger Boden had already given the Warden an unauthorised pay rise at an incorrect pay scale (schedule III when it should have been at schedule V). I brought this matter to the attention of the auditors at the audit for the period ended 31 July 2002. Roger Boden told the auditors that the pay was authorised at the finance Committee meeting of 30 January 2002. This is partly correct but the unauthorised pay increase took place in his instruction to me dated 28 November 2001. Soon after the Warden passed a minute at a Governing Body giving Roger Boden a pay rise of about £5000 on an open ended pay scale of academic related grade VI.
17. At page 261 of the bundle there is my handwritten note of what occurred on 20 December 2002. Prior to the warden's Christmas party, Roger Boden stormed into my office and demanded to know why my car was parked next to the plant pots. I referred him to the fact that the previous day an individual had parked in exactly the same spot but that he had not picked on him or asked him to move his car. I did remove my car. At approximately noon as I was leaving the warden's Christmas party Roger Boden stepped between me and the door. I found this quite intimidating. He asked me to provide both mine and my staff's passwords for entry into the computer system. I said that I felt this was inappropriate and why had he not discussed the issue with me earlier? I felt that passwords were personal property and should not be divulged. I returned to my office and discussed the provision of the passwords with the Accounts Department. The staff in the Accounts Department were uncomfortable in providing the passwords and I agreed with them. Therefore they provided the passwords to me, but I did not provide them to Roger Boden. I then left Keble to go home. The Bursar's secretary phoned a colleague in the Accounts Department Julie Hernadez who provided her password over the phone. I received a telephone call from the IT Manager who told me that my password had been disabled and a new one created. The IT Manager also informed me that Roger Boden had blocked my external access. I was shocked. This was a direct breach of trust. I had the external access since 1995. I had arranged for software house to look at some problems on the computer. I was concerned that they would not be able to access the system as it was disabled. There was nothing I could do as I was going away on a fortnight's holiday over the festive season.
18. On 6 January 2003 I returned to Keble following the Christmas and New Year break. I received a memo from Roger Boden. This is at page 263. This was the first time that I became aware of any Grant Thornton investigation or that Roger Boden had any concerns about aspects of the accounts operation. At no time had he had discussed these with me. At page 269 is my email to Roger Boden expressing my views. On 13 January upon Roger Boden's return from holidays he telephoned me to arrange a meeting with him and Martin Oldfield at noon on that day. My handwritten notes of the telephone conversation are at page 271.
19. I was already a member, along with Mr Kersley and Mr Oldfield, of an ad-hoc committee to consider the auditors report for the year ended 31 July 2002 on IT security. Martin Oldfield was the deputy Bursar and an engineering tutor and Steven Kersley was the IT Manager in charge of IT security. The agenda for our meeting on Monday 6 January 2003 is at page 264 of the bundle.
20. On Monday 6 January 2003 I emailed my department and Roger Boden. A copy of this email is at page 267 of the bundle. I further copied this email to Averil Cameron the warden of Keble, and Martin Oldfield the deputy Bursar. This email is at page 268 of the bundle.
21. On 8 January 2003 I emailed Roger Boden and this email is at page 269 of the bundle. I am completely unaware of any concerns which he had and he had not communicated them to me. I further asked him to list the concerns that he had so that I could make an effective contribution to the meeting on 13 January 2003. I did not receive an agenda from Roger Boden.
22. I attended two meetings arranged by Roger Boden on 13 January 2003. The first one was with Roger Boden and Martin Oldfield at noon and the second was with Roger Boden and Stephen Dexter, a senior partner of the Keble College auditors, Grant Thornton. My handwritten notes of the meetings are at page 270-271 and my full minutes are at page 288-290.
23. I did type up the minutes of my meetings and these are contained at page 288-290 of the bundle. Furthermore, Roger Boden produced a note of the meetings held on 13 January 2003 although I have not reviewed his handwritten notes of the meeting. I have not got his handwritten notes. The email attaching the minutes of meeting and the notes produced by Roger Boden are at pages 272-274 of the bundle. These minutes are not as thorough as mine are. In particular, the second meeting established that Mr Dexter was called in as an investigator and not as an independent auditor. My minutes are more comprehensive.
24. On 14 January 2003 I emailed Stephen Dexter in relation to the incorrect assessment of misposts. Stephen Dexter had raised 234 occasions of misposts. I can refer the Tribunal to my email of 14 January pages 275 of the bundle, along with the list of misposts, which is contained at page 276-282 of the bundle. There were only 34 genuine misposts giving rise to only 17 errors out of possible 8500 transactions. My email to Roger Boden is at page 286. The Tribunal will see at page 283 of the bundle that I emailed Averil Cameron on 14 January 2003 to arrange a meeting with Averil. The purpose of the meeting was in relation to my treatment by Roger Boden. I further made my feelings clear in a memo dated 15 January 2003 to Roger Boden, which was copied to Averil Cameron the warden, and Martin Oldfield the deputy Bursar. This memo is at page 284 of the bundle. I refer the Tribunal to pages 535 and 536 of the bundle. The first time I saw this note was when it was released in Roger Boden's report during my grievance procedure in February 2004. In this note on file he wrote that his concern was that what I was doing that afternoon. Actually I had just come back from three days' compassionate leave following my mother in law's demise and therefore wished to catch up on my work. I explained this to him. He has not mentioned this in his note. The reason he gives for his concern are not convincing as it is not out of character to stay in the office to catch up with work rather than go out drinking with work colleagues. He then goes on to mention me spending quite a lot of money. He writes that I bought a new BMW and was taking a fortnight's holiday in Sri Lanka with my wife. I consider that if I was white he would not have mentioned my lifestyle but he suspected me of fraud because of my ethnic origin or race. The college had just received a clean bill of health from the auditors and so there was no need for another investigation. I consider this exercise was aimed specifically at me and not the college accounting.
25. I received a response from Roger Boden to my memo and this response is at page 285 of the bundle.
26. I met with Averil Cameron on 16 January 2003. I expressed my sincere disappointment of my treatment at the hands of the Bursar. Averil was very sympathetic. I stated that I wanted to put in a formal grievance. Averil stated that this would be a lot of work for her so Averil and I came to a compromise. I was to receive an apology in writing from Roger Boden and a memo apologising to the Accounts Department was to be sent as a morale booster. It is my understanding that Averil asked Roger Boden to do this and I agreed to drop the matter of a formal grievance if that were the case. It is now evident from Roger Boden's note on file at page 535 of the bundle that I was being investigated for suspected fraud. It was not an accounting investigation. The college had just had an annual audit, which gave a clean bill of health. So there was no need for a further accounting investigation.
27. I consider my email of 16 January 2003 to Roger Boden reflects this compromise. This email is at page 286 of the bundle.
28. On 16 January 2003 I received an apology letter from Roger Boden and this is at page 291 of the bundle. Furthermore, Roger Boden sent a memo to the Accounts Department and this memo is at page 292 of the bundle.
29. At 17 January 2003 I met for a second time with Averil Cameron. She had put the matter to bed. Both parties confirmed that the matter would not be raised again. I then emailed Averil and Martin Oldfield and my email is page 295 of the bundle.
30. Grant Thornton wrote to Roger Boden and the letter is dated 24 January 2003 and is contained at pages 296-299 of the bundle. I was supplied with a copy of this letter from Roger Boden. Their report is, in my opinion, fundamentally incorrect. The accounting system cannot allow postings that do not balance. They suggest that it is possible. It does however confirm that there were only 17 genuine errors out of 8,756 transactions listed. The report also misunderstood the banking system of transferring cleared funds on a daily basis. I had no super user password and therefore the comments were irrelevant. The question of remote access was not raised at the meeting and therefore I was surprised that Grant Thornton expressed their comments in this letter. But the paragraph starts with "You asked...". I can only conclude that Roger Boden must have asked at a later stage for this item to be included.
31. On 5 February 2003 the Finance Committee met and reviewed the auditors report for the year ended 31 July 2002 on the IT procedures. The minutes are at pages 300-303. My objections to the recommendations concerning external access to the system were noted. I was in attendance as a member of the sub-committee. I was extremely surprised that during the meeting and following my dissenting opinion absolutely no support was received from Roger Boden. The reason for my dissent was that it would put unnecessary difficulties in my management of the accounts. When there were problems with the accounting software the software house was called and they fixed the problem within a few minutes. The new recommendation would require the accounts to contact the IT manager who would provide internet access to the software house. If he cannot be located then the accounts would not be able to continue working. Page 305 of the bundle gives the Finance Sub-Committee recommendation at point 7. Following the meeting I emailed Roger Boden to express my surprise at his silence. This email is dated 5 February 2003 at page 304 of the bundle. Subsequently I had a modem installed so that it could be turned on and off by the accounts department and therefore be under the control of the accounting staff. I considered the management of accounting software security as my responsibility and acted accordingly. In my opinion the Bursar continued to harass me after the January 2003 investigation. We reached a compromise that we should put it behind us but he used the Finance Committee to put difficulties in the way of my management.
32. On 30 January 2003 Roger Boden provided a memo to the Finance Committee regarding the hall cleaning pilot project. This is referred to in the Finance Committee minutes and is on page 306-307 of the Tribunal bundle. I was surprised that following this memo was a new Project Control form. This had been amended and had removed the post of Accountant, my position as an authorising signature. I raised an objection to this and had emailed Roger Boden stating that I was reluctant to merely sign a project off, but did not want to put my signature to a project form where I had not been involved in the tendering process as I felt that this was irresponsible. My email is at page 308 of the bundle.
33. On 10 February 2003 I met with Roger Boden at approximately 11.45 am in relation to portfolio valuations. Dr Tim Jenkinson had been paid £200 per month to complete the portfolio valuations. This is at page 316. Roger Boden was proposing that I complete the portfolio valuations on top of my usual job description. I requested that I be paid a small fee for the portfolio valuation. I was told that I would not receive this sum and Roger Boden informed me that he wanted me to carry out the valuation. I did indicate to Roger Boden that I did not necessarily want the full £200 per month but something, as a gesture of good will would have been nice. Roger refused but said he would talk to the warden. Dr Tim Jenkinson is a Caucasian male. I can see no other reason why I would not be paid the increased payment to carry out the portfolio valuation. I did not carry out the portfolio valuations until the end of each financial year, although previously the portfolio valuations had been carried out by Dr Tim Jenkinson on a quarterly basis. This note is at page 312 of the bundle.
34. I refer to page 313-315 of the bundle. I felt that the Finance Committee minutes did not give sufficient reasons for my objections. I had given the Finance Committee details of my objection or dissent. By restricting the external access to the accounts system and allowing it when required would mean contacting the IT manager when the access is required. This would cause difficulty in the accounts department, as the software house would not have an immediate access. If the IT manager was not found then the accounts staff would not be able to proceed with their work. It appeared to me that the Finance Committee's decision was predetermined and my reasons were ignored. I was concerned that the decision would put impediments in my efficient working practices. I felt that following the fraud investigation Roger Boden was continuing to intimidate me by asking the Finance Committee to interfere in my management of the accounts department. Roger Boden refused to give reasons for my objection in the minutes. This is a further example of the Bursar weakening my position.
