Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6164

Friday 30 October 2009

Vol cxl No 5

pp. 129–168

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

Introduction

1. The Council and the General Board published an initial consultative green paper in January 2008 (Reporter, 2007–08, p. 404) seeking views on the possible reform of the disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures for University officers. The responses were subsequently published and may be found on the Council’s website.1

2. A further consultative white paper was published in December 2008 (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 301), which set out a proposed new framework for those procedures and included detailed legislative proposals in order to inform debate. That consultation took place during the Lent Term 2009.

3. The Council and the General Board are very grateful to those who contributed at the Discussion on 3 February 2009, in writing, and by their questions and comments made at the open meetings and presentations by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Human Resources). All written responses received (save those expressed as not for publication) have been published on the Council’s website.1 The report of the Discussion may be found on the Reporter website2 and at Reporter, 2008–09, p. 490.

4. The replies of the Council and the General Board to the points raised in the course of the consultation are shown in the first paragraph of each of the following sections of this Report.

5. The Council and the General Board have continued to be guided by the aims set out in the white paper, namely:

(i)to amend the disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures for University officers to reflect modern employment law and practice (through the establishment of fair and timely processes, provision for mediation, and clearly expressed codes), and to ensure that similar procedures apply to all members of staff of the University;

(ii)to provide a better balance than currently exists between statute and regulations and codes of practice, introducing codes that draw on ACAS guidelines and other best practice; and

(iii)to ensure that the University’s procedures are both proportionate and fair.

6. This Joint Report puts forward legislative proposals for change. It is divided into sections as follows:

Introduction

The principal changes to the white paper proposals

Redundancy

Discipline and removal from office

Removal from office on medical grounds

Grievances

Codes of practice

Committees

Academic freedom

Other comments on the white paper

Recommendations

It also includes the following Annexes:

Annex A: Proposed amendments of Statute

Annex B: Proposed amendments of Ordinances

Annex C: Proposed Codes of Practice

Annex D: Proposed guidance to be issued by the Council

Annex E: The effect of the proposed changes

The principal changes to the white paper proposals

7. The following are the principal changes that the Council and the General Board have made to the white paper proposals:

(a)The white paper proposed the formulation of a series of codes of practice, to be approved and varied from time to time by the Council.

It is now proposed that all codes of practice (and amendments to them) should be approved by the University by Grace.

(b)The white paper proposed that the discipline of University officers should be conducted by the responsible person (that is to say, the Head of Department or comparable individual), but that, where removal from office was seen as a possible outcome, the sanction of the Vice-Chancellor to proceedings should be obtained and notice of the possibility of removal should be given to the defendant officer.

It is now proposed that proceedings that might result in removal should in all cases be in the hands of a disciplinary committee, rather than those of the responsible person. The Council and the General Board further intend to consult with a view to the implementation of a similar principle in relation to all categories of staff, in order to progress towards with the aim of convergence stated at paragraph 5 above.

(c)The white paper proposed the constitution of a number of committees for various purposes, including appeals, connected with discipline and removal from office.

It is now proposed to address in a more consistent way the appointment of committees and to revise the white paper proposals in order to ensure their independence and impartiality.

(d)The white paper proposed that removal from office should be possible for an offence of gross misconduct or misconduct otherwise incompatible with the duties of office or with employment by the University. It further specified in the proposed regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances a list of bullet points which might justify disciplinary action.

It is now proposed to refer only to gross misconduct and to remove the bullet point list from the proposed regulations. The statutory ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures recommends that disciplinary rules should give examples of acts which the employer regards as acts of gross misconduct. It is proposed that such examples should be given in non-binding guidance issued by the Council, rather than in the regulations or codes of practice.

(e)The white paper failed to draw any clear distinction between the investigation of a matter and the conduct by the responsible person of any resulting disciplinary action.

The new statutory ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures3 recommends that, in misconduct cases, where practicable, different people should carry out the investigation and disciplinary hearing. The proposals have been redrafted to adopt that advice.

(f)The white paper failed to define the scope of the Code of Practice for academic freedom.

That omission is rectified. Its scope will comprise all University officers, and will therefore coincide with the scope of academic freedom as currently defined by Statute U. The statutory definition in Statute U is preserved without change in the proposals of the Joint Report.

Redundancy

8. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning removal by reason of redundancy:

(a)The common procedures for academic and academic-related staff should be maintained. The creation of two classes of office is divisive and wrong. Moreover the reasons for proposing a different treatment of Schedule J and non-Schedule J officers are not explained and should be.

The Council and the General Board accept that the argument for change was not adequately set out in the white paper. They have sought to rectify that omission at paragraphs 10 to 14 below.

(b)There is no coherent characteristic that distinguishes Schedule J officers.

The distinction is clear and of long standing. Offices in Schedule J are those offices the principal duties of which are teaching and research. For that reason they are considered to justify an entitlement to study leave for their holders. Historically they comprised the class of University Teaching Offices (in the original 1926 Statutes, consisting only of Professorships, Readerships, University Lectureships, and Demonstratorships). Developments since 1926, especially in the creation of a variety of specific, rather than generic, offices, have tended to complicate the demarcation between Schedule J and non-Schedule J, so that in individual cases it may be possible to argue that the wrong categorization has been adopted. However roughness at the edges does not mean that the principle is not clear.

(c)The division of staff into academic and academic-related staff needs especial care if different redundancy procedures are to be followed for staff in each group.

The implications for entitlement to study leave are also significant. The General Board is willing to review the categorization of any specific office and proposes to invite Faculty Boards and comparable authorities to put forward any cases for consideration.4

(d)The proposal for the different treatment of academic and academic-related staff may lead to proposals for the amendment of the composition of the Regent House.

There is no proposal to amend the composition of the Regent House.

9. The principal changes to current arrangements proposed by the Council and the General Board are

to restrict the ambit of the current provision requiring a decision by the Regent House as a precondition for a reduction in the academic staff by way of redundancy from all University officers to University officers in Schedule J (formerly known as University Teaching Officers);5

to remove the requirement for the appointment of a specially constituted committee of five persons in the process of selection for redundancy by the competent authority;

to remove the requirement for approval of the competent authority’s selection by the Regent House; and

to replace the right of appeal to the Septemviri against selection with an appeal to a committee of three persons.

10. The reason for the first of those changes (restriction to Schedule J officers) is one of proportionality of process. The unique characteristic of university, as contrasted with other, employment is the need to protect academic freedom, which entails the two elements: freedom of expression and freedom of enquiry. The protection of the second of those elements places a strong emphasis on the preservation of academic tenure, and a corresponding emphasis on the level of authority that ought to be required for the discontinuance of an academic activity.

11. Such a proportionality of – academic, as contrasted with other – activities, is recognized by Statute C, II, 1, C, III, 2, and C, V, 1, which require a decision of the Regent House for the suppression, respectively, of a School, Faculty, or Department. The officers directly responsible for the fulfilment of the University’s academic purpose are those in Schedule J; that is to say, those who are granted by Statute entitlement to leave from their duties for the purpose of advancing their academic work.

12. The Council and the General Board do not consider, and do not intend to suggest, that the work of officers not in Schedule J is less valuable or less essential than that of their Schedule J colleagues. Nor will the Council and the General Board ever seek to promote redundancies, with their attendant personal cost, other than in circumstances in which they are satisfied that the interests of the University require such a step. No good employer would. But the nature of the support given to the University’s purposes by non-Schedule J officers – essential as it is – is of a different nature from that of teaching and research staff. The needs of the University, as with those of any other organization, change with time, and the need to protect free enquiry, which underpins the protection of academic tenure, does not appertain in the case of non-Schedule J officers any more than it may in any employment generally.

13. The ambit of the current Statute U, II, extending as it does to non-Schedule J offices, has led the Council and the General Board to exercise their authority to create academically-related posts, sometimes at a very senior level, on an unestablished basis, in order to protect the University from rights appropriate to those engaged in teaching and research becoming attached to positions created to meet a vital, but potentially limited-term, need. It would, in their view, be better if officer status were not confused with permanence of need.

