Skip to content
Home » The Review Committee held on 17 October 2023 was a farce

The Review Committee held on 17 October 2023 was a farce

The Review Committee was a farce. Yet, Professor Annamarie Jagose based the termination of my contract on it.

In line with its function for management, no minutes were allowed at this meeting.

A lawyer was sent to the meeting by management (the same lawyer who later submitted falsehoods to the Fair Work Commission as well as to the Federal Court). He did most of the talking although he was not officially present like another management representative. Both were neither disclosed ahead of the meeting nor are they mentioned in the report.

I was not allowed to bring a lawyer but I had a witness with me so this is not only my memory.

The lawyer spoke at almost all times in place of a recently appointed dean who officially represented management. His name is mentioned in the report in place of that of the lawyer.

The hired chair (external consultant) was clearly biased and appeared focused on trying to turn an old iPhone with a defunct screen into a surveillance camera in the absence of any evidence in order to assert that I had violated management directions.

The staff representative on the committee was the only one who acted objectively but made a single honest mistake due to a lack of information. In other words, the staff representative did not only fail to observe any serious misconduct but also did not identify any misconduct in all the allegations except for one instance that was incorrect: conducting a performance review under the same management I had named in my PID was logically impossible because it is inherently unfair to carry out a performance review under a line management that is the subject of a PID known to them due to the unresolvable conflict of interest this creates.

Thus, the findings of the committee are perverted in the termination letter’s representation of the staff member’s statement regarding misconduct.

Not only that, the committee was kept in the dark regarding the flawed investigation of my PID.

Therefore, processes were followed but they were not applied correctly. My termination is based on false allegations of misconduct brought forth by management: the underlying facts do not meet the criteria for misconduct. Furthermore, based on my previous experience as a whistle-blower I was absolutely certain that the responsible managers were committing a criminal offence by prosecuting me for fulfilling my clear obligation of preparing the PID. I have brought this to management’s attention multiple times, leaving them with no excuse for what they have done.

The abuse of processes by the current management of the University of Sydney is widely documented which is why colleagues and I have called for an external and truly independent investigation of the current management of the University of Sydney. A Royal Commission to examine management misconduct in the Higher Education Sector would be even more powerful.