35. On 25 February 2003 I called Roger Boden at approximately 1pm. The note of this telephone conversation is at page 318 of the bundle. Roger wanted to discuss the Grant Thornton report but I had thought that this matter had been put behind us as Averil Cameron had expressly stated. My thoughts are made clear in my handwritten note, which states that what started as a fraud investigation is taking on a different turn. I had reached a compromise with the warden and did not wish to revisit that investigation. We agreed to put that episode behind us. By asking me to discuss the issues again this would be a traumatic experience for me. He asked me to put it in writing what I had just said.
36. There was a further email exchange between myself and Roger Boden on 24-25 February 2003 in relation to the governing body minutes and remote access to the system. I pointed out to Roger that he had misled the Governing Body regarding the issue of the internet access. The record of these emails is at Page 319-320. Finally on 27 February 2003 I wrote to Roger Boden and my letter is at page 321 of the bundle.
37. At pages 324-328 of the bundle I refer to the issue of staff loans. This is where the staff loan to Andrew Hardiman is relevant. Mrs Chaudhry was a scout at the College, that is, she is a cleaner. She had been employed since 1996 on a salary of about £11,000. She had attended a wedding in Pakistan and she is of Pakistani origin. She applied for a loan to the College because she had some credit card debts in the sum of £4,000. Mrs Chaudhry had been a loyal employee and had asked about finance from the College and showed bank statements to me. I was not able to authorise a payment of £4,000 as my authority was limited to £2,000 and so I referred the matter to Roger Boden. On 10 March 2003 I sent an email to Roger Boden in relation to Mrs Chaudhry. He refused the £4000 staff loan and his email is at page 324 of the bundle. I went to see him and explained that she could obtain a £2000 loan from her bank, Lloyds, at a higher rate and asked whether he would then agree to loan her £2000. I managed to persuade him. The relevant authorisation and the Lloyds Bank agreement are at pages 327-328 of the bundle. At page 325-326 of the bundle Roger Boden wished the matter of staff loans to be referred to the Finance Committee. I did not see why Roger Boden had to refer the matter to the Finance Committee, as he had not done so with Andrew Hardiman. At page 325 of the bundle is my email to Roger Boden in which I drew his attention to the fact that it was a purely administrative matter and that he need not get the Finance Committee involved. Roger Boden had not refused any previous loans to white employees. The only difference with Mrs Chaudhry is that she is of a different ethnic origin as she is originally from Pakistan. Finally the Finance Committee on 14 May 2003 removed my authority to authorise loans and their recommendation is at page 357 of the bundle. I consider that this was not necessary as I used to authorise staff loans for over 14 years. The only reasonable conclusion in my opinion was that I aimed to approve a loan to a person of my ethnic origin or race and that is why Roger Boden sought to end my authority in this respect.
38. On 15 March 2003 I emailed Roger Boden, as I had not been provided with a copy of the Finance Committee minutes of 5 March 2003. This is at page 330 of the bundle. I was usually on the distribution list for these minutes and therefore can only assume that Roger Boden removed me from the minutes. Thereafter I did not receive further minutes of the Finance Committee meeting unless these were expressly requested and then supplied.
39. I consider that I did not receive the Finance Committee minutes because Roger Boden was undermining my authority following my complaint that Mrs Chaudhry was not permitted the loan and that I had sought to ensure that the loan was provided. In order to carry out my daily management of accounts department efficiently it is important that I have a sight of the Finance Committee minutes as soon as they are available. I used to receive Governing Body minutes a few weeks later. These used to contain Finance Committee minutes but by the time I received these it was too late to take any action required.
40. The respondents have released at pages 331 to 332 of the bundle notes of a meeting held with me on 31 March 2003. I do not consider that these are accurate notes. The reason that I was reluctant to have an appraisal was that the results never appeared to be accurate. I did raise the query that Janet Betts who was a white female and my opposite number was called a "domestic Bursar" and I could not understand why I was not referred to as a "Finance Bursar". Some of my colleagues at other colleges in my role were called Finance Bursar. I did attend the appraisal with Roger Boden but the appraisal sheet was not signed because of irregularities, which I will review later in this statement.
41. At pages 333-336 this email exchange and attachments details the continuing difficulties of the relationship with Roger Boden.
42. On 22 April 2003 one of my accounts staff Marie Deaney handed in her notice to me. She provided two months notice which was over and above the requirement to enable me to find a replacement. I went to see Roger about Marie's replacement on 23 April 2003. Roger somewhat unusually wanted me to make a case for her replacement. I was quite amazed by this request for justification given that we needed a billing accountancy assistant within the Accounts Department. I further referred to an employee within the College who I felt was appropriate and this would have limited the recruitment costs of Marie's replacement. The talent within the College lay with Hien Le. She had the right qualifications as far as I was aware to take over from Marie Deaney. She was at that time serving on tables within the College. I stated that I thought we should promote her within the College. My note of the meeting with Roger Boden is at page 337 of the bundle. I subsequently telephoned Hien Le to find out whether she was actually interested in pursuing a role in the Accounts Department. There was little point in me requesting that Hien Le be considered, if she did not want to be considered for such a role. She stated to me that she was very interested in pursuing the role.
43. I informed Roger Boden that I had spoken to Hien Le to find out if she was interested in joining the accounts team. Hien would be interested, as she would like to pursue a career in accountancy. He was pleased that there was an interest within the College. He promised to speak to Jane Betts and get back to me to make the transfer arrangements.
44. At the request of Roger Boden I went to see Janet on 24 April 2003. She was very upset that I had contacted Hien Le. I did try to tell Janet that this was just an initial contact to see whether she was interested. Janet considered that as she was Hien Le's boss because she was on the domestic side that Janet should have established interest from Hien Le. Roger was to sort out the fact that Janet was very annoyed with me. I had offered to meet with Janet to sort the issues out. Janet said that she would speak to Gerard who was Hien Le's direct manager. She also promised me that she would see Hien on 25 April 2003. I was away on 25 and 28 April 2003. On 29 April 2003 I went to see Janet to see if the arrangements were in place and to ask whether she had seen Hien. She appeared hostile and angry. I emailed Roger Boden to ask him for his help. The email exchanges are at page 338-339 of the bundle. Roger Boden told me that Gerard and Janet Betts will see Hien on 1 May 2003 and then a meeting was scheduled for 2 May 2003 between Roger, Janet and myself. I was then surprised to find out that Roger actually attended the meeting on 1 May between Hien, Gerard and Janet Betts and offered Hien a salary increase to stay in the role of a waitress. The amount offered to her was more than she would receive working in the Accounts Department.
45. Hien Le subsequently telephoned me and I explained that it was up to Hien Le whether she wished to stay on the domestic side, as I was not able to offer her the equivalent financial package to move to the Accounts Department. Hien Le independently decided that she wanted to take the accounting job. On 2 May 2003 I attended the meeting with Roger Boden. Janet Betts did not turn up. My hand written note of the meeting is at page 340-341 of the bundle. At the end of the meeting Roger asked me to ask Janet when Hien could start in the accounts department. I subsequently did this. Janet was very angry with me and swore at me. This exchange soured my relationship with Janet Betts as I considered this verbal abuse was unnecessary.
46. At pages 344-348 of the bundle there is an email exchange between Roger Boden and myself with a salary comparator as at May 2003. I requested that Roger review the staff salaries of my department because I considered they were lower than other members of the administrative staff. It was this point only that I had asked Roger Boden to review. Subsequently Roger Boden has used this as an excuse to review the entire department, I consider with the result of my employment being terminated.
47. I have not seen prior to these proceedings the note to my file of Roger Boden of 6 May 2003 at page 349-353 of the bundle. I do not know the purpose for the document or whether it is a contemporaneous note. Roger Boden goes on to describe difficulties in the catering department at that time. There are ongoing and continual problems with staffing in the catering section of the college. The situation described is not unique. Therefore there was no need to persuade Hien to stay in the catering as a waitress. In the catering trade it is normal to have a rapid turnover of staff. At Keble there is always a great deal of demand for agency staff. In my opinion there was no need to persuade Hien Le to stay as a member of catering staff by offering her a great deal of money. I consider that it was intended to keep the administration all white because prior to my request to transfer Hien to the accounts department I was the only non white person in the college's non academic administration. I believe that Roger Boden's action to persuade Hien to stay as a waitress was indicative of his prejudice. The second part of the note listing the email exchanges is not complete. A fuller version is at page 344-348 of the bundle.
48. On page 354 of the bundle there is a letter from the sub-warden Professor Wade Allison dated 8 May 2003, which refers to the complaint that I made to the sub-warden in the warden's absence. I subsequently received an email from Roger Boden dated 8 May 2003 referring to cordial relations, and this is at page 355 of the bundle.
49. On Wednesday 14 May 2003 Roger Boden forwarded an email from Stephen Dexter in relation to the new accounts format. I explained to Roger that it was a very important meeting and concerned my vital job at the College. However, Roger was aware that I was away on Tuesday 27 May 2003 and therefore not be able to attend and yet arranged the meeting for then. This is at page 356 of the bundle.
50. At page 357 of the bundle there are the Finance Committee minutes of Wednesday 14 May 2003 referring to staff loans. This effectively removed my previous authority to authorise a loan up to £2,000. This was following the request by Mrs Chaudhry for a loan of £4,000.
51. The email exchange at page 358-360 of the bundle show the deteriorating relationship between Roger Boden and I. Roger knew that I was the college expert on VAT and tax negotiations. He deliberately met the VAT consultants at Grant Thornton without my knowledge and made, in my opinion, a poor deal for the college. I could have made a lot more of a saving for the college.
52. At page 361 of the bundle there is my handwritten note detailing a meeting between Roger Boden and myself of 15 May 2003. Roger Boden asked me to see him. He asked me rudely where I was that afternoon. I felt intimidated by him. I always managed my time and came in sometimes at the weekend and stayed late in the evening when necessary. As it happened I stayed late that evening. He never asked the whereabouts of other white colleagues.
53. At page 362 of the bundle there is an email exchange with Roger Boden in relation to my appraisal. This was in relation to the comments made by the warden in connection with my appraisal. His reply was not helpful as he wrote that the comments were verbatim.
54. Pages 363-364 of the bundle I refer to a query I raised with Roger Boden in relation to the offer to Hien Le. I disagreed with the 13-month pay review. I referred to the Equal Opportunities Policy for all Keble employees. I had in mind that Hien Le was female and of an Asian Oriental ethnic origin and did not consider that she should be placed at a disadvantage in comparison with her colleagues who in the Accounts Department save for myself were of Caucasian/white origin. I considered his action not to review Hien's salary in six months' time, which was a normal practice, as race specific. All other white non academic administrative staff receive a six monthly review but Hien was not to receive one.
55. At page 365 of the bundle there is an invoice from Grant Thornton, which I would imagine, refers to the investigation report carried out at the beginning of 2003.