14. This aspect of the white paper proposals has been questioned by a number of respondents in the consultation and the Council and the General Board intend to obtain the decision of the Regent House on it as a separate issue.

15. In any redundancy situation involving a reduction in staffing levels it is plain that the competent authority will always act on the advice of an appropriately constituted committee, in order to ensure the thorough and proper treatment of an inevitably difficult matter. The proposed removal of the requirement that the committee comprise five persons is consistent with the general aim of the Joint Report to remove unnecessary prescription from University Statutes.

16. The proposed removal of the current requirement for the competent authority’s selection for redundancy to be approved by the Regent House is because of its potential serious unfairness. If, under the current arrangements, the Regent House approves a recommended selection, no harm is done. But if it is rejected, any subsequent further selection might be challenged for alleged unfairness, as the reasons actuating the Regent House in their decision (so far as they can be identified at all) will quite possibly be insupportable in law.

17. The replacement of the right of appeal to the Septemviri against selection for redundancy by appeal to a committee of three persons is consistent with the general aim of the Joint Report to remove unnecessary prescription from University Statutes.

Discipline and removal from office

18. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning discipline and removal from office:

(a)The terms ‘grave misconduct’ and ‘gross misconduct’ are used apparently interchangeably. Either a single term should be used, or the difference defined.

That is accepted and it is proposed to use the term ‘gross misconduct’, which is the more modern expression and a term familiar in employment law, throughout.

(b)The general description ‘gross misconduct’ is preferable to a list of instances as exemplified by the bullet points in Regulation 8(d).

It is accepted that the regulations should refer simply to gross misconduct. However, the University is obliged to have regard to the advice in the statutory ACAS Code of Practice for Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, paragraph 23 of which says that:

Disciplinary rules should give examples of acts which the employer regards as acts of gross misconduct. These may vary according to the nature of the organization and what it does, but might include things such as theft or fraud, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination.

In order to follow that advice, it is now proposed that a list of examples of acts which might constitute gross misconduct should be included in (non-binding) Council guidance.

(c)The provision in those bullet points that refusing to comply with reasonable requests from a person in authority may lead to disciplinary action is insufficiently tightly drawn. Who is to be judge of what is a reasonable request? Who is a person in authority?

Any disciplinary process may involve the decision-maker in judgments as to the reasonableness of behaviour and as to the lawfulness of an instruction or the authority of a request. The disciplinary code is not the place for defining the authority of individuals (other than in relation to the operation of the disciplinary process itself); nor should it attempt to define what is, or is not, reasonable, as that will very frequently depend on the context of the action in question.

(d)The provision in those bullet points that breach of the University or Departmental regulations, rules, policies, or procedures relating to safety, finance, or any other matters may lead to disciplinary action is insufficiently tightly drawn.

Rules of a reasonable nature made in the employment context, if broken, can and should be capable of leading to disciplinary consequences. The intent of the drafting was to make it clear that the employment context is intended. However the relegation of the matter to Council guidance may assist in relation to this comment.

(e)Disciplinary decisions should not be made by a single person (i.e. the responsible person). Heads of Department should not be empowered to dismiss. They may act on the basis of their personal opinions.

In the employment context generally, the power to discipline members of staff, including dismissal, typically lies (subject to a right of appeal) in the hands of a single person. Nevertheless, the Council and the General Board accept that this is a substantial point and have modified their proposals in the light of it.

The discipline of University officers (not including removal from office) currently rests with the responsible person. Removal currently requires (i) a decision of the Vice-Chancellor that the matter alleged may justify dismissal, and (ii) reference to, and a decision of, the University Tribunal. For assistant staff the matter rests, both as regards discipline and dismissal, with the responsible person.

The white paper proposed to bring the procedures for officers and staff into closer alignment by replacing (ii) in the paragraph immediately above by: (ii) consideration by, and a decision of, the responsible person.

The Council and the General Board have not varied the white paper proposal as regards discipline short of removal from office (which does not materially differ from the current position). However, they accept that the responsible person should not be able to remove from office, which should instead require the decision of a committee. They also intend to consult further with a view to the implementation of a similar principle in relation to proceedings for dismissal applying to other categories of University staff.

(f)The position in relation to discipline of a person who is an employee of the University and also in statu pupillari should be clarified.

That is not within the scope of the white paper, which refers only to University officers and not to University employees more generally. If a person holds a University office then he or she will not be in statu pupillari; see Statute K, 3(h).

However, the point is similar to one considered during the course of drafting of the white paper proposals, namely that a University officer might act in a way giving rise to procedures under Statute D, IA and also to procedures under Statute B, VI. (For example a University Lecturer who has engaged in multiple acts of plagiarism might face proceedings under Statute D, IA for removal from office and might also face proceedings under Statute B, VI for deprivation of degree.) The view was taken that such proceedings – the first in the employment context, and the second in the context of the University’s discipline of its members – appertain to materially different capacities of the person concerned and should not be joined within a single procedure.

(g)An officer should not be constrained to the choice of another officer or University employee or trade union official as companion at a disciplinary hearing.

The Council and the General Board have given careful consideration to this point. The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures, which was first introduced in the 1970s, advised employers to allow a companion to attend hearings. That advice was codified into a legal entitlement by the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the ability of the companion to speak on behalf of the employee was clarified by the Employment Relations Act 2004.

However, the right to be accompanied, or represented, at a disciplinary hearing has always been restricted to fellow employees or trade union representatives. Moreover many employers (including the University in relation to assistant staff and unestablished academic and academic-related staff) have taken the view that matters of discipline, dismissal, and grievances should be addressed within the workplace and without external intervention or legal representation either for employees or for heads of institution.6 The effect of current arrangements under Statute U is to permit the representation by counsel of an aggrieved officer before a Grievance Committee. In the view of the Council and the General Board that is disproportionate and represents an unsatisfactory feature of the present arrangements.

The Council and the General Board accept, however, that there may be cases, where removal from office or dismissal is at issue, which are of a level of complexity, or which entail implications beyond that of removal or dismissal alone, where legal representation ought to be permitted. They have therefore amended their proposals to permit the chairman of the disciplinary or appeal committee (as the case may be) to allow representation other than by a fellow member of staff or trade union representatives, on the application of the officer concerned. They also intend to consult further with a view to the implementation of a similar principle in relation to other categories of University staff.

The Council and the General Board wish to make it clear that such a right to apply for external legal representation will not extend to Heads of Department or other responsible persons; nor will expenditure by Faculties or Departments on such legal representation be permitted.

(h)An officer should be able to be legally represented at an appeal hearing.

The Council and the General Board consider that the possibility of legal representation should be restricted in cases of removal from office or dismissal, as stated in (g) above. However, in their view, the reasons for permitting it may equally apply to proceedings before a disciplinary committee as to those on appeal.

(i)The white paper proposals may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The point is the subject of recent conflicting authority in the High Court.7 The more recent judgment found that, where the implications of dismissal might extend beyond the immediate employment (for example, to disqualification from further work of the same nature), then, notwithstanding the limited right of accompaniment under the Employment Relations Act, an employer may need to have regard to the employee’s Article 6 entitlement to defend her or himself with legal assistance in relation to her or his civil rights.

The chairman of a disciplinary or appeal committee would be expected to have regard to the legal rights of an officer when deciding on an application for external legal representation.

(j)An officer should be shown the evidence against him or her before any disciplinary hearing.

That is the general intention of the procedure. Paragraph 9 of the Code provides:

The first step is for the responsible person to write to the officer. The letter should contain enough information for the officer to be able to understand both what it is that he or she is alleged to have done wrong and the reasons why it is not acceptable. It should also invite the officer to a meeting at which the matter can be discussed, and it should inform the officer of her or his right to be accompanied at the meeting. The officer should be given copies of any documents that will be produced at the meeting.

The documents to be produced at the meeting should be sent in advance of it. There may be allegations raised with the responsible person, orally or in writing, and they should then be explained succinctly, but with sufficient clarity, in the letter. It is not intended that all documents containing written allegations should necessarily be sent to the officer; but, if they are not sent, they will not be available to be used in evidence against her or him. A letter might of course be supplemented by a further letter informing the officer of further allegations or sending further documentary evidence.

