This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function.
Salby’s statement is here – Anthony
10 July 2013
Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.
The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.
Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.
The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.
The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.
Media Contact:
p: (02) 9850 1039 e: Joanna.wheatley@mq.edu.au
A copy of this release is available online at www.mq.edu.au/newsroom
===========================================================
The PDF I received from MS Wheatley is here: SalbyStatement_July2013
According to the PDF document properties, the statement appears to be authored by Golda Mitchell who can be seen here: http://marketing.mq.edu.au/media_and_communications/contact_the_media_and_communications_team/
Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony
Well, it’s not like Dr. Salby has done anything like this before, now is it?
Oh wait, my bad;
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2008cv02517/110347/
https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?110347
https://www.cocourts.com/cocourts/secure/Login.xhtml
In my opnion, Salby’s first recourse should be to file a grievance against his termination under macquarie procedures
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/415_grievance_procedures/.
He should do so without much delay as such appeals need to be filed within 3 months of the event (which took place in May.)
He’s much better advised to exhaust the university system before contemplating litigation. His best outcome is to get his job back. That’s far more valuable than any damages that he might obtain. Commenters who are inexperienced with litigation are far too quick to urge it on others.
Mark Bofill,
I agree with your take on the policy as requiring multiple steps. If the University neglected these duties and obligations, it would much improve Salby’s chances in a grievance. He should be parsing these procedures and getting an employment lawyer to help him in the grievance. His efforts to refer these matters to a national tribunal prior to exhausting university procedures seems very misguided to me.
Seems to me like ‘Constructive dismissal’ – which we have in UK, but may not exist in academia.
Eli Rabbit
Let the dust settle
That’s just what Macquarie would be hoping for.
Theo Goodwin says:
> In academic departments, especially graduate departments, there are usually one or more wars among various factions.
I’ve seen that. When I was a 3rd-year grad student, I was suddenly banned from taking finals finals, then expelled. Two weeks later, I was reinstated on the orders of an unknown benefactor “from high above”. In the meantime, I saw the faculty split into two factions openly fighting over my expulsion. Maybe they had been split already over something else, but I could not tell. I never found out what it was about.
what remains unexplained is who would authorize foreign travel and expenses of a person whose contract was in the process of being potentially terminated at extremely short notice
this story makes no sense
Steve McIntyre says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:40 am
——-
I know nothing about the workings of academia, but I’d certainly agree that following the grievance procedure would seem to be the logical place to start.
ICU,
You posted the same thing here. Also, two of your 3 links are worthless without passwords. What are the passwords? Or are you just trying to impress folks with multiple but worthless links?
And is your position that selected citizens should be denied the right to redress of grievances? If so, please explain your reasoning here. Michael Mann has sued Dr Ball [whatever happened to that suit, anyway?]. Is it your position that Mann is entitled, but Salby is not? Please explain.
“Constructive Dismissal”
Constructive dismissal is a situation where an employee is either forced or feels pressure to quit their job due to unjust treatment from their employer. When someone decides to leave their job due to their employer’s behaviour then the situation may qualify as constructive dismissal. If you feel this may pertain to your situation, you will need to prove how your employer behaved inappropriately. For example, if your employer committed a breach of contract that lead to your resignation, assuming you did not accept any part of their behaviour, then you may qualify for constructive dismissal.
http://www.constructivedismissal.org.uk/
Here’s a very dissimilar but related story — Stephen Crothers’ account of his expulsion from UNSW:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
Well, one thing that would be illegal, at least here in the states, is to release information regarding personnel disciplinary issues, such as these.
They better have really solid documentation, or they’ve just engaged in libel.
That they had held disciplinary hearings in his absence after allegedly canceling the plane tickets that would have 1) allowed him to attend the hearing, and 2) allowed him to teach the class he ‘skipped’ would be an absolute exercise of bad faith.
Having said that, it is increasingly difficult to get a court to allow you to successfully sue an academic institution. You may get your day in court, but they won’t consider the evidence or even allow you to mention that there is evidence.
Backstory: Prof Colin Prentice head of the Biosphere and Climate Dynamics Group posted an explicit rebuttal of Salby’s CO2 theory: How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic Macquarie University 15 August 2011
Steve McIntyre [July 10, 2013 at 10:36 am] is exactly right. Prof Salby must file a grievance, pronto. The clock is ticking.
Courts love to dismiss cases. Their workload is already heavy. Ignoring the grievance procedure gives a ready-made excuse for a court to throw out a case based on the facts. One always has the right to dispute the outcome of a grievance [and in fact, I would expect an adverse outcome in this setting. But this is only the first — necessary — step]. If the grievance procedure is bypassed, courts are notorious for dismissing related cases.
Filing a grievance is good advice for Dr. Salby. He can always involve an attorney in the grievance procedure if he wishes. But do not bypass the grievance requirement!