56. At pages 366 of the bundle there is a note by Averil Cameron of my discussion on the appraisal interview. I also detailed with her my complaints in relation to Hien Le's transfer to accounts. I said to her that an appraisal is a two-way communication. I was unhappy that the appraiser had in the first place written down his comments before I had any opportunity to express my views. Then when I had written in my comments the appraiser wrote his final comments without offering me another opportunity to respond. This is not the way I had been used to the appraisal procedure. In the past both Roger Boden and I discussed the appraisal and then he put his comments down on paper and I was then invited to write my comments. In this appraisal Roger Boden wrote his final comments and I was not allowed to respond. This was the reason why I refused to sign. The Warden informed me that Roger would not agree to remove his final comments, which we had not discussed or debated.
57. At pages 367-375 of the bundle is Hien Le's contract and job description. At page 376 is her recruitment tracking form and at page 377 Hien Le's curriculum vitae detailing her experience in accountancy.
58. At page 379 of the bundle there is an email exchange. On 4 July 2003 Roger emailed me to give him 11-month figures to 30 June 2003 by the end of that day. I considered this request unreasonable, as I would have preferred to have had more time to prepare accurate figures. Nonetheless, within an hour, I sent him a spreadsheet with required data.
59. At page 380 of the bundle there is an email, which shows that I have saved Keble College a lot of money in relation to the bank charges.
60. At pages 381-382 there are my handwritten notes in relation to complaints that I have against Keble College and Roger Boden. In particular there is the following:
In June 2003 I was not invited to the college ball for the first time in 14 years.
In July 2003 the pay review of my staff was not discussed with me whereas other white colleagues were consulted regarding their direct reporting staff.
September/October 2003. Roger Boden had several meetings with the college auditors without getting me involved. He also agreed some accounting treatment without my agreement.
September 2003. In accordance with my appraisal target I had agreed with the auditors and Roger to carry out an internal control exercise for the preparation of food. When the auditors came to make the arrangements I asked to see Roger who did not get back to me. So I called him after a few days. He said that he had consulted Janet Betts and decided not to go ahead with the internal audit. This caused me embarrassment. It was one of Janet's departments that we were planning to look at. It was totally inappropriate to consult her and then cancel the assignment. Roger Boden did not give me the reason for cancellation. At page 383 of the bundle there is a note on file, which was released to my solicitors in December 2004. Roger Boden gives the reason for cancellation as short staffing in the kitchens. I was not aware of this. In any case an independent audit was required and it was called off.
61. At page 382 there is my note in relation to what appears to be the start of a review. I discussed with Roger Boden the issues of the staff pay review and that he had talked to the Accountants without my presence. He had changed plans for the internal audit of the kitchen without telling me and had failed to consult me about the salaries of the accounts staff during the summer pay round. I expressed that all of these matters were undermining my ability to perform my job and that I really had the feeling that I had no alternative but to raise the complaint against him for harassment following my complaints throughout 2003 against him. Roger Boden informed me that if I went ahead with such a complaint he would lobby a claim against me for harassment. I told him that if he felt uncomfortable with this then I would not complain, but that I wanted these matters to be sorted out amicably. At the end of the meeting I was provided with a date by Roger Boden to review my direct reports' staff salaries.
62. At pages 386-395 are emails relating to the audit of the accounts. The auditors could not explain why a difference of £5,617 had been created and I argued the point with Roger Boden. The reason I argued the point was that the College's profits would be reduced by that amount and I could find no reason why this should occur.
63. At page 396 of the bundle I refer you to an email from me to Roger Boden of 17 November 2003. I had requested that a review of the accounts staff pay be carried out. This was minuted in the Finance Committee minutes of 29 October 2003. This is not actually accurate. I referred Roger Boden to my emails of 2 May and 7 May 2003 and further referred to his decision not to increase Hien Le's salary. I further stated that I thought if the Accounts Department needed to be reviewed so did all other departments. I stated that I felt my opinion as Manager of the Accounts Department had been ignored, whereas other managers' opinions would have been taken on board. I asked for feedback from Roger Boden.
64. Pages 397-398 of the bundle refer to the portfolio valuation. Roger Boden states that he considers it as entirely reasonable to ask me to carry out the portfolio valuation even though I had asked him to review with the warden whether I could receive a small sum for carrying out this quarterly task as Dr Tim Jenkinson had in the past received £2,400 per annum for doing the job. I also declared I was very happy to talk to Roger about this in person.
65. We then met on 19th November 2003. This note is at page 399 of the bundle. This was the following:
Roger Boden wished to discuss the share portfolio valuation. I explained to him that I had contacted accountants at other colleges and they had informed me that they do not conduct the valuations. Their stockbrokers provide them. It is not an accounting task.
There then followed a discussion regarding the audit for the year ended 31 July 2003. I expressed my concern at his unhelpful intervention in dealing with technical accounting issues. I was dealing with these successfully until he intervened.
We had agreed for me to chase the auditors for the journals, which were required to complete the accounting period. I called the auditors and asked them to call Roger the next day with the information. I then called Roger to ask him to deal with the auditors the next day as I was then away. Roger insisted that if I was having a day off then I should fill in a holiday authorisation form. I asked him not to be difficult. On 21 November 2003 Roger came to the accounts office to review my assistant, Julie Hernandez. Before he started the review I asked to see him briefly. I reiterated that I had not asked for this review and I would appreciate if he would minute at the Finance Committee on 26 November 2003 that I had not asked for the review. A second point I wished to mention was that I had checked the holiday form records and found that Roger Boden, Janet Betts and all the staff in the development office do not fill in the holiday forms. So there was no need to single me out. A subsequent exchange of emails in relation to the review said the following, and this is at pages 400-404 of the bundle. I confirm that my opinion was the following: Roger Boden was using the excuse of staff salary reviews to conduct a fully blown review of the workload content of the accounts department. I now consider that this exercise was a preamble to the alleged restructuring.
66. Roger Boden then emailed a time and motion study to my assistant, Julie Hernandez, who showed it to me with surprise as she thought that Roger would have discussed this with me. This time and motion study is at pages 405-410 of the bundle. At pages 411-413 is a series of emails that I communicated with Averil Cameron. These say the following: I was complaining to the warden that Roger Boden was intimidating me by telling the Finance Committee that it was my idea to conduct the review in the way he has gone about it. My main point was that why was the accounts department being singled out in isolation to all the other departments. I could not see any evidence of reviews of any other departments being reported to the Governing Body. I had simply asked him to review staff salaries of my direct reports as I thought they were being underpaid.
67. I returned to work after Christmas 2003 on 6 January 2004. At just after 3 pm Roger Boden asked to see me for a meeting on Thursday 8 January 2004. This was in relation to the accounts staff pay review. He handed me a spreadsheet with his review notes and asked me to go through them and comment.
68. I said to him that I was not happy with the way he was conducting the exercise and the proper way would be to sit with me and discuss how we were going to conduct the review.
69. Initially when we had talked about the review it was the intention to compare salaries internally and externally. This could have been done by phoning our opposite numbers in other colleges. I stated that I did not know what his intentions were. I asked him why he wanted to review me because I had not asked for more money back in May 2003. A copy of my note is at page 419 of the bundle.
70. I prepared for the meeting for 8 January 2004 by drafting seven questions. This list is at page 420 of the bundle. At this time I had no indication of the true nature of what Roger Boden was seeking to do. I consider this is clear from the content of my questions.
71. At pages 421-422 my handwritten record of the meeting contains Roger Boden's responses to my questions.
72. I note that Roger Boden has provided a note for the Tribunal bundle at page 423. I do not agree with this record. I consider that Roger Boden was being evasive and would not inform me of what was occurring. I am now aware that on 9 January 2004 Roger Boden submitted an accounting and financial control report to the Finance Committee, which is at pages 424-444. I was not made aware prior to that report or after the report being published of the reasons for the review or how the review was to be conducted. I certainly did not receive any warning of redundancy of my position at this stage.
73. At page 445 following a request by Roger to complete holiday forms I stated to Andrew Hardiman the accounts assistant responsible for holiday forms that I would not be completing them as those who held similar posts to me did not complete them. This email is dated 8 January 2004.
74. On 12 January 2004 I emailed Edwin Peel. Edwin Peel is a law lecturer at Keble College and I emailed him to request advice on the choice of solicitor and copied some of the emails between Roger Boden and myself. This was causing me a great deal of stress, so much so that I had visited my doctor for high blood pressure and I considered that I needed some help. This email is at pages 446-449 of the bundle.
75. At pages 450-451 there is a copy of the Finance Committee minutes for 14 January 2004. I received these on 19 January 2004. This states that the exercise to review the accounting and financial control function began in November and that it quickly became apparent that the Accounts Department could be reduced to 4. There were supposed to be consultations to consider whether it might be possible to avoid making any redundancies at all and devise objective selection criteria for the proposed new post. This did not happen. It was in the interest of Stephen Dexter of Grant Thornton, the college auditors, that the restructuring should go ahead because his firm would benefit from the additional revenues for doing the accountant's job.
76. On 14 January 2004 I emailed Roger Boden in relation to the phenomenal amount of money spent on consultants, architects, solicitors, accountants etc. and requested that an official order number be quoted on the invoice to authenticate the validity of claims.
77. On the afternoon of Thursday 15 January 2004 Roger Boden came to see me to report the outcome of the Finance Committee meeting. I was not interested because the agenda was not given to me in spite of my requests to Roger and the warden prior to the meeting. At this stage I was still thinking of the salary reviews. I refused to listen to Roger. He then left me with the agenda. . He then asked to see my assistant, Julie Hernandez. Whilst she was in his office I looked at the papers and realised for the first time that the review exercise was intended to force me out of my job.
78. Julie came out of Roger's office sobbing with grief. I explained to her that the proposals are intended to get rid of me and not her. Roger had assured her that the new post will not be advertised externally and as she is an ideal candidate for the job she will get it. Roger came in my office while I was talking to Julie. He wished to talk to me. I asked him to leave, as Julie was very upset. I also said to him that under the proposals he was supposed to do my job but I do not believe he has any technical knowledge to do my job. He left and I continued to console Julie. On the afternoon of 15 January 2004 when I read Roger Boden's paper on restructuring it became expressly clear to me that I was the target of restructuring.
79. In the evening of Thursday 15 January 2004 I received an email from Roger Boden in relation to requesting that I have an initial discussion as part of the consultation process. This is at page 453 of the bundle.