(k)It is required that a ‘full written record’ be maintained of proceedings. That may seem to imply that a transcript should be made, which would be burdensome and generally inappropriate.

That is accepted. The words ‘sufficient record’ are now proposed, which is the expression currently used in Ordinances.

(l)A line-manager should not be able to determine whether a subordinate is doing her or his job properly.

The comment may refer to paragraph 6 of the statutory ACAS Code of Practice for Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures:

In misconduct cases, where practicable, different people should carry out the investigation and disciplinary hearing.

If so, the Council and the General Board accept that the point requires attention and their proposals have been amended to address it.

19. The opportunity has been taken in the proposed Regulation 24 for removal from office, discipline, and grievances to emphasize the need for consultation in relation to any prospective redundancy situation and the need of the University to comply with its legal obligations in that regard. Those legal obligations relate to all University staff; University officers in Schedule J will have the additional protection of Statute D, IA, 2.

20. The principal changes to current arrangements proposed by the Council and the General Board are

to remove the University Advocate from disciplinary procedures relating to University officers;8

to separate the investigatory role from the disciplinary role in cases of misconduct;

to remove the investigatory role of the Vice-Chancellor, while maintaining the Vice-Chancellor’s role in sanctioning proceedings that may lead to removal from office;

to replace the University Tribunal of five members by a disciplinary committee of three members (with a similar panel system for the selection of members); and to replace the Septemviri of seven members by an appeal committee of three members (selected using a panel system); and

to restrict the right to be represented at a hearing to that afforded by general employment law, save (in the case of proceedings that may lead to removal from office) with the consent of the chairman of the disciplinary committee or the appeal committee, as the case may be.

21. The reasons for those changes are largely described in the responses to the points at paragraph 18 above. The removal of the current statutory role of the University Advocate is consistent with the limitation of the right of accompaniment for an officer. The replacement of five- and seven-person bodies by committees of three persons is in order to provide for a fair, but less elaborate, process.9

Removal from office on medical grounds

22. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning removal from office on medical grounds:

(a)The circumstances in which the procedures for removal for incapacity on medical grounds apply are not sufficiently clearly stated.

That is accepted. The matter has been clarified in the Joint Report.

(b)The title of the section implies that the physically ill are in the same category as the dangerously mentally ill and should be amended.

That interpretation tends to stigmatize mental illness and is not considered a reasonably tenable one.

(c)The current right of an officer (under Statute U, IV, 5(c)) to select one member of the medical committee should be maintained.

The proposed change is consistent with the general approach of the Joint Report to remove unnecessary prescription in University Statutes. A provision of the sort referred to is unusual in employment generally, and there is some danger that the nominee might appear to be representing the interests of, or acting on behalf of, the officer concerned.

(d)The appeal committee is not sufficiently independent by reason of the competent authority considering cases and also appointing the appeal committee.

That is accepted. The method of selection has been amended in the Joint Report.

(e)Disability is not dealt with adequately.

The Council and the General Board accept that it would be appropriate for the Code of Practice for removal on medical grounds to include reference to the duties of the University relating to disability discrimination and the need to consider reasonable adjustments.

23. The principal changes to current arrangements proposed by the Council and the General Board are

to remove the prescriptive nature of the composition of the committee to consider removal from office on medical grounds, while retaining the requirement for a medically qualified member of that committee; and

to replace the right of appeal to the Septemviri by appeal to a committee of three persons.

24. As to the first of those changes, see paragraph 22(c) above.

25. The substitution of a committee of three persons for the Septemviri on appeal is consistent with the general approach of the Joint Report to remove unnecessary prescription in University Statutes.

Grievances

26. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning grievances:

(a)Regulations 35 and 36 prevent an officer from raising as a grievance unreasonable conduct (for example an unreasonable order) leading to disciplinary action. That provides no incentive to prevent abuse of power.

The regulations are in the following terms:10

36. In the absence of provision to the contrary, no grievance shall be entertained in relation to any action taken or any decision made under any disciplinary procedure within the University that includes provision for appeal (including any action taken or decision made in any appeal under the procedure) otherwise than in accordance with the provision for appeal.

37. Where the person conducting any process under a disciplinary procedure within the University considers that the subject matter of a grievance of a defendant in that process relates to or overlaps with the subject matter of the disciplinary process, he or she may direct that the grievance be considered by her or him within the disciplinary process and not otherwise.

The full comment, which is only summarized above, accepted that, where action is taken for disobeying an unreasonable order, the member of staff concerned would probably win on appeal. If the order was unreasonable that should indeed follow. The purpose of the drafting is to keep the disciplinary process within a single procedure and to prevent satellite grievances being pursued separately outside that procedure.

(b)The Grievance Procedure, at the third stage, describes the parties to the grievance as including ‘those other persons whom the person or persons inquiring into the grievance may identify as parties’. In principle, the parties to a grievance are the aggrieved employee and the employer (represented by management), not another employee. The ACAS Code says, ‘Grievances are concerns, problems or complaints that employees raise with their employers’.

That point is accepted and the Grievance Procedure has been amended accordingly.

27. The changes to current arrangements proposed by the Council and the General Board effect a considerable simplification of procedure and are intended to provide a more effective and timely dispute resolution process. The comments made in the course of the consultation on the grievance proposals have almost all been favourable.

Codes of practice

28. The following general comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning codes of practice:

(a)The codes of practice should be written into Ordinances, or otherwise approved by the Regent House.

That is accepted. The Council and the General Board now propose that all codes of practice, and changes to such codes, should be approved by the University by Grace. They would then have the force of Ordinances, so that, in the event of breach of a code, Statute K, 5 would apply.

(b)The binding nature of the codes of practice is unclear.

Whether the codes are made by the Council under the authority of Statute and Ordinance, or by the University by Grace, they constitute legislation effective within the University. If they are made by Grace, then a contravention of the codes will potentially give rise to action under Statute K, 5. A contravention will also constitute a matter that might be raised within the disciplinary or grievance process itself, or externally in an employment tribunal or court.

The effect of the contravention of any particular provision of a code of practice, or the question of whether a contravention has in fact occurred, is another matter. Some provisions may give (say) the responsible person certain discretion as to how to proceed (perhaps by use of the word ‘normally’, or perhaps in some other way). Provided that the responsible person acts properly within that discretion, then no contravention of the code will have occurred. Equally a contravention may be of a slight or technical nature not giving rise to any unfairness in all the circumstances; in that case the contravention will be of no effect. Or a contravention may be of a serious nature, such as to vitiate the whole process and require that matters are discontinued and a decision made as to whether proceedings should be restarted afresh.

(c)Codes of practice are inappropriate for procedural matters.

The response to this point should be read together with the responses to the two points immediately above. Codes of practice may properly deal with procedural matters; for example, the ACAS statutory Code of Practice, to which employers should have regard, is concerned with disciplinary and grievance procedures.11

(d)Changes to the codes of practice should be published by Notice a reasonable time in advance of the changes becoming effective.

That was intended and will be achieved anyway if, as now proposed, changes have to be approved by Grace.

29. The intention of the Council and the General Board in setting out the detail of disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures in codes of practice was, first and foremost, to provide comprehensive guidance in clear, direct, and readily comprehensible language. It was also to specify those matters which might be approved by the Council, rather than by Grace of the Regent House. The second purpose has now been abandoned, but the first remains.

30. The revised proposals of the Joint Report continue to authorize the Council to issue guidance (for example, the proposed Guidance on mediation). Such guidance will be of a non-binding nature.

Committees

31. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the white paper proposals concerning the selection and composition of committees:

(a)The composition of appeal panels should be specified by Ordinance.

This point is now met by the fact that all regulations and codes of practice will be approved by Grace of the Regent House.

(b)The change from an appeal body of seven persons to one of three is detrimental. There is likely to be less disagreement in a smaller group. A full appeal process should be retained.

Seven is an unusually large number for an appeal body and three much more typical. For example an employment tribunal consists of three members.

(c)The responsible person should not assemble the appeal committee in the event of an appeal against disciplinary action.

