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
Max Hugoson – English English and Australian English are indeed different to US English, and even this sentence would have been different in US English. I would say that both “take” and “firstly” are acceptable as used.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/take_3 (as in : the professor takes (accepts) a class offered by the university).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/firstly?q=firstly
Bear in mind also that English is developed by the uneducated masses (including Americans, FBOW), not by the intelligentsia.
Somebunny at George Mason tells Eli that you don’t want to go too far with the plagiarized thesis line.
From Salby’s book website at Cambridge University Press:
“The first edition is a classic. As a textbook it is unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity. It is the single volume that I recommend to every one of my students in atmospheric science. The new edition improves over the previous edition, if that is possible at all, in three aspects: beautiful illustrations of global processes … from newly available satellite data, new topics of current interest … and a new chapter on the influence of the ocean on the atmosphere. These changes make the book more useful as a starting point for studying climate change.” – Professor Yuk Yung, California Institute of Technology
Folks, give your head a shake. Obviously, Salby focuses on quality, not quantity of printed paper. Old-fashioned concept, I know.
Mark Bofill says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:53 am
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.
**************************************************************************************************
In Australia you never ever follow the grievance procedure since it is stacked in the favor of the agrievee not the agriever. Go straight to Fair Work Australia.
Also what about the poor Russian grad student, lured over to the chopping block and did nothing wrong at all. Career ruined from the beginning. Something stinks and it is worse than skunk.
Macquarie, like all Australian Universities, has what is called an Enterprise Agreement. The contracts of all staff will, with no exception, contain a line which states they they are bound by the Enterprise Agreement. Most people, unfortunately, never read all of the EA until it is too late.
Here is Macquarie’s http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/academic_staff_agreement/1_title/
Look under section 4.3 , Academic Workloads.
4.3.20 An annual written workload allocation will be developed by the Head of Department for each Staff Member following Consultation between the Head of Department and the Staff Member. The written allocation will specify the workload that the Staff Member will undertake in the coming academic year.
(and there are at lot more relevant clauses before and after this)
Now if this consultation process was NOT carried out, he has a reasonable case for NOT doing teaching, but if it was, and he then refused, he is on shaky ground. This however cannot be determined without seeing all the records, and these are probably not forthcoming with a FOIA request.
I can imagine such a scenario. I’d like to stress that I know nothing about the actual facts here. However suppose Prof Salby was told that the university would not fund his trip (he states as much) but that he purchased the ticket using university funds against this instruction (clearly they couldn’t cancel a ticket he had bought using his own money so the university must have paid for the ticket). It is possible that the university might feel justified in cancelling his ticket when they found out. It would be a very nasty, pointless and wasteful thing to do, but I can see how it might happen.
I don’t know the facts and neither it seems do you. On the face of it this sounds like Prof Salby has been treated very badly. But before I go to the mat for Dr Salby I’d like to know a little more.
can this thread be moved to the ‘Contractual obligations’ or ‘Academia stinks’ sub fora. Please
He said, she said. Bring out the lawyers.
Nick Stokes says:
“But ‘refusal to undertake his teaching duties’ ‘after repeated directions to teach’ would be a firing offense in any context.”
As stated above, there should have been progressive discipline, and well documented. Summarily firing someone ‘after repeated directions’ does not make it clear what those “directions” were. Could they have been simply verbal warnings? If so, were there witnesses present? Might the ‘directions’ have been understood to be more like suggestions? And so on. There is too much unexplained in this case to make such a definitive judgement at this point. In fact, there are a lot of things in need of more explanation.
tonyM says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
… One wonders why he has not commented on this and any legal advice sought….
Any lawyer will tell his client to keep the mouth shut. Less risk of foot in mouth disease. For some peculiar reason both Salby and McQuarie are releasing statements. It could be that Salby is rather ignorant of the legal aspects, but the statement by McQuarie is a surprise. It paints them into a corner regarding cause, and, since he had at least one PhD student, that does constitute teaching. Not much maybe. And, as others have pointed out, what ever the hearing was that was held at McQuarie, it can’t really have been a disciplinary hearing when they stranded the subject on the opposite side of the planet.
dbstealey says: July 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“As stated above, there should have been progressive discipline, and well documented. Summarily firing someone ‘after repeated directions’ does not make it clear what those “directions” were. Could they have been simply verbal warnings? If so, were there witnesses present?”