80. At page 454-457 there are my consultation notes in relation to the suggested reductions to the Accounts Department by Roger Boden. I went through my consultation notes with Roger Boden and then emailed them to the Governing body. A copy of this email is at page 458. I began my notes by describing why Roger Boden will not be able to do my job and why was the distribution of tasks unworkable. I pointed out that most of my work will have to be outsourced. Then I went on to explain why the proposals will not work as regards recent developments, staffing and reporting structure and workload. I emphasised that Grant Thornton were supporting the restructuring because they stood to benefit from it as my job will be done by the firm. I also expressed my concern that my assistant accountant was promised the new post and therefore the only person whose position was at risk was me. I regarded the proposal as a personal vendetta against me since the 2 January 2003 investigation and subsequent petty harassment/victimisation. The accountants were brought in because Roger Boden suspected me of embezzlement. I was totally exonerated but the harassment did not stop. Then I gave my proposals for saving more than £100,000 by disestablishing three posts instead. I listed several occasions when I saved the college money amounting to over a million pounds. In my conclusion I wrote that I joined Keble on 6 March 1989 when the cost of accounting provision was very high because the college relied heavily on Grant Thornton who even did minor tasks such as bank reconciliations for the college. I brought order to the Keble accounting. I retrained the staff and reduced costs. Arguably, I brought wealth to the college. I turned the college deficits into surpluses. These facts are all documented. I believe that the current proposals will take the college back to the old times of high accountancy costs and as mentioned earlier, the only beneficiary will be the auditors, Grant Thornton. I therefore concluded that the proposals were not in the best interest of Keble. I was surprised not to hear from the members of the Governing Body. They were all presumably consulting with Roger Boden but they did not approach me to debate any of the issues raised in my consultation notes.
81. At page 458A-459A of the bundle there are the Governing Body minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2004. I did not receive these minutes until a later date. However, I was extremely surprised that the Governing Body voted on the issue of animals in college rooms but failed to vote on the issue of reducing the number of accounting staff from 5 to 4. I further received an email from John Gittins on 20 January 2004 responding to my email to the Governing Body. This is at page 461 of the bundle.
82. At pages 463-467 is a memo from Roger Boden to Finance Committee dated 1 February 2004. This includes Roger Boden's response to my consultation notes. Roger Boden's response was first provided to me on or around 28 January 2004. This is the same document as appears at page 464-466 of the bundle. However, following my appeal to Edwin Peel I received a further document which was exactly the same but had further details of costs savings which I was never provided with an opportunity to respond on.
I had a meeting with Roger Boden at 10 a.m. on 26 January 2004. I pointed out to him that it was clear to me that he wanted to push me out of my job. Even if I applied for the job two points below my grade he will ensure that I do not get it as the main accounting tasks were removed from the job description of the new post. He then volunteered to give me a set of figures for financial settlement of redundancy. They were without prejudice figures and unenhanced figures. He emailed these options to me on 28 January 2004. His email was entitled, possible redundancy settlement. As far as I am aware and from the respondents' disclosure Julie Hernandez was never sent or offered such redundancy figures. This proves that Roger had already determined that I was the one who is going. We met again on 29 January 2004. I pointed out to him that in the redundancy calculations prepared by the college solicitors the employers' pension contribution was incorrectly quoted as 10% whereas it has been 14% for many years. I said to him that he proposed to do my job but did not know simple facts such as what was the college's percentage contribution to the pension scheme. Roger Boden handed his note to the Finance Committee. This is at pages 464-466 of the bundle. I asked him what will happen after the Finance Committee meeting of 4 February 2004. He asked me to come to his office at 10 a.m on 5 February in order to finalise the redundancy terms and whether I would sign a compromise agreement in order to get an enhanced package.
83. At pages 469 of the bundle I received an email from Roger Boden of 2 February 2004 notifying me that I should address my concerns to the warden.
84. At pages 470-473 I detail my submission to the Finance Committee.
85. On 3 February 2004 at page 474 of the bundle my formal letter requesting to instigate the formal grievance procedure is contained. The grievance procedure was never explained to me. I simply was left to refer to the procedure in the Handbook.
86. At page 475 Averil Cameron acknowledges my letter and appoints Dr Tim Jenkinson to hear my grievance.
87. At page 476 is a copy of the Finance Committee minutes formally suspending consideration on the proposals to restructure the Accounts Department pending the outcome of my grievance.
88. On 4 February 2004 I received a letter from Averil Cameron, the warden stating that the hearing of my grievance would be with Dr Tim Jenkinson on Thursday 5 February 2004 at 4 pm.
89. At pages 479-480 of the bundle is email correspondence between Roger Boden and myself. Roger incorrectly quoted our conversation of Friday 30 January 2004. He alleged that I wanted early retirement as an alternative to redundancy. In my reply I made it clear that I had not wished to explore an early retirement at that time.
90. At page 484-487 there is a submission by Roger Boden dated 9 February 2004. I have not seen this submission until it was released to my solicitor on 13 December 2004. My comments on this submission are as follows:
Roger Boden states that neither I nor Julie Hernandez are qualified accountants but I have passes in eleven of the possible fourteen examinations of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants whereas Julie has none. It is difficult to understand why the whole administration had not been put under review but only the accounts department. Mine was the only job at risk. The new post was a promotion for my assistant and a demotion for me. The job content of the new post was exactly what my assistant did anyway. My cost cutting proposals should have been reviewed in the same way that my department was. I do not accept the explanation offered by Roger Boden. My consultation note at page 454-457 of the bundle gives the reason for substantial savings that could be achieved by disestablishing the three posts. The revenues from the conference business have increased because the facilities provided have been greatly improved. I have saved the college over a million pounds by switching pension schemes, securing a substantial donation from Rolls Royce, changing insurance brokers, negotiating with the Inland Revenue and so on. I was continually looking for ways to save money. So in direct comparison to the domestic bursar, Janet Betts, I have made more money for the college. In my opinion the posts of housekeeping manager and facilities manager could be easily combined and so could the posts of the fellows' PA and warden's PA. The college office exercise referred to resulted in an increase of establishment thereby costing the college more money. In the summer of 2002 Roger Boden instructed me to meet him outside the office in order to help him understand accounting. We spent two hours to no avail, as he could not grasp the simple concept of double entry bookkeeping. I am therefore surprised that he alleges to perform my accounting duties. Roger Boden alleges that I kept short hours and he questioned me on 21 November 2002. On the other hand he suspected fraud because I was working very hard at home and in the office. On 19 December 2002 he came to my office at about 4 pm and asked me what I was doing because the rest of the staff were celebrating the festive season. Here there are contradicting views from Roger Boden.
91. At page 489 of the bundle is an email from Roger Boden to Dr Tim Jenkinson. He refers to my grievance proving to be a more time-consuming business than any of us would have wished. I consider this is indicative of how Roger Boden has treated me.
92. At pages 490-491 of the bundle I prepared the grounds of my grievance.
93. At pages 492-499 there are the minutes of the meeting with Dr Tim Jenkinson. I consider that throughout the process with Dr Tim Jenkinson I was browbeaten by Dr Jenkinson. It felt like he had a predetermined view. Throughout the hearing he kept arguing with me rather than just listening to my grievance. He also kept giving me his opinions on the points I was making instead of listening and then challenging me through questions then reaching his decision.
94. On 17 February 2004 Dr Jenkinson called me to arrange a meeting to discuss Roger Boden's response to my grievance. This was contrary to what was agreed at the first hearing. Dr Jenkinson told me that Roger Boden's response will be in writing. So I insisted that he adhered to the arrangement. At page 500 is an email from Dr Tim Jenkinson. This email was sent after our conversation. I received a bundle of papers on my desk on the evening of 17 February received by me on 18 February when I came into work. On 20 February 2004 I went on sick leave as I was finding the grievance process very stressful. My blood pressure was high. I consulted my doctor who signed me off for two weeks and then for a further four weeks. The reason stated on the sick note was stress. The doctor also prescribed sleeping pills as I was having sleepless nights. The submission by Roger Boden is contained at pages 501-506 with appendices from pages 507-544.
95. At page 545 a further document dated 13 February 2004 has been provided by way of disclosure to my solicitors. At no time have I ever seen this document before. I have never had an opportunity to answer the points raised in that document. It would appear that my allegations were not malicious and without foundation as I was not dismissed because of invoking a grievance procedure.
96. At pages 546-549 of the bundle there are emails where I am trying to negotiate a longer period of time to respond to Roger Boden's 44-page document. However I was not permitted the further time to do so.
97. At pages 552-555 there is detailed my response to Roger Boden's paper of 16 February 2004. At pages 556-562 are the attached appendices.
98. At pages 563-577 there are the second meeting minutes held on 23 February 2004. I consider that I made it clear that I was the only non-academic employee of my ethnic origin in the administration of the college. At pages 578-581 there is a timetable of actions dating back to May 2003 created by Roger Boden at the request of Dr Tim Jenkinson. I have never seen this document prior to disclosure to my solicitors on 10 December 2004. It would appear that Roger Boden has kept records from May 2003 after the recruitment of Hien Le and agreeing to review the salaries of my staff. I objected to his reference to me at the Finance Committee meeting of 29 October 2003 as I had not asked for the review of the workload. I refer the Tribunal to page 396 of the bundle. Here is my email to Roger Boden confirming that I did not ask for the review and why was the accounts department being singled out. In his meeting with my then assistant, Julie Hernandez, on 15 January 2004 Roger Boden assured her that she was highly regarded by all and that she would be given all options for alternative employment within the college in his note on page 580 of the bundle. No such assurances were given to me. I consider this indicates Roger Boden's pre-determined outcome. On 16 January 2004 the warden had a meeting with Julie Hernandez. The warden is the head of the college. She never asked me for a meeting with her. In fact she never spoke to me. When I handed her my note requesting the grievance procedure she said she was busy and could not talk to me.
There are many inaccuracies in Roger Boden's notes of the meetings with me on 20, 26 and 29 January 2004. During the last meeting on 29 January 2004 he said to me that we shall meet on the morning of 5 February 2004 to finalise my redundancy package. So he had prejudged the outcome of the Finance Committee meeting scheduled for 4 February 2004. I never said to him that the analysis of tasks was "spot-on". The note of our meeting on 26 January 2004 is incorrect. I reminded him that he should take 1.35% pay enhancement into account when calculating redundancy settlement. He knew all along that Deborah Rogers and I received this uplift since 1 August 1996 as he signed the payroll and sometimes checked the payslips.
99. At pages 582-589A there are handwritten notes of Dr Tim Jenkinson. I am surprised that there are no further notes relating to the investigation exercise given the fact that there were a number of documents and a number of issues raised. 100. The report of Dr Tim Jenkinson is contained at pages 589D-589G. His conclusions were the following: 1. The case made for the proposed restructuring is entirely workable, that the envisaged cost savings are realistic, that the conclusions are not deliberately biased against DV and that the process for considering the proposals has been appropriate. I accordingly reject grievance A. 2. The claim that Roger Boden has been discriminating against DV on racial grounds is entirely without merit. I accordingly reject grievance B. The appendices to this result are contained at pages 589H-599. 101. In my opinion Dr Tim Jenkinson did not conduct the hearing properly. He was aggressive, argumentative and opinionated as seen from the notes of the meetings. He should have listened to my grievance at the first hearing and then gone away to investigate. Instead he came to the hearing with a predetermined opinion. He is also a personal friend of Roger Boden and therefore I consider biased. Dr Jenkinson spent a great deal of time justifying the process of restructuring rather than concentrating on my grounds for grievance, particularly grievance B.