In fact the white paper proposed that the competent authority (and not the responsible person) should select the appeal committee from a panel maintained for the purpose. However, the Council and the General Board have reviewed the selection process and the Joint Report now proposes that disciplinary, medical, and appeal committees should be assembled by selection from standing panels appointed by the Council. Selection would be by the Registrary, acting as principal administrative officer of the University.12 The Council believes that the selection of committees should be guided principally by the need for impartiality and by the need to carry forward the process in a timely fashion.

(d)The chairman of the appeal committee should be external to the University and should be legally qualified.

The Council and the General Board accept the desirability of ensuring an element of external membership on appeal committees and have amended their proposals accordingly. They believe that all decision-makers involved in the disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures should have access to relevant advice, including legal advice, commensurate with the needs of the case. They do not, however, believe that legal qualification should itself be a requirement, although it is likely that a number of the persons appointed by the Council to the standing panels will be legally qualified.

(e)The selection of the appeal committee by the competent authority may be unfair. The member of staff concerned should be able to challenge the membership of the appeal committee.

That is accepted. The Joint Report now makes provision to enable the officer concerned to challenge any member of the appeal committee (or of a disciplinary committee) for good cause.

32. The Council and the General Board have considered the matter further in the light of the responses received to the white paper, and they believe that the following principles should apply (with brief comments following each):

All committees should comprise a chairman and two other members.

An odd number of members is desirable, and proportionality suggests that three members provides a proper and adequate number to ensure that a decision is taken collectively.

In the case of all processes, sound and appropriate legal/HR/secretarial advice and assistance should be made available by the University to the decision-makers dealing with the matter.

The level of support will depend on, and should be proportionate to, the nature of the case. The Council and the General Board believe that it is an essential requirement on the University as employer to ensure that its disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures are properly supported.

There should be no requirement for legal qualifications amongst the decision-makers.

That is a corollary of the preceding point. However, it is not to say that legally qualified persons should not be appointed to panels for the constitution of committees, or serve on committees.

The requirement on the decision-makers in the case of any decision at first instance should be that of absence of conflict of interest, rather than one of contextual independence.

That is to make the point that actual conflict of interest is distinct from familiarity with the general context of the matter at issue. Any more restrictive rule would be disproportionate and potentially disruptive of the conduct of the disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures of the University.

The appointment of committees should generally be by selection from standing panels maintained for the purpose by the Council. Selection from panels should be independent of the matter at issue; in particular, the selection of an appeal committee should never be by the person or body against whose decision the appeal lies.

That is to ensure fairness of procedure.

33. As noted above, the Council and the General Board further accept the proposition that the independence of at least one member of any appeal committee is a desirable. Independence in this context is taken to refer to any person who holds no position in the University or a College, but it does not exclude any person on the ground only of her or his membership of the University or of a College.

Academic freedom

34. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on the Code of Practice for academic freedom proposed in the white paper:

(a)Academic freedom, as provided for in section 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988, cannot be restricted or diminished for any class of officer.

It is considered that section 202 of the Act is technically spent,13 and further that there is no rule of law that inhibits the University determining, by amendment of its Statutes, the ambit of the academic freedom provision. However it must be emphasized that there is in fact no proposal to alter the current ambit in any way.

(b)What is meant by ‘those in academic positions’ in the Code? This should be made absolutely clear.

That is accepted. The Code of Practice for academic freedom relates directly to Statute D, IA, 1 and its ambit should therefore be the same as for that section of the Statute; in other words, it should encompass University officers. The omission has now been rectified in revised drafting of paragraph 1 of the proposed Code.

(c)The rights referred to in paragraph 7 of the Code should extend to all members of the Regent House, or to all officers.

Paragraph 7 is as follows:

7. Those in academic positions have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the government of the University and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including the University, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the University.

The Code will extend to all University officers- see (b) immediately above. It is not considered necessary to extend it to Fellows of Colleges or to other members of the Regent House who are not University officers.

(d)The regulations for Intellectual Property Rights (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 978) define the rights and obligations of all members of staff, as well as students. All staff should be guaranteed not to be dismissed for their views.

It would be possible in principle to extend Statute D, IA, 1 and the Code of Practice for academic freedom to apply to all members of staff, but such a change would be unlikely to make any practical difference in relation to assistant staff and is not proposed.

(e)The two parts of the Code (Rights and freedoms of those in academic positions and Duties and responsibilities of those in academic positions) should be separated into distinct Codes.

It is clear from the structure of the Code that UNESCO intended the drafting to reflect the facts that rights are inseparable from responsibilities.

(f)The freedom to carry out research referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Code is not compatible with the regulations for Intellectual Property Rights (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 978).

Paragraphs 3 and 5 provide:

3. The University will seek to maintain academic freedom, that is to say, the right of those in academic positions, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the University, freedom from institutional censorship, and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. They may fulfil their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression. The University will seek to maintain its democratic atmosphere.

5. Those in academic positions have the right to carry out research work without any interference, or any suppression, in accordance with their professional responsibility and subject to nationally and internationally recognized professional principles of intellectual rigour, scientific inquiry, and research ethics. They are encouraged to publish and disseminate their research results in order to assist them to acquire the reputation which they merit, as well as to promote the advancement of science, technology, education, and culture generally. To that end, they will be free to publish, as authors or co-authors, the results of research and scholarship in books, journals, and databases of their own choice, and under their own names.

Regulation 4 for Intellectual Property Rights is as follows:

Freedom to make research public

4. University staff are entitled to decide that the results of any research undertaken by them in the course of their employment by the University shall be published or disseminated to other persons to use or disclose as they wish in accordance with normal academic practice.

However, if University staff decide that the results of their research should be commercialized, they should be aware that, in respect of patents and similar rights in inventions and new technology, protection for and subsequent commercialization of such inventions may be jeopardized if information about the inventions is made available to the public anywhere in the world before all relevant applications for protection have been lodged. Any statement, oral or written, which is made to another person or persons who are under no obligation to keep the information confidential will negate the validity of a patent for the invention in many countries.

In fact Regulation 4 appears to reflect very well the principles of paragraphs 3 and 5.

(g)The provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Code come close to self-contradiction, through the reference to ‘accepted professional principles’, which may limit the scope of freedom to disagree.

For paragraph 4, see (f) immediately above. Paragraph 4 is as follows:

4. Those in academic positions have the right to teach without any interference, subject to accepted professional principles including professional responsibility and intellectual rigour with regard to standards and methods of teaching. They will not be forced to instruct against their own best knowledge and conscience or be forced to use curricula and methods contrary to national and international human rights standards. The University will determine its own curriculum.

Paragraph 3 includes within academic freedom

the right of those in academic positions, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching

Paragraph 4 balances and qualifies that by referring to

the right to teach without any interference, subject to accepted professional principles including professional responsibility and intellectual rigour with regard to standards and methods of teaching.

Such a balance is necessary. An incompetent teacher is not to be protected from her or his incompetence on the basis of academic freedom.

(h)The UNESCO Code (on which the proposed code is based) has been used oppressively by the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

This point was made in the Discussion, where, after referring to a controversial case concerning two professors at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, the speaker said:

What else might this case teach us? Well, the UNESCO code of practice that the Old Schools wish to impose on us is precisely the code used at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Observe that, while it starts off with a proclamation of academics’ rights, it continues with an even longer proclamation of academics’ responsibilities. No administrator worth his salt could fail to find what he needs in there.

The thrust of his point was that the UNESCO Code was in force at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and experience there had shown it to be ineffective. However, although there is no doubt that the case referred to has occasioned controversy in South Africa and beyond, there is no evidence that the UNESCO Code has ever been adopted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Moreover, there is no reference to academic freedom in the Statutes of that university; nor in its Conditions of Service applicable to all permanent staff members, academic and support.

(i)The wording of paragraph 10(a) of the Code does not reflect current equality and diversity legislation and should be amended.

That is accepted. The alternative wording suggested by the commentator has been adopted in the Joint Report.

(j)The words ‘that is to say’ could profitably be omitted from Statute D, IA, 1.