Well, they said:
“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.”
The processes are set out in the enterprise agreement. They are formal and elaborate (and time-consuming for managers). They are monitored by the HR department.
In addition, Macquarie, like all similar Australian organisations, has an annual cycle performance review process. That is all done in writing.
Duster says: July 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“the statement by McQuarie is a surprise”
No, they are only stating what is already contained in a long paper trail of formal review processes.
Bart says: July 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Nick Stokes says: July 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“Droit du seigneur?”
Yes, basically “we can (redacted) you however we please.”
There was a Charleton Heston movie once on that theme. It didn’t end well for the seigneur.
.
Mike Jonas says: July 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Max Hugoson – English English and Australian English are indeed different to US English, and even this sentence would have been different in US English. I would say that both “take” and “firstly” are acceptable as used.
Bear in mind also that English is developed by the uneducated masses (including Americans, FBOW), not by the intelligentsia.
How fortunate for the language that it has us Americans around to maintain its purity.
I did a Canadian (Montreal) website once, and then an Australian (Melbourne) one. They were both bilingual.
Nick Stokes,
What you write may be entirely factual. However, it does not add one pixel of information to what we already know.
Where is that putative “long paper trail”?
What does it say?
What are the circumstances behind the cancellation of Salby’s airline ticket — after he had arrived at the airport?
And so on.
Since you try to give the impression you know, please fill us in on those details.
Macquarie University, eh?
If this is pronounced as ‘mockery’, it would seem to fit their academic standards quite well.
>Eli Rabett says:
>July 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm
>Somebunny at George Mason tells Eli that you don’t want to go too far with the plagiarized thesis line.
Some plagiarists are more equal than others down on the Animal/Bunny Farm, right?
Yeah, Macquarie isn’t exactly up there with the best – cellar dwellers of universities would best describe it. It is however in a very nice area. You can lose yourself in the bush there.
Steve B says: July 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm
…
Absolutely correct ! What McIntyre and others fail to understand about Australian ‘kangaroo’ justice is that it only ever serves the Master. Having a past industrial relations commissioner and a union nominee conduct disciplinary hearings in Salby’s absence is akin to stacking the deck for a preconceived outcome. It is highly likely that these individuals were selected for their political obedience rather than delivery of justice. This is the way of the socialist regime at all of its levels in Australia. Just like the whitewashing of the Climategate scandals.
This appalling state of affairs should embarrass every other fair minded and reasonable Australian as it does me.
dbstealey says: July 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm
“Where is that putative “long paper trail”?”
Well, there will be a series of PDR forms, signed by MS and manager. They will consist of plans for the year, and a review and appraisal.
These forms are of course confidential, as are the unsatisfactory performance processes. But they are recorded.
As to the ticket cancellation, I can’t add much to what cynical_scientist said. Salby seems, on his own account, to have headed off while suspended, without salary, on travel that he makes clear was not approved by the University and with misconduct proceedings in process. It’s not an arrangement in which he should have expected continuing support.
Nick Stokes says: July 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“[ … ] Macquarie, like all similar Australian organisations, has an annual cycle performance review process. That is all done in writing.”
…
LOL ! Being pretty close to hearth here, I can tell you that poor performing individuals are rarely, if ever, moved on. Outcome recommendations are regularly ignored and individuals continue to do as they basically please.
Cynical, Nick, thanks.
Thanks, Tony. Everything.
Probably already been stated above however the University response was incorrect. They were not correcting misinformation they were actually adding some new information. Its a baffling and quite stupid response for that reason alone.
Does anyone know or have any ideas about what Dr. Salby is referring to here?
I’m somewhat curious as to the identity of these ‘several’.
Beg pardon, I should have said who not what.
James Allison : “They were not correcting misinformation ….”
The university may be thinking that the idea that he was dismissed for his views on AGW constituted misinformation? (I am not saying that I would myself regard that as misinformation)
Streetcred : “Outcome recommendations are regularly ignored and individuals continue to do as they basically please.”
True. Until someone wants an excuse to dismiss you, then all those previously ignored forms reappear.
As for the puzzle about the air fare, I suspect cynical_scientist is on the right track. The sudden cancellation would have occurred if he had put the air fare on a university credit card (as a senior member of staff he would have had one) and the university cancelled the card. That of course is pure speculation, but then so is nearly everything else in this thread. I think this whole thing will have to be left to the lawyers.