102. At page 600 of the bundle I refer the Tribunal to my letter rejecting Dr Jenkinson's decision and asking for an appeal. At page 603 of the bundle I received an email from Edwin Peel in relation to the appeal and how he would proceed with it.
103. At page 604 of the bundle I emailed Roger Boden to request how much of my job would be his job if the restructuring was to proceed. No response was ever received to this email despite two further requests for a response.
104. The grievance appeal hearing was set for Wednesday 10 March 2004. My grounds for appeal are at pages 641-644. I listed eighteen grounds, which indicated that Dr Jenkinson's decision was biased and predetermined. I also pointed out that it was not part of his remit to recommend that the restructuring be resumed. The minutes of that meeting are at pages 607-612. The appeal had to be adjourned as there was not enough time to properly deal with the matter and it was therefore adjourned until Thursday 18 March 2004. The notes of that meeting are at pages 613-622. I have the following comments on the minutes of the meeting:
I pointed out a possible conflict of interest as Edwin Peel was appointed the appeal judge but as a member of the Finance Committee he will be deciding on the restructuring. I feel that the first hearing was rushed. It had to be adjourned because Mark Butchers had to go at 3 pm. At the second hearing Edwin Peel would not agree that the Grant Thornton investigation was in fact a fraud investigation whereas at the first hearing he made references to the fraud investigation.
105. Following the meeting at page 623 of the bundle I sent a memo to Edwin Peel as I wanted to add the further point raised.
106. Please note that the minutes of the meeting just referred to are my notes of the meeting produced by Mark Butchers who attended to take notes on my behalf. I subsequently received an email from Edwin Peel forwarding a copy of Roger Boden's response to my grounds for appeal. This is contained in the appendices of Edwin Peel's report at page 645-646 of the bundle although Edwin Peel had had the document for 14 days. I was asked to respond to this document within 24 hours to allow the appeal to proceed. I found this particularly difficult and extremely stressful to have to do, particularly as it was my job that was on the line and I felt that I was being very poorly treated.
107. I further forwarded my email from Edwin Peel asking for a response from Roger Boden in relation to; if the restructuring was to proceed, how much of my job would he be doing. Edwin Peel confirmed at page 632 that it is a perfectly proper question to put in the context of the proposal for restructuring but that he did not think it affected the complaints that he was required to investigate.
108. At page 633 of the bundle there is the report on the outcome of the appeal produced by Edwin Peel. His report concludes at page 640. The outcome was that Edwin Peel did not feel that there had been any unfair treatment of me, nor any racial discrimination and that Dr Jenkinson's findings were upheld. Edwin Peel agrees that there was a strained relationship between Roger Boden and I. He refers to January 2003 investigation as an audit but during the first appeal hearing he refers to it as a fraud investigation. The college audit for the year ended 31 July 2002 had been completed in November 2002. So the 2 January 2003 investigation, when a forensic accountant was called in by Roger Boden, was a fraud investigation. The annexes are contained from pages 641-705.
109. I have the following comments on Annex 3. The warden states that Finance Committee and Governing Body were both sufficiently persuaded by Roger Boden's paper but not persuaded by my arguments. But all the members of the committees talked and discussed restructuring with Roger Boden but not a single member spoke to me so that I could argue the case verbally. I have not seen any evidence of a review of other college departments as alleged by the warden. I can see no evidence of a warning or fair selection criteria being chosen. Nor a fair selection assessment and process or fair consultation with me. Roger Boden needed to learn his job when he was first appointed as a bursar and that is why my early appraisals were good. The warden alleges that I did not keep to the agreement not to mention 2 January 2003 investigation after the matter had been settled. It was Roger Boden who kept bringing it up by asking the Finance Committee to restrict my computer access from home and by whittling away at my management of the accounts department. I refer the Tribunal to my letter to Roger Boden at page 321 of the bundle. The warden's assertion that I hired Hien Le is incorrect. I had no authority to hire staff. Hien was a member of the catering staff and the turnover of catering staff is much higher than that of the accounts staff.
Annex 4. An accurate version of the proceedings is at pages 607-622 of the bundle. This was recorded by Mark Butchers at the appeal hearings. Edwin Peel's hand written notes at pages 657-668, 674-681 and 692-694 of the bundle were released to my solicitors. I have never seen these before their disclosure.
Annex 5. Roger Boden confirmed that there was an omission in the second version of his submission to Dr Jenkinson's report. The reason given for this is not convincing as my consultation notes formed part of the grievance. He has confirmed that the accounts review was the first one conducted at Keble College. Roger Boden actually agreed for funds to be transferred for the benefit of Dr Jenkinson and thereby establishing a favourable relationship between them. Roger Boden, in his note on file, does refer to me buying a new BMW and going on a holiday to Sri Lanka as one of the reasons for the investigation. On the subject of loans to staff Mr Hardiman was given £5000 loan but he is white whereas Mrs Chaudhry is of Asian origin. Roger Boden refers to my visit to Pakistan, a country I have never visited.
Annex 6. At page 687 there is a Governing Body minute, which required the excess fund, which Dr Jenkinson considered as his personal fund to be transferred to Fellows' Research Fund. Roger Boden instead transferred the money to Dr Jenkinson's personal academic fund upon which he could draw as he pleased.
Annex 8. I have given my calculation of an increase in costs as a result of the alleged restructuring. I have also reiterated Roger Boden's lack of accounting knowledge.
110. At page 706 I received an email from Averil Cameron dated 26 March 2004. This stated the following:
"You will now have received by email the text of Ed Peel's findings on your grievance appeal. Now that this matter is resolved we need to proceed with the consideration of the proposal to restructure the Accounts Department. I am therefore calling a meeting of Finance Committee for this coming Tuesday, 30th March. The meeting will be held in the Gibbs Room, commencing at 11 a.m. The papers are as circulated for Agenda item 9 of the FC meeting held on 4th February (discussion of which was of course postponed pending the outcome of the grievance process). You have I think a set of these papers but if you would like them to be re-sent to you please let me know: they include, of course, a copy of your comments entitled "Finance Committee Consultation - 04 February 2004". You requested and I agreed that you could attend the 4th February discussion of Finance Committee on the re-structuring issue. I am assuming, therefore, that you would wish to attend the 30th March meeting for this item on the same basis. I am happy to agree to this but I would point out that your comments should be confined to substantive points concerning the restructuring proposal itself: there are very serious business issues here and it is important that the discussion remains focussed on them. This is not a re-hearing of other matters covered in your grievance. I would first invite you to make your comments briefly, and then It may be that members of the Committee will wish to ask questions on points you have raised, whether orally at the meeting or in your consultation note. The Finance Committee will wish to have a discussion of the overall proposal before asking you to appear so I would suggest that you aim to make yourself available from 11.30 onwards. As there is nowhere comfortable near the Gibbs Room for you to wait may I suggest that you stand by in your office and a member of the Committee will come and collect you when the Committee is ready. If you do not wish to appear at the Finance Committee in person then you should please let me know."
You requested and I agreed that you could attend the 4th February discussion of Finance Committee on the re-structuring issue. I am assuming, therefore, that you would wish to attend the 30th March meeting for this item on the same basis. I am happy to agree to this but I would point out that your comments should be confined to substantive points concerning the restructuring proposal itself: there are very serious business issues here and it is important that the discussion remains focussed on them. This is not a re-hearing of other matters covered in your grievance. I would first invite you to make your comments briefly, and then It may be that members of the Committee will wish to ask questions on points you have raised, whether orally at the meeting or in your consultation note.
The Finance Committee will wish to have a discussion of the overall proposal before asking you to appear so I would suggest that you aim to make yourself available from 11.30 onwards. As there is nowhere comfortable near the Gibbs Room for you to wait may I suggest that you stand by in your office and a member of the Committee will come and collect you when the Committee is ready. If you do not wish to appear at the Finance Committee in person then you should please let me know."
I responded at page 707. By this stage I considered that the matter had been completely pre-determined and therefore declined to attend the Finance Committee meeting. I did however request at page 708 the agenda papers for the Finance Committee meeting. These were forwarded to me by Roger Boden on 29 March 2004. At pages 710-715 the Tribunal will see a substantially different version of the document referred to as The Review of Accounting and Financial Control. In particular at pages 713-715 there is an additional element called "Is it worth doing?" At no time was I allowed to comment on this as part of my grievance and appeal process. I stated in an email to Averil Cameron dated 31 March 2004 that I would have liked an opportunity to comment on the contents, particularly the Bursar's false claim of a £48,000 saving. This email is at page 716 of the bundle.
111. On 31 March 2004 I received the letter at page 718 of the bundle. I was then provided with notice of termination of my employment by reason of redundancy. I was further provided with a job description at pages 719-721.
112. Within the bundle is a letter dated 2 April 2004 at page 722. At that time the Oxford area was suffering from a postal strike and therefore I received this on 20 April 2004. There is a note from Roger Boden to the Finance Committee stating that I did not apply for the position of Financial Controller.
113. The reason that I did not apply for the position of Financial Controller was that I considered the matter was completely pre-determined and further it would mean a substantial decrease in my salary whereas it would be a promotion for my assistant, Mrs Hernandez. I was convinced that had I applied for the new post I would not have got it, as the job description was what my assistant did. It would have been humiliating for me just to go through the process. My letter in response to Averil Cameron's is at pages 724-725 of the bundle. Here I have quoted from a previous correspondence from the warden that my payment in lieu of notice shall be paid gross without deduction of tax or NIC.
114. Thereafter I received a letter from Keble College's solicitors dated 15 April 2004. At page 727 of the bundle there is an allegation that arrangements were not recorded and that the College understands that the enhancement is no more than a temporary arrangement designed to alleviate hardship when transferred from the College pension to USS. I would refer the Tribunal to my previous explanation of why there was enhancement of an additional 1.35% per annum since 1996. Furthermore, the College is not able to locate audit files for 2003 and the current VAT file and proceeded to want the immediate return of the laptop computer. Subsequently I responded directly to Averil Cameron in respect of the pay enhancement of 1.35%. This is at page 732 of the bundle
115. I further wrote to Manches solicitors directly dated 28 April 2004 by way of letter this is at page 734 of the bundle.