That is accepted.14

Other comments on the white paper

35. The following comments (shown in italic type, followed in plain type by the response to each by the Council and the General Board) were received on other aspects of the white paper:

(a)A return to the pre-Education Reform Act provisions would restore the tenure of University officers and should be considered.

It has always been possible to remove University officers for good cause. The effect of the Education Reform Act was to enable University officers to be made redundant. It is considered that the Act would not prevent a return to the former Statutes, but such a change might be disallowed by Parliament under the provisions of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923.

(b)There is insufficient regard to the need to protect ‘whistle-blowers’.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 creates a balance between an employer’s legitimate interest in the privacy of her or his business and the issues of public interest that should be able to override that privacy. Thus protection is afforded to

any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following:

(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being, or is likely to be damaged, or

(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

In the case of the University additional protection to an officer may be available through Statute D, IA, 1 (reproducing the current Statute U, I, 1) and the Code of Practice on academic freedom. It is not clear in what way that does not afford a sufficient balance in the case of the University or why further protection should be provided.

(c)Similar procedures between different categories of staff should be achieved by strengthening the rights of assistant staff, and not by removing those of academic-related staff. The Council and the General Board should level up, and not level down.

The Council and the General Board have sought to follow their stated aim to reflect modern employment law and practice and to ensure that similar procedures apply to all members of staff of the University. Where that involves changes to disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures for assistant and other members of staff, then, as they have indicated at several points above, they will initiate an appropriate consultative process to that end when the decision of the University in relation to University officers becomes clear.

(d)There is no requirement of employment law that necessitates the amendment of the University procedures.

The precise criticism of the present statutory provisions made in the white paper (at paragraph 4) was as follows:

The last radical change of the disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures for University officers occurred in 1993 when Statute U was made by the University Commissioners under the Education Reform Act 1988. Much has changed in employment law since then and the framework created by the Commissioners, which was never fully adapted to meet the needs of universities, fails to provide a proportionate and efficient means of dealing with the diverse circumstances in the context of university employment. Further detailed background was provided in the Annex to the green paper, which is reproduced at Annex A hereto.

The fact that the framework created by the Commissioners was never fully adapted to meet the needs of universities was recognized in the drafting of the Revised Model Statute in 2003 by the Zellick Group (for example the framework does not deal in a clear and explicit way with removal from office by non-reappointment). The failure of Statute U to provide a proportionate and efficient means of dealing with matters includes the undesirability of its requirement, in a redundancy situation, of the approval by Grace of the names of the officers selected for redundancy, and includes its failure to provide a process for dealing with grievances in a timely way. Some of the changes in employment law since 1993 have reflected matters already to an extent addressed in Statute U (for example the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings, introduced generally by the Employment Relations Act 1999); others (for example the new advice in the ACAS statutory guidance of the independence, where practicable, of investigatory and disciplinary hearings) have no counterpart in Statute U procedures. Annex A to the white paper explained in further detail the background to the proposals.

(e)The proposals confuse offices and officers (see Statute D, IA, 11). An office is distinct from an employment.

Statute D, IA, 11 is as follows:

Where a University officer also holds a contract of employment with the University then references to office in this Chapter, or in any Ordinance made under this Chapter or in any rule, code of practice, guidance, or other provision made under such Ordinance, shall be taken to include such employment, and references to removal from office shall be taken to include termination of such employment with the University, save that, where a University officer holds a contract of employment with the University which is not contingent on, or does not relate to, the holding of any office, then that contract of employment shall not be terminated by a decision to remove the University officer from office unless the person or body making that decision determines otherwise.

In fact that section recognizes and accepts the distinction referred to in the comment.

(f)Reference should be made to staff on fixed-term teaching contracts and unestablished staff. It is not clear what procedures apply in the case of such staff.

The proposals are concerned with University officers. Persons on fixed-term teaching contracts and unestablished staff are not officers and are therefore not dealt with.

(g)Inter-disciplinary activities should be, but are not, given special safeguards in the proposals.

This comment goes to the policy of the competent authority, especially in relation to any possible redundancy situation, rather than to the legislative proposals set out in the white paper.

(h)No provision is made for the training of those involved in disciplinary and grievance processes.

The importance of training is recognized by the Council and the General Board. It does not require inclusion in the proposed legislation, but provisions will be made through the Human Resources (HR) Division.

(i)Too much power is put into the hands of the competent authority, who should be required to act in consultation with appropriate staff in the Faculty.

The matters put in the hands of the competent authority by the white paper proposals were as follows (with observations made following each):

(i) The competent authority may direct any Board of Electors, Appointments Committee or other body to elect or appoint any person to a University office in consequence of any process of appeal against removal from office.

This power is a necessary adjunct of the process of appeal. Consultation with the Faculty outside the defined limits of the appeal process would be inappropriate.

(ii) The competent authority must decide whether the removal from office of a University officer on medical grounds should be considered under the prescribed procedure; it may nominate a medical practitioner under that procedure; and, after receiving a report, it may express the opinion that an officer should leave office on medical grounds.

Formal consultation with the Faculty would be inappropriate. It is highly unlikely that the removal of an officer on medical grounds would be contemplated without the involvement of relevant staff in the Faculty; but it is not considered that special provision should be made to address that possibility.

(iii) The competent authority may decide to propose redundancies, and must then determine and apply redundancy criteria, subject to consultation and subject to report to the University where an office in Schedule J is to be made redundant, and it may withdraw a notice of removal on grounds of redundancy.

This is a central responsibility of the competent authority. Provision is made for consultation, which is also required by general employment law.

(iv) The competent authority must respond to recommendations made in consequence of a formal grievance process, and may require other bodies to respond to such recommendations.

The response must be that of the competent authority. It should therefore be left to that body to determine what consultation is desirable in formulating its response.

(v) The competent authority must appoint one or more persons to report on any appeal against removal at the end of a probationary period, and determine the appeal after considering that report.

Consultation by the competent authority would be inappropriate, as its role is to make a decision on the basis of the report before it and not to have regard to informal consultation outside that process.

(vi) The competent authority must appoint an appeal committee from a panel maintained for the purpose in the event of an appeal against disciplinary action.

A different mechanism is now proposed for the selection of members of the panel to serve on an appeal committee.

(vii) The competent authority must appoint an appeal committee in the event of an appeal against removal on medical grounds.

It is recognized that this proposal was inappropriate and a different mechanism is now proposed.

(viii) The competent authority must appoint an appeal committee in the event of an appeal against selection for removal on grounds of redundancy.

It is recognized that this proposal was inappropriate and a different mechanism is now proposed.

(ix) The competent authority may consent to a continuation of employment beyond the normal retirement age for a period exceeding three years.

The Faculty Board will have had an opportunity of expressing its views. No special provision for additional consultation is considered necessary.

(x) The competent authority may apply the Code of Practice for the retirement of University officers and for the continuation of employment beyond the normal retiring age to other categories of staff and adapt the procedure of that Code to non-School institutions.

In practice consultation with affected Faculties or other authorities is likely, and no special provision for consultation is considered necessary.

(xi) The competent authority must appoint a person to report on an appeal against non-continuation under the Code of Practice for the retirement of University officers and for the continuation of employment beyond the normal retiring age, and must then determine the appeal.

Consultation by the competent authority would be inappropriate, as its role is to make a decision on the basis of the report before it and not having regard to informal consultation outside that process.

(j)A white paper is foreign to the constitution of the University. Business should be conducted by signed reports.

The Council have sought, in this instance and previously, to consult the Regent House otherwise than using the traditional method of Report, Discussion, Notice, and Grace.15 That has always been with the recognition, however, that amendments to the Statutes and Ordinances of the University cannot be effected without a Grace, and that substantial or controversial amendments require a Report, which must be signed by those members of the reporting body who agree with it.16 But the Council does not believe that its ability to consult in other ways is, or should be, inhibited. The purpose of consultation is to obtain the views of those in the University on proposals. In this instance that has been achieved through a Discussion, through written comments, and through open meetings and presentations by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Human Resources). The Council and the General Board have listened carefully to all that has been said and have sought to respond to those comments. They express again their gratitude to those who have contributed with their views.