[I know a little bit about grievance procedures, having been involved in hundreds of them as the elected President of my union Local for 4 terms. Actually, I can see a number of grievances that can be filed over the university’s actions. Arbitrators in the U.S. follow this template in disciplinary grievances:
1. NOTICE: Did the Employer give to the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable consequences of the employee’s disciplinary conduct?
2. REASONABLE RULE OR ORDER: Was the Employer’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the Employer’s business, and (b) the performance that the Employer might properly expect of the employee?
3. INVESTIGATION: Did the Employer, before administering the discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order of management?
4. FAIR INVESTIGATION: Was the Employer’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively? The person doing the investigation can not be the person issuing discipline.
5. PROOF: At the investigation, did the “judge” obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged?
6. EQUAL TREATMENT: Has the Employer applied its rules, orders and penalties even-handedly and without discrimination to all employees?
7. PENALTY: Was the degree of discipline administered by the Employer in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense, and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the Employer? ]
A “No” response to any of the above will usually overturn the discipline.
(much more detail here)
Steve McI, good advice, but be aware, reinstatement may result in perpetual isolation given few responsibilities and no opportunities until it becomes unbearable. Given there is no single precipitating event for redress, the reinstated voluntarily relocates. Meanwhile valuable time is lost and emotional damage is permanent. Macquarie is poison. Move on if you can. Best wishes.
Dear Ms. Wheatley:
Is the Australian use of English that divergent from the USA usage, or is this just “poor writing”?
“Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
Do you mean he was scheduled to GIVE the class??? “Take over the teaching of” the class? The matter is not clear at all from the way this is written.
Also, the use of “firstly” is very poor English usage. It should be simply FIRST…please check the standard English usage guides.
I’m sure, seeing as you pride yourself in being an “institution of higher learning” that you would wish to attend to these English usage matters and issue a corrected statement.
Yours,
Max Hugoson, Minneapolis, MN
Eli Rabett says:
“The other thing is that the committee included a union representative…”
Are you certain that a “union nominee” is the same as a union representative?
Perhaps Salby would be justified in treating the demotion (if that’s what it was) as “constructive dismissal”. But he’s been actually dismissed as well, so it’s moot.
He might be better off eating his pride and sucking it up. If Salby had another offer in hand, then sure, he should take it. But it may not be all that easy for him to find another job, let alone another job right away. People need to be realistic. He’s not young anymore.
Steve McIntyre says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:30 am
Perhaps Salby would be justified in treating the demotion (if that’s what it was) as “constructive dismissal”. But he’s been actually dismissed as well, so it’s moot.
He might be better off eating his pride and sucking it up. If Salby had another offer in hand, then sure, he should take it. But it may not be all that easy for him to find another job, let alone another job right away. People need to be realistic. He’s not young anymore.
——————–
Absolutely. I’d pursue this, shooting for reinstatement and I’d redouble my efforts to find another position regardless of what the outcome might be, but all things being equal it’s better to be working than not while looking for another opportunity.
This is a strange situation – and there’s a name for it (age-related amnesia prevents recall) – but I find that if (say) John Cook had been dismissed under similar, dodgy circumstances, I would be as enraged about it as I am with the Salby case. But I fear that the likes of Cook would not share that ideal…
“Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony”
Bureaucracies often delegate to lower to avoid blame and/or create plausible deniabilty. Once everyone has passed the buck the suckee is someone who can’t.
Just had the incompetent Saanich government do that, but the flunkie botched the job (lowest rank may not have the skills to do the job correctly.
The goal was simply to introduce a red herring into the debate. When someone references Salby’s work to refute the claim that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, the response can now be “oh, that guy who got fired from his university position?”
It does not matter what happens from this point going forward. That herring is now part of the arsenal of distraction. Mission accomplished.
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
And, that judgment was for dismissal without regard to merit, based on “sovereign immunity.” Basically, an assertion of droit du seigneur. What does that tell us?
Bart says: July 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm
‘And, that judgment was for dismissal without regard to merit, based on “sovereign immunity.” Basically, an assertion of droit du seigneur. What does that tell us?’
Droit du seigneur? I think it tells us that it’s better to only do it once.
But the judgment makes reference to a state case as well.
” I’m entitled to state my opinion, and my opinion at this point is that it seems weak. What remains to be seen is if the university constructed the situation by cancelling travel documents while Salby was away from the university. Dr. Salby in his original statement is the one who brought int he mention of the grad student, not I. had he not, there would be no reason to mention her. Note, I have not mentioned her name, only her existence and the fact that her email address at Macquarie seems to have been rescinded. – Anthony”
Pretty low bar, Anthony, that you’re entitled to state your opinion, Who indicated otherwise? What separates the wheat from the chaff is how well those opinions are defended. Bah, you know that. And you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me. You brought in the graduate student to buttress you assertion that it “seemed weak,” despite having no important facts at all concerning her situation. I suppose it’s my fault. Sometimes I expect too much from my own side.
REPLY:It does seem weak, why punish the grad student too? We disagree then Al. – Anthony