116. I subsequently received a letter directly from Manches solicitors withholding the payment of my payment in lieu of notice. This is at pages 735-737. Additionally when applying for Jobseeker's Allowance Roger Boden's response at pages 740-742 details the amounts withheld. My solicitors, Pitmans, wrote to Manches on 21 June 2004 answering the points raised and confirming that an application had been submitted to the Employment Tribunal. The counter-claim allegations contained within the Notice of Appearance were dropped by the respondents at the Directions hearing. I was subsequently provided with a cheque in the sum of £9,526.01. I have not received confirmation of my tax and national insurance status despite several requests from my solicitors to the respondents' solicitors at pages 772, 774, 779, 780, 792 and 814 of the bundle. The Inland Revenue rules require employers to provide a statement of deductions of tax and NI. The Tribunal will see that there are amounts remaining outstanding payable by the respondents. A pay rise of 3.4% with effect from 1 August 2003 was settled in June 2004 after my termination. Keble awarded a provisional pay rise of 3% with effect from 1 August 2003 and paid at the end of October 2003. I refer the Tribunal to the email exchange at page 384 of the bundle. At Oxford and all the other University institutions it is normal practice to pay those employees on academic and academic related scales any back pay due to these employees after they have left, as this would affect their pension benefit entitlement. All other employees at Keble have been paid the back pay of 0.4% with effect from 1 August 2003 but I have not yet been paid the back pay. This is affecting my pension benefits entitlement. The outstanding amounts are:
COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
Monies owed:
1. Underpayment 1.8.03 - 2.04.04 = £159.27
2. Underpayment Notice Pay = £542.60
3. Interest due on sum owed 02.04.04 - 31.08.04 @ £2.09 per day = £315.59
Total £ 1,017.46
117. In relation to the client care letters and invoice from Grant Thornton I have the following comments upon these. The client care letters under the heading 'ACCOUNTING' confirm that Grant Thornton will undertake preparation of statutory financial statements and tax computations. I was responsible for these and I pointed out in my consultation notes that this function will be outsourced to Grant Thornton. An invoice from Grant Thornton dated 28 September 2004 at page 778 of the bundle is only for the fee on account of the audit for the year ended 31 July 2004. The charge for preparing accounts and tax computations has not yet been released by the respondents.
118. At page 767 of the bundle there is a copy of leaver notification sent by respondents to my pension provider, USS Ltd. The pensionable salary quoted with effect from 1 August 2003 is not correct. My salary was on an academic related scale 5, point 10. This was £46,986 with effect from 1 August 2003. The respondents have agreed on ET3 that my annual salary was £47,620. This consisted of a pensionable salary of £46,986 and a non-pensionable element of £634. The significance of this misquote is that USS will use a lower final salary figure to calculate my pension entitlement. I request the Tribunal to ask the respondents to declare the correct pensionable salary to the USS.
119. I have the following comments on the paragraphs of the respondents' Notice of Appearance at pages 31-38 of the bundle:
1. This role is dispensed by employing various experts. Most Oxford colleges employ an accountant to carry out intricate and complex financial operations. 2. Not strictly true. See email exchanges at pages 344-348 of the bundle. My request in May 2003 was to give my accounts staff increments so that their salaries were comparable with the rest of the staff. Roger Boden twisted this into conducting a review to get rid of me. His plan had started well before May 2003. 3. Inter-collegiate comparisons were irrelevant, as each college is different. College auditors would favour the plan, as my work would be out-sourced to them. 4. The governing body did not vote on the issue. See the minutes at page 458a-459a. of the bundle. The animal issue was voted upon. 5. I have no record of receiving this email. I believe it was not sent. 6. Roger Boden knew that I had an appointment with Drivetech at 9.30 am on 15 January 2004. I had informed him that I should be back by lunchtime. 7&8. See email exchanges at pages 447-449 of the bundle regarding my objection for Roger Boden not to let me have sight of the Finance Committee agenda. I became disinterested in the salary review, only because I was not given the Finance Committee agenda. I did not know then that there were proposals to disestablish my role. That is why I did not wish to know the Finance Committee outcome. I recall Roger Boden was aggressive. He told me to shut up and listen. 10. See my consultation notes dated 20 January 2004 at pages 454-457 of the bundle. 11. I did not request to be accompanied but asked if there was a possibility of bringing in a friend to witness the Finance Committee procedures. 12. I explained to Roger Boden that the 'new' post of Financial Controller was 2 grades below mine and a grade above my Assistant Accountant. Furthermore the job description of Finance Controller at pages 443-444 of the bundle was more or less what my assistant did then. So the restructuring is aimed at forcing me out and so I shall not be humiliated into applying for the post. 14. Not strictly true. Roger Boden did not wish to discuss my consultation notes. I asked him that at the governing body meeting of 21 January 2004 at pages 458A-459A he said that the Accountant has made false claims. I wanted to know what were these. He gave me two. See my consultation notes for 4 February 2004 Finance Committee meeting item 4 at pages 470-471 of the bundle. 15. This is simply not true. Both my consultation notes explain fully why the proposals are unworkable. I never said what Roger Boden alleges. I explained to him that the cost of outsourcing and increased cost of staff combined would come to more than the cost saving of my salary. I have never used the word "charade". 17. I was never offered any suitable alternative employment or given time off to look for jobs. 18. Accordingly I prepared consultation notes at pages 470-473 of the bundle for the Finance Committee scheduled for 4 February 2004. 20. My grievance was as stated in my letter of 2 February 2004 addressed to Roger Boden and then as in my letter to the Warden on 3 February 2004 at page 474 of the bundle. 21. The notes of the grievance meeting at pages 492-499 and 563-577 of the bundle indicate Dr Jenkinson was biased. He had prejudged the outcome as he was arguing with me rather than listening to my grievance. 22. There were several faults in the Appeal procedures. I referred to these above at paragraphs 104-109. 23. I believe that the consultation process should have been resumed rather than calling an emergency Finance Committee meeting to consider the predetermined restructuring proposals. 24. The Warden's letter of 2 April 2004 was posted instead of being sent by email as all other letters were. I received it on 20 April 2004. I believe this was deliberate, as the College authorities knew that there was a postal strike in Oxford. I refer the Tribunal to my email at page 731. 25. My letter referred to the statutory redundancy payment. 26. A full explanation of the telephone bill and college property had been given at pages 738A-D and 744L-744M. 27. I am a trained accountant. I never passed the last 3 papers of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants examinations. The details of my examinations passed are at page 872 of the bundle. Roger Boden is not a trained accountant. He alleges to have passed some minor accountancy examinations as part of his banking qualification. I hold a B.Sc. honours in chemical engineering but I am not a trained engineer. 29. During the grievance procedure numerous points were presented that show that Roger Boden was continually intimidating me. 30. I always complained that I was treated differently to others. There are emails in the bundle to prove this. As I wrote in my grievance and appeal notes, it is very difficult to bring a grievance of racial discrimination when I am in employment and then continue to work for someone I believe to be a racist. 31. Auditors, over the years, have not commented on any of the issues raised by Roger Boden regarding telephone or College property. I have not got any College property. All my computer equipment is replacement of what I had bought before. The wear and tear of the equipment was due to the use of the computer and its accessories for the College. It was reasonable for the College to upgrade my equipment. Roger Boden knew all about it.
2. Not strictly true. See email exchanges at pages 344-348 of the bundle. My request in May 2003 was to give my accounts staff increments so that their salaries were comparable with the rest of the staff. Roger Boden twisted this into conducting a review to get rid of me. His plan had started well before May 2003.
3. Inter-collegiate comparisons were irrelevant, as each college is different. College auditors would favour the plan, as my work would be out-sourced to them.
4. The governing body did not vote on the issue. See the minutes at page 458a-459a. of the bundle. The animal issue was voted upon.
5. I have no record of receiving this email. I believe it was not sent.
6. Roger Boden knew that I had an appointment with Drivetech at 9.30 am on 15 January 2004. I had informed him that I should be back by lunchtime.
7&8. See email exchanges at pages 447-449 of the bundle regarding my objection for Roger Boden not to let me have sight of the Finance Committee agenda. I became disinterested in the salary review, only because I was not given the Finance Committee agenda. I did not know then that there were proposals to disestablish my role. That is why I did not wish to know the Finance Committee outcome. I recall Roger Boden was aggressive. He told me to shut up and listen.
10. See my consultation notes dated 20 January 2004 at pages 454-457 of the bundle.
11. I did not request to be accompanied but asked if there was a possibility of bringing in a friend to witness the Finance Committee procedures.
12. I explained to Roger Boden that the 'new' post of Financial Controller was 2 grades below mine and a grade above my Assistant Accountant. Furthermore the job description of Finance Controller at pages 443-444 of the bundle was more or less what my assistant did then. So the restructuring is aimed at forcing me out and so I shall not be humiliated into applying for the post.
14. Not strictly true. Roger Boden did not wish to discuss my consultation notes. I asked him that at the governing body meeting of 21 January 2004 at pages 458A-459A he said that the Accountant has made false claims. I wanted to know what were these. He gave me two. See my consultation notes for 4 February 2004 Finance Committee meeting item 4 at pages 470-471 of the bundle.
15. This is simply not true. Both my consultation notes explain fully why the proposals are unworkable. I never said what Roger Boden alleges. I explained to him that the cost of outsourcing and increased cost of staff combined would come to more than the cost saving of my salary. I have never used the word "charade".
17. I was never offered any suitable alternative employment or given time off to look for jobs.
18. Accordingly I prepared consultation notes at pages 470-473 of the bundle for the Finance Committee scheduled for 4 February 2004.
20. My grievance was as stated in my letter of 2 February 2004 addressed to Roger Boden and then as in my letter to the Warden on 3 February 2004 at page 474 of the bundle.
21. The notes of the grievance meeting at pages 492-499 and 563-577 of the bundle indicate Dr Jenkinson was biased. He had prejudged the outcome as he was arguing with me rather than listening to my grievance.
22. There were several faults in the Appeal procedures. I referred to these above at paragraphs 104-109.
23. I believe that the consultation process should have been resumed rather than calling an emergency Finance Committee meeting to consider the predetermined restructuring proposals.
24. The Warden's letter of 2 April 2004 was posted instead of being sent by email as all other letters were. I received it on 20 April 2004. I believe this was deliberate, as the College authorities knew that there was a postal strike in Oxford. I refer the Tribunal to my email at page 731.
25. My letter referred to the statutory redundancy payment.
26. A full explanation of the telephone bill and college property had been given at pages 738A-D and 744L-744M.
27. I am a trained accountant. I never passed the last 3 papers of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants examinations. The details of my examinations passed are at page 872 of the bundle. Roger Boden is not a trained accountant. He alleges to have passed some minor accountancy examinations as part of his banking qualification. I hold a B.Sc. honours in chemical engineering but I am not a trained engineer.
29. During the grievance procedure numerous points were presented that show that Roger Boden was continually intimidating me.
30. I always complained that I was treated differently to others. There are emails in the bundle to prove this. As I wrote in my grievance and appeal notes, it is very difficult to bring a grievance of racial discrimination when I am in employment and then continue to work for someone I believe to be a racist.
31. Auditors, over the years, have not commented on any of the issues raised by Roger Boden regarding telephone or College property. I have not got any College property. All my computer equipment is replacement of what I had bought before. The wear and tear of the equipment was due to the use of the computer and its accessories for the College. It was reasonable for the College to upgrade my equipment. Roger Boden knew all about it.