36. The changes to Statutes and Ordinances, and the codes of practice and guidance, shown at Annexes A to E below are as shown in Annexes C to G of the white paper, amended as indicated above and with minor revisions and corrections. They also include minor consequential changes of Statutes and Ordinances not included in the white paper. The changes proposed to Statute B, VI (Discipline and the University Courts) bring in provisions from Statute U that are currently dealt with by cross-reference and do not make any change of substance.

37. The Council has agreed that the Joint Report should be put up for discussion on 24 November 2009.

Recommendations

38. The Council and the General Board recommend:

I. That a vote shall be taken by ballot, using the procedure prescribed in the Single Transferable Vote Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 117), between the following options:

(a)that the amendments to Statutes and Ordinances and the codes of practice shown in Annexes A, B, and C be approved;

(b)that the amendments to Statutes and Ordinances and the codes of practice shown in Annexes A, B, and C be approved, but with the words ‘No holder of an office specified in Schedule J shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy otherwise than on the authority of a decision by the University’ at the beginning of Statute D, IA, 2 replaced by the words ‘No University officer shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy otherwise than on the authority of a decision by the University’;

(c)that the amendments be not approved in either form.

II. In the event that amendments to Statutes and Ordinances are approved under Recommendation I above, the changes to Ordinances shall be effective from the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council; but the changes to Ordinances shall not apply, and the former Ordinances shall be effective, in relation to any disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure concerning a University officer where the trigger date for that procedure occurs before the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council. For that purpose the trigger date shall have the meaning ascribed to that expression in Statute T, 58, and the disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure, as the case may be, shall be taken to extend until the determination of any appeal made under that procedure.

39. In the event of the approval of either option (a) or (b) above the Council intend to issue the guidance shown at Annex D and to commence the consultations referred to in the Joint Report with other groups of University staff.

27 October 2009

Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor

A. M. Donald

Debbie Lowther

N. Bampos

David Good

Mavis McDonald

Nigel Brown

Christopher Hum

Rachael Padman

William Brown

F. P. Kelly

David Simon

M. J. Daunton

Vanessa Lawrence

Joan M. Whitehead

27 October 2009

Alison Richard, Vice-Chancellor

Simon Franklin

J. Rallison

N. Bampos

Andrew Gamble

Jeremy Sanders

William Brown

Christopher Gilligan

J. G. P. Sissons

Philip Ford

Rachael Padman

I. H. White

Note of dissent

These proposals are unnecessarily complex. While we welcome debate and recognize that some reforms are desirable, for example to the grievance process, we are concerned about the changes to disciplinary, dismissal, and redundancy procedures. If we decide to equalize the protection enjoyed by academic and other staff, we should level up, not down.

27 October 2009

David Abulafia

Richard Barnes

Stephen Cowley

Ross Anderson

Mike Clark

Bob Dowling

Members of the Council


ANNEX A

Proposed amendments of Statute

The following amendments are proposed to the Statutes of the University:

Statute B

matriculation, residence, degrees, discipline

Chapter VI

discipline and the university courts

Replace sections 2 to 7 by new sections 2 to 19 as follows:

2. There shall be a court, called the University Tribunal, which shall consist of a Chairman, who shall be a legally qualified member of the University, and four members of the Regent House. The method and period of appointment of the Chairman and of the other members shall be prescribed by Ordinances made under this section. The Registrary, or a deputy appointed by the Registrary, shall be Clerk of the University Tribunal.

3. There shall be a court, called the Septemviri, which shall consist of a Chairman, who shall be a legally qualified member of the University appointed by Grace for four years, and six members of the Regent House appointed singly by Grace for two years; provided that:

(a)a member of the Septemviri who is appointed after the commencement of proceedings before the Septemviri shall take no part in those proceedings;

(b)a member of the Septemviri whose membership would otherwise terminate during any such proceedings shall remain a member in respect of those proceedings until they are concluded;

(c)no person shall be a member of the Septemviri during any period in which he or she is a member, or has been elected or appointed but not yet become a member, of the Council or the General Board, save as provided in (b) above; and in that case such a person shall not attend a meeting or receive papers for a meeting of the Council or of the General Board, and such continued membership of the Septemviri shall constitute a sufficient cause of absence from meetings of either of those bodies.

Five members of the court shall constitute a quorum.

4. Neither the University Tribunal nor the Septemviri shall have jurisdiction over the Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, or the Commissary.

5. The University Tribunal shall adjudicate, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, when a University officer, a member of the Senate, or a person not in statu pupillari who holds either a degree or the title of a degree is charged with an offence against the discipline of the University, or with gross misconduct; provided that the University Advocate shall have determined under section 28 of this Chapter, or shall have been directed by the Vice-Chancellor, that the charge shall be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal.

6. Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any University officer from being removed from office or otherwise disciplined under Statute D, IA.

7. Where the University Advocate has preferred a charge or charges, the Clerk of the Tribunal shall notify the person charged of the date, time, and place to attend the Tribunal, and of the charge or charges, and shall send the member any documents specified therein. The University Advocate shall present the charge or charges to the Tribunal, shall make any necessary administrative arrangements for the summoning of witnesses and the production of documents, and shall be generally responsible for the proper presentation of the case to the Tribunal.

8. The procedure to be followed in respect of the preparation, hearing, and determination of charges by the Tribunal shall be prescribed by Ordinances made under this section.

9. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such Ordinances shall ensure:

(a)that the person charged is entitled to be represented by another person, whether such person is legally qualified or not, in connection with and at any hearing by the Tribunal;

(b)that a charge shall not be determined without an oral hearing at which the person charged and any person appointed by the member to represent her or him are entitled to be present;

(c)that witnesses may be called, both on behalf of the person charged and by the University Advocate, and that such witnesses may be questioned concerning any relevant evidence;

(d)that full and sufficient provision is made for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the charge or charges for want of prosecution, remission of the charge or charges to the Vice-Chancellor for further consideration, and for the correction of accidental errors;

(e)that appropriate time limits are set for each stage of the proceedings (including the hearing) to the intent that the charge shall be heard and determined by the Tribunal as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable.

10. If the charge or charges are upheld, the University Tribunal may impose any of the following sentences either singly or in combination:

(a)deprivation or suspension of membership of the University;

(b)deprivation or suspension of degree or title of degree, or postponement of, or disqualification from, admission to degree;

(c)deprivation or suspension of the status of Master of Arts;

(d)a fine;

(e)an order to pay compensation;

(f)deprivation or suspension of the right to use University premises or facilities;

(g)any sentence considered by the Tribunal to be lighter;

or may, notwithstanding that a person charged has been found to have committed an offence, resolve not to impose any sentence; provided that any person who is deprived of membership of the University or whose membership of the University is suspended shall thereby suffer deprivation or suspension of degrees and titles of degrees during the continuance of such deprivation or suspension.

11. The Clerk of the Tribunal shall notify the University Advocate and the person charged of the Tribunal’s decision on any charge referred to it. Such notification shall include the Tribunal’s findings of fact regarding the charge, the reasons for its decision and the penalty (if any) determined by the Tribunal. The Clerk of the Tribunal shall draw attention to the period of time within which any appeal should be instituted.

12. Any person sentenced by the University Tribunal may appeal to the Septemviri by serving on the Registrary notice in writing setting out the grounds of the appeal. A notice of appeal shall be served within twenty-eight days of the date on which the document notifying the decision appealed from was sent to the appellant, provided that the Septemviri shall have power to hear an appeal submitted after that date if they consider that justice and fairness so require in the circumstances of the case.

13. The Registrary shall inform the Septemviri of any notice of appeal received and of the date when it was served, and shall inform the appellant that this has been done.

14. The procedure to be followed in respect of the preparation, consolidation, hearing, and determination of appeals shall be prescribed by Ordinances made under this section.

15. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such Ordinances shall ensure:

(a)that an appellant is entitled to be represented by another person, whether such person is legally qualified or not, in connection with and at any hearing of an appeal;

(b)that an appeal shall not be determined without an oral hearing at which, in addition to the University Advocate, the appellant, and any person appointed to represent the appellant are entitled to be present and, with the consent of the Septemviri, to call witnesses;

(c)that full and sufficient provision is made for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, and the correction of accidental errors;

(d)that the Septemviri may set appropriate time limits for each stage of the proceedings (including the hearing itself) to the intent that any appeal shall be heard and determined as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable.

16. The Septemviri may allow or dismiss an appeal in whole or in part.

17. The Clerk of the Septemviri shall notify the decision of the Septemviri on any appeal, together with any findings of fact different from those reached by the University Tribunal, to the University Advocate and to the appellant.

18. The Septemviri shall act as a court of appeal and

(a)shall hear appeals by persons charged before the University Tribunal from findings or sentences of the Tribunal, and shall have power to quash a finding or to vary a sentence to any sentence within the limits of the power of the Tribunal;

(b)shall hear appeals by persons charged before the Court of Discipline from findings or sentences of that court and shall have power to quash a finding or to vary a sentence to any sentence within the limits of the power of the Court of Discipline.

Notice of a meeting to hear an appeal from the Court of Discipline shall be given to the Head of the College of which the person making the appeal is a member.

19. The University Tribunal and the Septemviri shall have power to make rules of procedure except in so far as such rules may have been determined by Ordinance; provided that, if any question of law or of interpretation or application of any of the rules of procedure arises during the course of a hearing, or if a question of procedure arises which cannot be resolved by reference to those rules, the matter shall be decided by the Chairman, whose decision shall, for the case which is being heard, be final.

Renumber the present sections 8 to 28 as sections 20 to 40

Delete the words ‘(other than a complaint against a University officer under Statute U)’ in the present section 28 (to be renumbered section 40); replace the words ‘grave misconduct’ where they twice occur by the words ‘gross misconduct’; and amend the final sentence of that section to read, ‘No proceedings shall be initiated before any of the University courts established by or under this Chapter unless the Advocate has so determined in accordance with this section and with any Ordinance made under this Chapter or has been so directed by the Vice-Chancellor under section 3 of this Chapter.’

Statute D, IA

Introduce a new Chapter IA of Statute D as follows:

Chapter D

THE UNIVERSITY OFFICERS

Chapter IA

REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, DISCIPLINE, AND GRIEVANCES

1. This Chapter and any Ordinance made under this Chapter and any rule, code of practice, guidance, or other provision made under such Ordinance shall be construed in every case to give effect to the following guiding principles:

(a)to ensure that University officers have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges;

(b)to enable the University to provide education, promote learning, and engage in research efficiently and economically;

(c)to apply the principles of justice and fairness.

2. No holder of an office specified in Schedule J shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy otherwise than on the authority of a decision by the University:

(a)that the University has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the activity for the purposes of which the officer concerned was elected or appointed, or has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on that activity in the place in which the officer concerned works or worked; or

(b)that the University’s requirements for officers to carry out work of a particular kind, or for officers to carry out work of a particular kind in that place, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

3. The University shall establish by Ordinance, and may vary from time to time, the reasons for which and the procedures under which a University officer may be removed from her or his office. The procedures so specified may include a requirement for a University officer to undergo a medical examination at University expense where, in the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to do so.

4. The University shall establish by Ordinance, and may vary from time to time, the reasons for which and the procedures under which a University officer may be subject to disciplinary sanctions in relation to her or his office.

5. The University shall establish by Ordinance, and may vary from time to time, the circumstances in which and the procedures whereby a University officer may be suspended from the duties of her or his office or excluded from University premises or facilities without loss of stipend pending the completion of procedures under section 3 or 4 of this Chapter.

6. The University shall establish by Ordinance, and may vary from time to time, procedures for the redress of any grievance by a University officer concerning her or his appointment or employment.

7. The University may approve by Grace codes of practice, and the Council may issue guidance, in relation to this Statute or to any Ordinance made under it.

8. The competent authority shall have power to direct any Board of Electors, Appointments Committee, or other body to elect or appoint any person to a University office in consequence of any process of appeal against removal from office conducted under this Chapter.

9. Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any University officer from being disciplined in her or his capacity as a member of the University under Statute B, VI.

10. No University officer shall be removed from her or his office by reason of redundancy unless

(a)her or his appointment was made, or contract of employment was entered into, on or after 20 November 1987; or

(b)he or she was promoted on or after that date.

This section shall be construed in accordance with subsections (3) to (6) of section 204 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

11. Where a University officer also holds a contract of employment with the University then references to office in this Chapter, or in any Ordinance made under this Chapter or in any rule, code of practice, guidance, or other provision made under such Ordinance, shall be taken to include such employment, and references to removal from office shall be taken to include termination of such employment with the University, save that, where a University officer holds a contract of employment with the University which is not contingent on, or does not relate to, the holding of any office, then that contract of employment shall not be terminated by a decision to remove the University officer from office unless the person or body making that decision determines otherwise.

12. Any finding of fact by a court of law or by a University Court, and any order of such court, shall be admissible in evidence in any procedures under this Chapter.

13. This Chapter shall not apply to the Chancellor, High Steward, Deputy High Steward, Commissary or Vice-Chancellor. Sections 9 to 11 of Statute D, III shall apply to the Vice-Chancellor.

Statute D, II (Duties and Leave of Absence)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ in section 10 by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Statute D, III (The Vice-Chancellor)

Introduce new sections 9 to 11 as follows, renumbering the present sections 9 and 10 as 12 and 13:

9. Any three members of the Council may make a complaint to the Chancellor seeking the removal from office of the Vice-Chancellor.

10. If it appears to the Chancellor that the complaint is trivial or unjustified, he or she may determine that no further action shall be taken upon it.

11. If it appears to the Chancellor, on the evidence presented, that the case alleged could, if proved, constitute sufficient cause for dismissal or removal of the Vice-Chancellor from office, he or she may suspend the Vice-Chancellor and shall direct that the case be considered by the Septemviri, who shall have jurisdiction to hear the matter and to remove the Vice-Chancellor from office. Within ten working days after the date of such removal, the Vice-Chancellor may appeal in writing to the Chancellor. The appeal shall be heard and determined by a special court comprising the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, and the Commissary.

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ in the present section 9 (to be renumbered section 12) by the words ‘section 11 above’.

Statute D, V (The High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary)

Amend section 13 to read:

13. Nothing in this Chapter shall enable or require the Commissary to hear any appeal or determine any dispute regulated under the provisions of Chapter IA of this Statute. The Commissary shall have no power to disallow or annul any Ordinance or Order made or having effect under that Chapter.

Statute D, XI (The Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ in section 2 by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Statute D, XIII (The University Advocate, the Deputy University Advocate)

Delete the words ‘Subject to the provisions of Statute U,’ in section 3.

Statute D, XVII (University Lecturers)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ in section 6(b) by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Statute D, XVIII (University Senior Lecturers)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ in section 3 by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Statute K (Commencement, Interpretation, Invalid Proceedings)

Replace in section 9 the final sentence ‘Nothing in this section shall enable the Council or the competent authority to delegate its power to make a recommendation under Statute U, II, 4(a) or U, II, 4(b), as the case may be.’ by the sentence ‘Nothing in this section shall enable the Council or the General Board to delegate its power to make a recommendation under Statute C, II, 1, Statute C, III, 2 or Statute C, V, 1 or to make a recommendation in connection with Statute D, IA, 2.’

Statute T (Temporary Provisions)

Introduce a new section 58 as follows:

58. The amending Statute made under Grace xx of xxxx shall not have effect, and the former provisions of Statute shall continue to have effect, in relation to any disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure concerning a University officer for which the trigger date occurred before the date of approval of the amending Statute by Her Majesty in Council. The trigger date for that purpose shall be the date of a report of the Council or of the competent authority made under Statute U, II, 4; or the date on which it first appeared to the responsible person that there were grounds for believing that the conduct or performance of the officer was or had been unsatisfactory, under Statute U, III, 2; or the date on which a complaint was received by the Vice-Chancellor concerning the conduct or performance of the officer, under Statute U, III, 6; or the date on which the competent authority agreed that it appeared to that authority that the removal of the officer from office for incapacity on medical grounds should be considered, under Statute U, IV, 3; or the date of a complaint by the officer of a grievance under Statute U, VI, II; or, in the case of the Vice-Chancellor, the date of a complaint by three or more members of the Council to the Chancellor under Statute U, VII, 1. For the purpose of this provision, the disciplinary, dismissal, or grievance procedure, as the case may be, shall be taken to extend until the determination of any appeal made under that procedure.

