Home
August 22, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
University defends gagging clause in redundancy deals
Staff asked to agree not to ‘disparage’ former employers

GLASGOW UNIVERSITY is being investigated over why it spent £1 million of public money on gold-plated severance packages that included gagging orders for outgoing staff.

ScottishFundingCouncil(SFC) officialsarelookingatwhetherthe university has broken strict rules on protecting whistleblowers, by encouraging staff to sign "confidentiality clauses" as part of their redundancy deals.

Theprobeisanembarrassment fortheuniversity,ascurrentrector Mordechai Vanunu is one of the world's most famous whistleblowers.

The row springs from the university's drivetomake£10mofefficiency savings,whichincludedvoluntary redundancy packages for 230 staff.

It has since emerged that 23 staff who opted to leave signed gagging orders as part of their severance packages.

However, SFC guidance on public interest disclosure, which was published in 1998 as a way of protecting whistleblowers,states:"Institutions mustnotagreetoconfidentiality clauses within severance agreements except where it is necessary to protect commercially sensitive information."

It adds that exceptions to this rule must be discussed first with the SFC chief executive before being agreed.

Morecontroversially,thegagging order contains a "non-disparagement" clausewhichdoesnotrelateto commercial sensitivity. It states: "The Employee agrees that he has not and will not make or otherwise communicate any disparaging or derogatory comments whether in writing or by spoken word and whether or not they are considered by the employee to be true, concerning the university "

SFC officials were alerted to the cases last year and asked the university to clarify its actions.

A breakdown of costs reveals more than £1m of taxpayers' money was spent paying off staff who signed the gagging order, an average of £43,000 per person.

Documents passed to the Sunday Herald showed one departing employee received a severance package of around £125,000,whichwasmadeupofa £10,000windfall"inlieuofnotice", £90,000compensationanda£25,000 pension payment.

Anotherstafferwhosignedthe silence clause received £20,000 in lieu of notice and up to £70,000 for "loss of office", which topped up the package to £90,000.

The deals have worried critics who believe the university is shelling out publicmoneytobuythesilenceof outgoing staff.

GlasgowUniversity'sfondnessfor confidentiality clauses is also deemed ironic given that its current student rector is Mordechai Vanunu, the world- famous peace campaigner who blew the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons programme.

A spokesperson for the university said: "In the last round of voluntary severance, 23 members of staff signed confidentiality clauses. This represents less than 10% of the total number who chose to leave under this scheme.

"Those who signed a confidentiality clause did so for reasons of commercial sensitivity.TheUniversityofGlasgow hasanannualturnoverofmore than £300m and operates in a highly competitivesector.Itisentirely appropriate that, in some instances, departingstaffagreetosignaconfidentiality clause."

A spokesperson for the Scottish Funding Council said: "The matter is ongoing and correspondence is still continuing between the university and SFC."

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!
Posted by: BM on 9:48pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Whatever happened to I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it? This is disgraceful behaviour from an institution which seems increasingly out of control. If Glasgow University has broken Funding Council rules someone needs to carry the can. If Sir Muir - 15 per cent pay rise for me but cuts and redundancies for the rest of you - doesn't do the decent thing and tender his resignation then the University governors must act to take the matter out of his hands.
Posted by: academic on 1:59am Sun 18 Feb 07
Couldn't agree more BM. The whole point of academic freedom is the ability to say what you like provided you remain within the constraints imposed by the laws of slander and libel. A clause which states:

"The Employee agrees that he has not and will not make or otherwise communicate any disparaging or derogatory comments whether in writing or by spoken word and whether or not they are considered by the employee to be true, concerning the university "

undermines the whole ethos of a University. Surely the Funding Council must make an example of Glasgow University in order to defend the notion of academic freedom.

Otherwise what's the point?
Posted by: Plobotsky on 2:10am Sun 18 Feb 07
Well they could have taken their statutory minimum dundy money - a week or so for each year of service - and said what they liked!

This is nothing to do with principled freedom of speech.

These greedy sods are being paid handsomely with public money for their silence and they could choose to keep their freedom to speak out - at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds!
Posted by: BM on 9:44am Sun 18 Feb 07
And you're not at all curious as to why silence should be bought with public money????
Posted by: Plobotsky on 10:09am Sun 18 Feb 07
Obviously they don't want the redundant academics to slag them off in public. I think that's daft and a waste of public money, and the other option would be to pay them just the statutory minimum redundancy money.

I have no idea why the University is so frightened of being criticised by disgruntled former staff but if they were that highly motivated by principle they had the chance to say "no" and settle for what the rest of us would be stuck with.

Whatever else, though, these people are not victims of anything but their own self-interest.
Posted by: BM on 12:48pm Sun 18 Feb 07
I agree with you re the waste of public money. Presumably thats why the University is under investigation. If you spend public money you are under an obligation NOT to waste it and to observe the regulations when you spend it. It looks like Glasgow University has a bit of a case to answer on both counts.
Posted by: George Laird on 6:50pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I would like to comment firstly on a former female member of university staff who was forced to sign a gagging order by the University of Glasgow before they would pay her money so she could leave.

Her case was not one of commerical interest she worked in a sports building.

Ms. Shona Lovell, female staff SRS member was allegedly subjected to threats and intimidation by a senior member of the Sport and Recreation Service, University of Glasgow.

The University of Glasgow took no steps to ensure her safety or that of the other victims. The individual was left in sole charge of the Stevenson Building at night to wage a campaign of bullying and intimidation with a free reign and knowledge of the senior management.

Despite University staff finding a machete in his locker and being informed that the person had a conviction for carrying offensive weapons, the senior management of Glasgow University were moved to do nothing.

Glasgow University has an established track record of buying off it's victims.

If 23 people signed gagging orders perhaps the Scottish Funding Council should be interviewing all of them to find out exactly what Sir Muir Russell and the rest of the senior management want to be kept hidden.

Sir Muir Russell is to be the subject of a complaint to the Scottish Funding Council on allegations that he and the Vice-Principals covered up fraud and the misuse of public funds at the University of Glasgow.

Part of the evidence to be submitted against Russell are the University of Glasgow own procedures;

http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/humanresources/whistleblowing.htm;

and also a letter from the Scottish Funding Council obtained during a Data Subject Access Request that clearly shows that the Funding Council were not informed of allegations of fraud.

It should be pointed out that a Vice-Principal of the University of Glasgow who was sent the evidence of fraud sits on the Funding Council. Here is the link;

http://www.sfc.ac.uk/about/about_council_members/about_cm_peter_holmes.htm

This email is written entirely without prejudice or malice and shall not be founded upon in any court proceedings whatsoever, except with my express consent.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Add your comment
Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
Security Image. Registered site users are not required to enter Security Image Information.
 
 e.g. 123-123
Comment:
Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.
Format Text:

 
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login