120. I issued a Race Discrimination Questionnaire (at pages 8-30 of the bundle) following my Tribunal Application. Although there were a number of questions the questions asked were straightforward and I did expect a full response from both Keble and Roger Boden. I have the following comments on the response to the Race Discrimination Questionnaire at pages 41-120:
1. Roger Boden implies that there were strenuous relationships with the previous bursars. In that case I would have been sacked long ago. Dr Corney was an academic and I found his methods of working difficult. I was offered an opportunity at King's School, Canterbury and so I handed in my notice. Dr Corney persuaded me to stay as the College was looking for my replacement. I agreed to stay and withdrew my resignation. There was no strained relationship with Ken Lovett. We used to go out drinking and socialising. The incident referred to was a pure misunderstanding. I said to Ken that it would be unwise to use unaudited figures as actuals for the budget. Instead if he waited till the accounts were audited he would be reporting meaningful figures. This was happening in the middle of me trying to resolve pension unfairness and so Ken may have felt that I was being uncooperative. Roger Boden has reported our meeting at his flat incorrectly. I was instructed by him to go to his apartment to give him accounting lessons away from the office. The exercise was fruitless, as he would not understand simple bookkeeping in spite of me drawing diagrams for him. In the end he gave up. My earlier appraisals were good because he was trying to learn the job and therefore he wished to be kind to me. The major difficulty started when I bought a new car in November 2002. His attitude towards me changed and he became hostile. 2. It is not true that Roger Boden discussed the issue of blocking the connecting door. I was told that he wanted the door blocked because he did not want me listening in to his conversations. He even asked the architect for a possibility of soundproofing. The previous bursar considered the connecting door as a good communication link when in early in the year 2000 he arranged for his office to be next to mine. 3. There is email evidence showing that I was excluded from the management decision making. Even the appraisals record that the core management meetings were not held. If he felt that the Domestic Bursar and I had a strained relationship then as our manager he should have brought us together by holding such meetings. Instead he chose to cause divisions by discussing with the Domestic Bursar issues of central importance and keeping me in the dark. 4. I never asked my employee costs to be transferred to accounts. This is a further example of me being treated differently. My salary costs were included as management costs together with those of Roger Boden and Janet Betts, the domestic bursar but Roger Boden moved my accounts costs thereby implying that I did not belong to the management team. 5. I consider this is an evasive answer. The respondents have not answered the question. There is no Finance Committee minute evidence to show that Roger Boden carried out similar reviews on other departments. 6. The reorganisation he refers to, in fact, increased the establishment headcount in the college office, giving rise to an increase in cost. 7. I consider The respondents have not answered 'why' and 'how'. 8. All senior non-academic administrative employees at the College are white yet Roger Boden and Keble have not answered the question. 9. In the restructuring proposals only my job was at risk. The job description of the 'new' post was exactly what my assistant did. The post was graded one grade above my assistant's salary grade and two points below mine. Therefore it would have meant demotion and lesser duties for me, and a promotion without extra duties for my assistant. 10. The panel did not have any choice, as there was only one predetermined candidate. I consider the reason for not advertising is unconvincing. 12. This episode is well documented in the email exchanges at the time at pages 267-269, 272, 275, 284 and 285-287 of the bundle. There are also extensive minutes prepared by me of the two meetings of 13 January 2003 at pages 288-290 of the bundle. There was no reason for concern as the College had just received a clean bill of health from the auditors. Roger Boden never asked me why I needed the remote access. In fact, Roger Boden thought it was a good idea. Fraud was implied by the note on file dated 20 December 2002 at page 589P-589Q of the bundle, in which Roger Boden mentions me spending a lot of money. Why bring in a 'forensic' accountant? I cannot see how Roger Boden or the College can justify Roger Boden's actions by stating that it was just a security exercise. Roger Boden only apologised because I agreed with the Warden not to invoke a grievance procedure in return for an apology. In hindsight I should have proceeded with the grievance. Ironically he was concerned that I was working very hard because in his restructuring proposals and subsequent grievance notes he alleges that I have not got much work as I kept short hours. His approach is inconsistent. 13. I consider the respondents have not answered the question. Had I been a white member of staff would Roger Boden have doubted my trust? Roger Boden is a head of administration. There are other senior members like me to whom various duties are delegated. I took care of accounting. There were not enough grounds to suspect me. Roger Boden's intention, I believe, was to discredit me. 14. There are several emails on file that show that I had complained that Roger Boden was treating me differently. Roger Boden fails to mention that my salary grade was the same as that of the Domestic Bursar. So I was not the highest paid staff. There are several other accountants at other colleges who earned higher salaries than I did. Yes, Roger Boden did give me increments because he wanted my co-operation when he was new and wished to learn the job from me. 15. This is simply not true. Other white colleagues were allowed to park in the same spot but I was singled out. 16. My email at page 308 of the bundle proves that Roger Boden did not get me involved whereas other white colleagues were invited to discuss various projects. 17. I often worked late in the evenings and sometimes at weekends. The restriction of remote access (via internet) caused difficulties for the accounts department because the software house had to ask the IT Manager for the connection before they could remedy a problem. IT personnel were not always around and so the accounts staff could not get on with their jobs quickly. Later on I overcame this difficulty by introducing a modem connection thereby transferring control to the accounts department from IT department. 18. The fact remains that a white colleague was paid for this task but I was refused a small stipend. My job was to account for the investments not value them. It is a job of the investment brokers who specialise in this field. 19. The only other person was a Vietnamese girl in the accounts department whose recruitment was only possible after a great deal of difficulty. 20. The problem was the applicant herself because of her race. All other loans in the 15 years I was there were for the white members of staff. 21. There is an email on file at page 330 of the bundle in which I have complained that he had stopped giving me the minutes. It was customary to let me have the minutes soon after the FC meeting so that I could be informed quickly. I only had a sight of these minutes after 2 to 3 weeks of the meeting after March 2003. 22. It is true that I was not a member of the Estates Bursars Committee; but it was a standard practice to give me the copies of agenda and minutes because the contents impacted on my work. It was often embarrassing to find out facts weeks after from my colleagues. 23. The email exchanges that Roger Boden refers to took place in May 2003 at pages 344-349 of the bundle when I had difficulty in recruiting Hien (the Vietnamese lady) internally. The pay review took place in July 2003 when I was not consulted as a manager and accountant. So I do not consider the respondents have answered the question. 24. Why did the respondents not insist on the other white senior members of staff fill in the holiday form but Roger Boden insisted that I should? Again Roger Boden nor the College have answered the question. This was not the first time that Roger Boden aggressively asked me to fill in a holiday form despite me reminding him that other (white) colleagues were not required to do so. 25. This is simply not true as all the other staff were invited even if they were not involved with the project. In any case I was responsible for paying the contractors' invoices and so I considered myself as being involved. Roger Boden deliberately excluded me. 26. Attachment 7 does not answer my question. I consider that as an accountant I should have been consulted if there was any need for a cost effectiveness exercise. 27. Mr Peel is a member of the Finance Committee that decided on the restructuring. I consider his opinion biased in favour of the College and its officers. There are written notes, (by Reverend Butchers), on file of the grievance hearing. These clearly indicate that Dr Jenkinson had preconceived ideas as he kept arguing with me instead of listening to my grievance. The minutes are at pages 492-499 and 563-577 of the bundle. 28. This is not true. I was informed that the Finance Committee meeting scheduled for 4 February 2004 was postponed pending outcome of my grievance. I never received the version of the agenda at pages 710-715 of the bundle until Roger Boden emailed this to me on 29 March 2004 a day before the emergency Finance Committee meeting, which approved the restructure. (See the email receipt dated 29 March at pages 708-709 of the bundle). There is an email dated 31 March 2004 at page 716 of the bundle addressed to the Warden complaining that I have not been offered opportunity to comment on the Bursar's false claim of £48k saving. 31. The explanation is not true. There is a copy of a memorandum from the previous Bursar authorising 1.35% enhancement at page 173 of the bundle. This was also paid to another member of non-academic staff. Roger Boden knew about this uplift as he authorised the payroll payments every month. 32. I emailed the Warden on 27 March 2004 requesting payment as soon as the restructuring went ahead. I also mentioned that I shall accept any payment as a part payment against any compensation I may claim from Keble College. In my letter to the Warden dated 8 April 2004 I made it "clear that whatever redundancy payment is made to me is only accepted by me as part payment of any compensatory award that may arise as a result of any claim I may make against Keble College". On 15 April 2004 I emailed Roger Boden asking him when I should expect my payment. Then on 28 April 2004 I phoned and wrote to Manches requesting payment. This is at page 734 of the bundle. 33. The counter claims have now been withdrawn. The claims were false and I believe I was victimised because of the race complaints I had made. 34. My understanding was that the consultation process should have been resumed after the appeal decision of my grievance. 35. The Bursar heads the administration and performs his duties by delegation. Some accountants at other colleges are referred to as Deputy Bursars or Finance Bursar. Domestic Bursars at other colleges are members of Governing Body whereas Janet Betts is not. If the title was just symbolic then there was no harm in changing my title to that of a Finance Bursar. I believe this was indicative of me being treated differently because of my race. 36. This question is again a standard question. The respondents should know what proportion of non-academic staff are Asians. 39. The respondents are not answering the question completely. I consider the answer is evasive. 40. I consider the respondents have not answered the question. 41. The question has not been answered. 42. The question has not been answered. 43. I emailed Roger Boden on 7 March 2004 and copied it to the Warden at page 604 of the bundle asking this question. I did not get a reply. I then asked the Appeal adjudicator, Mr Peel, to ask the same question at page 631 of the bundle. I never received a reply. Even now the respondents have not answered my question. 44. The respondents have not given a complete answer. 45. This is hard to believe. The College's year-end falls on 31 July 2004. Normally, I would have been working till 9 to 10 in the evening and weekends too. Roger Boden is not equipped to prepare the final accounts. 46. Again the question has not been answered. My proposals would have saved more than double my salary. My question aims at finding out if the proposals were evaluated. It appears that they were not. 47. The answer is not complete. Presumably the software has not yet been developed. This software was allegedly central to the success of the restructuring proposals. 48. About 3 years ago I did some number crunching exercises to show that the acquisition of the Acland building was a viable proposition. My analysis included an addition of one member of accounts staff, as the increase in workload would be such as to warrant an increase in establishment. 49. This is, I believe a valid deduction. 51. The members of staff have either undergone the training or not. I consider it to be a simple question. 52. The respondents have not answered the question.
2. It is not true that Roger Boden discussed the issue of blocking the connecting door. I was told that he wanted the door blocked because he did not want me listening in to his conversations. He even asked the architect for a possibility of soundproofing. The previous bursar considered the connecting door as a good communication link when in early in the year 2000 he arranged for his office to be next to mine.
3. There is email evidence showing that I was excluded from the management decision making. Even the appraisals record that the core management meetings were not held. If he felt that the Domestic Bursar and I had a strained relationship then as our manager he should have brought us together by holding such meetings. Instead he chose to cause divisions by discussing with the Domestic Bursar issues of central importance and keeping me in the dark.
4. I never asked my employee costs to be transferred to accounts. This is a further example of me being treated differently. My salary costs were included as management costs together with those of Roger Boden and Janet Betts, the domestic bursar but Roger Boden moved my accounts costs thereby implying that I did not belong to the management team.
5. I consider this is an evasive answer. The respondents have not answered the question. There is no Finance Committee minute evidence to show that Roger Boden carried out similar reviews on other departments.
6. The reorganisation he refers to, in fact, increased the establishment headcount in the college office, giving rise to an increase in cost.
7. I consider The respondents have not answered 'why' and 'how'.
8. All senior non-academic administrative employees at the College are white yet Roger Boden and Keble have not answered the question.
9. In the restructuring proposals only my job was at risk. The job description of the 'new' post was exactly what my assistant did. The post was graded one grade above my assistant's salary grade and two points below mine. Therefore it would have meant demotion and lesser duties for me, and a promotion without extra duties for my assistant.
10. The panel did not have any choice, as there was only one predetermined candidate. I consider the reason for not advertising is unconvincing.
12. This episode is well documented in the email exchanges at the time at pages 267-269, 272, 275, 284 and 285-287 of the bundle. There are also extensive minutes prepared by me of the two meetings of 13 January 2003 at pages 288-290 of the bundle. There was no reason for concern as the College had just received a clean bill of health from the auditors. Roger Boden never asked me why I needed the remote access. In fact, Roger Boden thought it was a good idea. Fraud was implied by the note on file dated 20 December 2002 at page 589P-589Q of the bundle, in which Roger Boden mentions me spending a lot of money. Why bring in a 'forensic' accountant? I cannot see how Roger Boden or the College can justify Roger Boden's actions by stating that it was just a security exercise. Roger Boden only apologised because I agreed with the Warden not to invoke a grievance procedure in return for an apology. In hindsight I should have proceeded with the grievance. Ironically he was concerned that I was working very hard because in his restructuring proposals and subsequent grievance notes he alleges that I have not got much work as I kept short hours. His approach is inconsistent.
13. I consider the respondents have not answered the question. Had I been a white member of staff would Roger Boden have doubted my trust? Roger Boden is a head of administration. There are other senior members like me to whom various duties are delegated. I took care of accounting. There were not enough grounds to suspect me. Roger Boden's intention, I believe, was to discredit me.
14. There are several emails on file that show that I had complained that Roger Boden was treating me differently. Roger Boden fails to mention that my salary grade was the same as that of the Domestic Bursar. So I was not the highest paid staff. There are several other accountants at other colleges who earned higher salaries than I did. Yes, Roger Boden did give me increments because he wanted my co-operation when he was new and wished to learn the job from me.
15. This is simply not true. Other white colleagues were allowed to park in the same spot but I was singled out.
16. My email at page 308 of the bundle proves that Roger Boden did not get me involved whereas other white colleagues were invited to discuss various projects.
17. I often worked late in the evenings and sometimes at weekends. The restriction of remote access (via internet) caused difficulties for the accounts department because the software house had to ask the IT Manager for the connection before they could remedy a problem. IT personnel were not always around and so the accounts staff could not get on with their jobs quickly. Later on I overcame this difficulty by introducing a modem connection thereby transferring control to the accounts department from IT department.
18. The fact remains that a white colleague was paid for this task but I was refused a small stipend. My job was to account for the investments not value them. It is a job of the investment brokers who specialise in this field.
19. The only other person was a Vietnamese girl in the accounts department whose recruitment was only possible after a great deal of difficulty.
20. The problem was the applicant herself because of her race. All other loans in the 15 years I was there were for the white members of staff.
21. There is an email on file at page 330 of the bundle in which I have complained that he had stopped giving me the minutes. It was customary to let me have the minutes soon after the FC meeting so that I could be informed quickly. I only had a sight of these minutes after 2 to 3 weeks of the meeting after March 2003.
22. It is true that I was not a member of the Estates Bursars Committee; but it was a standard practice to give me the copies of agenda and minutes because the contents impacted on my work. It was often embarrassing to find out facts weeks after from my colleagues.
23. The email exchanges that Roger Boden refers to took place in May 2003 at pages 344-349 of the bundle when I had difficulty in recruiting Hien (the Vietnamese lady) internally. The pay review took place in July 2003 when I was not consulted as a manager and accountant. So I do not consider the respondents have answered the question.
24. Why did the respondents not insist on the other white senior members of staff fill in the holiday form but Roger Boden insisted that I should? Again Roger Boden nor the College have answered the question. This was not the first time that Roger Boden aggressively asked me to fill in a holiday form despite me reminding him that other (white) colleagues were not required to do so.
25. This is simply not true as all the other staff were invited even if they were not involved with the project. In any case I was responsible for paying the contractors' invoices and so I considered myself as being involved. Roger Boden deliberately excluded me.
26. Attachment 7 does not answer my question. I consider that as an accountant I should have been consulted if there was any need for a cost effectiveness exercise.
27. Mr Peel is a member of the Finance Committee that decided on the restructuring. I consider his opinion biased in favour of the College and its officers. There are written notes, (by Reverend Butchers), on file of the grievance hearing. These clearly indicate that Dr Jenkinson had preconceived ideas as he kept arguing with me instead of listening to my grievance. The minutes are at pages 492-499 and 563-577 of the bundle.
28. This is not true. I was informed that the Finance Committee meeting scheduled for 4 February 2004 was postponed pending outcome of my grievance. I never received the version of the agenda at pages 710-715 of the bundle until Roger Boden emailed this to me on 29 March 2004 a day before the emergency Finance Committee meeting, which approved the restructure. (See the email receipt dated 29 March at pages 708-709 of the bundle). There is an email dated 31 March 2004 at page 716 of the bundle addressed to the Warden complaining that I have not been offered opportunity to comment on the Bursar's false claim of £48k saving.
31. The explanation is not true. There is a copy of a memorandum from the previous Bursar authorising 1.35% enhancement at page 173 of the bundle. This was also paid to another member of non-academic staff. Roger Boden knew about this uplift as he authorised the payroll payments every month.
32. I emailed the Warden on 27 March 2004 requesting payment as soon as the restructuring went ahead. I also mentioned that I shall accept any payment as a part payment against any compensation I may claim from Keble College. In my letter to the Warden dated 8 April 2004 I made it "clear that whatever redundancy payment is made to me is only accepted by me as part payment of any compensatory award that may arise as a result of any claim I may make against Keble College". On 15 April 2004 I emailed Roger Boden asking him when I should expect my payment. Then on 28 April 2004 I phoned and wrote to Manches requesting payment. This is at page 734 of the bundle.
33. The counter claims have now been withdrawn. The claims were false and I believe I was victimised because of the race complaints I had made.
34. My understanding was that the consultation process should have been resumed after the appeal decision of my grievance.
35. The Bursar heads the administration and performs his duties by delegation. Some accountants at other colleges are referred to as Deputy Bursars or Finance Bursar. Domestic Bursars at other colleges are members of Governing Body whereas Janet Betts is not. If the title was just symbolic then there was no harm in changing my title to that of a Finance Bursar. I believe this was indicative of me being treated differently because of my race.
36. This question is again a standard question. The respondents should know what proportion of non-academic staff are Asians.
39. The respondents are not answering the question completely. I consider the answer is evasive.
40. I consider the respondents have not answered the question.
41. The question has not been answered.
42. The question has not been answered.
43. I emailed Roger Boden on 7 March 2004 and copied it to the Warden at page 604 of the bundle asking this question. I did not get a reply. I then asked the Appeal adjudicator, Mr Peel, to ask the same question at page 631 of the bundle. I never received a reply. Even now the respondents have not answered my question.
44. The respondents have not given a complete answer.
45. This is hard to believe. The College's year-end falls on 31 July 2004. Normally, I would have been working till 9 to 10 in the evening and weekends too. Roger Boden is not equipped to prepare the final accounts.
46. Again the question has not been answered. My proposals would have saved more than double my salary. My question aims at finding out if the proposals were evaluated. It appears that they were not.
47. The answer is not complete. Presumably the software has not yet been developed. This software was allegedly central to the success of the restructuring proposals.
48. About 3 years ago I did some number crunching exercises to show that the acquisition of the Acland building was a viable proposition. My analysis included an addition of one member of accounts staff, as the increase in workload would be such as to warrant an increase in establishment.
49. This is, I believe a valid deduction.
51. The members of staff have either undergone the training or not. I consider it to be a simple question.
52. The respondents have not answered the question.
121. In relation to the disclosure of documents, it was necessary for my solicitor to obtain a Specific Order for Disclosure. However, I remain surprised that there are not more documents that the respondents could produce in relation to the procedure they followed in determining the review of the Accounting and Finance Control function and their reasons for terminating my employment. I refer the Tribunal to the following pages of the bundle: 781-784, 787-790, 793-795, 798-812 and 816-818. In particular there is no evidence of the choice and use of fair selection criteria or the application of this to me and the accounts function. I can find no evidence that suggests any fair procedure was followed. My role was chosen for redundancy without proper warning or effective consultation.
122. Since losing my employment I have endeavoured to find new work.
123. The Tribunal will see at pages 819-822 my salary documents. At pages 823-836 I have included up to date pension quotations. I have further obtained a Pension Actuary Report in relation to my pension losses, which I trust will assist the Employment Tribunal.
124. I have referred the Employment Tribunal to my CV at pages 870-871. My examinations are at page 872.
125. I have claimed Jobseeker's Allowance, which is detailed, on my Schedule of Loss, which is at pages 123-125.
126. I have kept a detailed note of all expenses in looking for work. This is at pages 876-879 of the bundle.
127. At pages 888-1213 I include all my applications, letters in and letters out in relation to my search for new work.
128. I have found it extremely difficult to find new work and do consider that I will be out of work for up to 2 years from the date of the Employment Tribunal hearing. I am therefore requesting that the Tribunal award me losses for future loss of 2 years. I have registered with fourteen employment agencies. Many agencies have indicated to me that prospective employers are looking for young accountants. I have had many rejections, as the Tribunal will see in the bundle. So far I have had four interviews but was not successful in securing employment.
129. I am 57 years old and have had a successful career to date but in the terms of employment in accountancy I am considered old. Prospective employers wish to employ young accountants. Presumably they are looking at a long term whereas I can only provide service for little over 7 years.
130. In terms of the Race Discrimination case, I consider that I have suffered injury to my feelings. Since the appointment of Roger Boden as a college bursar I have felt uncomfortable. Since November 2002 I have felt very demoralised and disheartened He never took personal interest in me whereas he often enquired after the welfare of other white colleagues. I have consulted my doctor because I have suffered acute stress. My blood pressure has been high and my digestive system has been affected. I could not sleep and was therefore prescribed sleeping pills. I have lost my sex drive and have constant financial worries. I have lost nearly a stone in weight I feel I am not as tolerant as I used to be with my family. I get irritable frequently.
131. I request that the Employment Tribunal find that I have suffered Racial Discrimination and/or in the alternative victimisation by Keble and Roger Boden. I further would ask the Tribunal to find that I have been unfairly dismissed and my contract of employment breached. I request an award of compensation from the Tribunal as stated at pages 123-5.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed
Dated 06/01/05