Statute U (Academic Staff)

Repeal the whole Statute.

Schedule J (University offices whose holders are entitled to leave under Statute D, II, 5)

Add the following offices:

Clinical Lecturer

Curator of the Sedgwick Museum

Senior Assistant Curator of the Sedgwick Museum

Assistant Curator of the Sedgwick Museum

John Couch Adams Astronomer

Director and Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Senior Assistant Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Assistant Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Senior Assistant Curator in the Museum of Zoology

Assistant Curator in the Museum of Zoology

Superintendent of the Engineering Workshops

Director of the Agricultural Economics Unit

Director and Curator of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science

Director of the Centre for Business Research

Director of the Cambridge Endowment for Research in Finance

Deputy Director of the Isaac Newton Institute of Mathematical Sciences


ANNEX B

Proposed amendments of Ordinances

The following amendments are proposed to the Ordinances of the University:

Regulation for Appeals to the Council (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 113)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

Regulation 2 for Director of Medical Education (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 597)

Replace the words ‘Statute U’ by the words ‘Statute D, IA’.

General Regulation 1 for University officers (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 662)

Omit paragraphs (h) and (i) and renumber paragraphs (j) to (m) as (h) to (k).

Regulation 4 for University Advocate and Deputy University Advocates (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 678)

Omit the words ‘subject to the provisions of Statute U,’.

Regulations for Clinical Lecturers (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 728)

Remove from section ‘Officers other than those specified in Schedule J’ and insert after University Senior Lecturers in the section entitled ‘Officers specified in Schedule J’.

Regulation 38 for Intellectual Property Rights (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 984)

Replace the words ‘a member of the academic staff has under Statute U’ by the words ‘a University officer has under Statute D, IA’. Replace the words ‘Statutes B and U’ by the words ‘Statutes B, VI and D, IA’.

Regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances

Introduce new regulations in Chapter XI of the Ordinances (The University Officers) as follows:

removal from office, discipline, and grievances

General

1. The responsible person, in relation to any particular officer, shall be either (i) the Head of the appropriate Department or other institution, or the Chairman of the Board, Syndicate, or other body which is chiefly concerned with the officer’s duties; or (ii) such other University officer as the secretary of the competent authority may determine. If any doubt arises as to the identity of the responsible person, it shall be resolved by the decision of the secretary of the competent authority.

2. Unless otherwise specified, the responsible person may delegate any duty under these regulations, or under any rule, code of practice, guidance or other provision made under these regulations, to any other person, and references to the responsible person shall include references to such other person as appropriate.

3. The following shall apply to any proceedings under these regulations:

(a)the manner of their conduct shall be determined by the person conducting them;

(b)they may be discontinued where the person conducting them so decides; and discontinued proceedings may be recommenced afresh; and a new person shall be substituted for the person conducting the proceedings before discontinuance where such substitution is desirable in the interests of fair procedure;

(c)they shall be conducted in private; but if the person conducting them considers it proper and expedient to do so, he or she may permit the attendance of any person (whether as a companion, or representative, or in a secretarial capacity, or for any other purpose) and such permission may be made subject to conditions;

(d)the person conducting them shall maintain a sufficient record of the proceedings.

References in this regulation to the person conducting proceedings shall be taken to refer also to the persons conducting proceedings, and those persons may act through one of their number for the purpose of this regulation.

4. The Council shall maintain panels, known as Panel A, Panel B, and Panel C, of persons willing to serve as chairman or as a member of committees constituted in accordance with codes of practice made under Statute D, IA, 7. Appointments to those panels shall be made by the Council in the Michaelmas Term each year of such number of persons as the Council may think fit, to serve as members of the panel for one year from 1 January following their appointment. Appointments may be subject to such limitations as the Council may see fit regarding the committees on which the appointee may serve and the role in which the appointee may serve. Panel A shall comprise members of the Regent House; Panel B shall comprise persons independent of the University; and Panel C shall comprise medically qualified persons. For the purpose of this regulation, a person is independent of the University if he or she does not hold any office or employment in the University or in any College, and does not hold a Fellowship of any College.

5. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for academic freedom. In pursuance of Statute D, IA, 1, regard shall be had to that code in the conduct of all matters under these regulations.

Probationary Periods

6. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code or codes of practice for probationary periods.

7. The code or codes of practice shall set out the procedures to be followed in relation to the confirmation or termination of office at the end of a probationary period and shall provide for appeal by an officer whose appointment is not confirmed.

Reasons for Discipline and Removal from Office

8. No person shall be removed from a University office unless the reason for removal may in the circumstances (including the size and the administrative resources of the University) reasonably be treated as a sufficient reason for removal of the officer concerned.

9. A University officer may be subject to disciplinary action (which may include removal from her or his office) in the event of her or his

(a)conviction for an offence such as to render the person convicted unfit for the performance of the duties of her or his office or for employment by the University; or

(b)gross misconduct; or

(c)conduct constituting failure or persistent refusal or neglect or inability to perform the duties or comply with the conditions of her or his office; or

(d)physical or mental incapacity such as to render the officer unfit for the performance of the duties of her or his office or for employment by the University.

The Council shall issue, and may from time to time revise, guidance on what constitutes gross misconduct.

10. Action taken in respect of a University officer (which may include removal from her or his office) in the event of physical or mental incapacity such as to render the officer unfit for the performance of the duties of her or his office or for employment by the University shall be dealt with in accordance with Regulations 17 to 23 below.

Disciplinary Procedure

11. If it appears to the responsible person or to the Vice-Chancellor that there are grounds for believing that the conduct or performance of an officer is or has been unsatisfactory, the responsible person shall investigate the matter. The responsible person may also

(a)suspend the officer from the performance of her or his duties without loss of stipend, and

(b)exclude the officer from all University premises or facilities,

pending a final decision; but shall only do so if he or she considers such action necessary in the interests of the health and safety of any person or for the protection of University property.

12. The responsible person may decide after investigation either

(a)to take no formal action; or

(b)to take disciplinary action.

If it is decided to take no formal action against the officer, any suspension or exclusion under Regulation 11 above shall cease.

13. If it is decided to take disciplinary action, or if action under Statute B, VI is taken by the University Advocate, against the officer, the responsible person may

(a)suspend the officer from the performance of her or his duties without loss of stipend, and

(b)exclude the officer from all University premises or facilities,

pending a final decision, if he or she considers it expedient to do so, (in the case of action under Statute B, VI) after consultation with the University Advocate.

14. The responsible person shall review regularly any decision to suspend or exclude an officer under either Regulation 11 or Regulation 13 above. Any such suspension or exclusion shall cease on the completion or discontinuance of the action against the officer.

15. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for disciplinary action. Such a code of practice shall permit the imposition of initial or final warnings or removal from office and shall provide for appeal by an officer against any disciplinary sanction imposed.

16. No University officer shall be removed from office as a result of disciplinary action unless

(a)the Vice-Chancellor has authorized the action to proceed on that basis; and

(b)the matter has been heard and determined by a disciplinary committee.

Removal for Incapacity on Medical Grounds

17. In this section of these regulations and in any rules, code of practice, guidance, or other provision hereunder

(a)references to medical grounds are references to capability assessed by reference to health or any other physical or mental quality; and

(b)references to an officer include, in cases where the nature of the incapacity so requires, a responsible relative or friend or other person having authority to act on behalf of that officer in addition to (or instead of) the officer.

18. If it appears to the responsible person that the removal from office of a University officer on medical grounds should be considered, he or she shall refer the matter without delay to the secretary of the competent authority. The responsible person may also

(a)suspend the officer from the performance of her or his duties without loss of stipend, and

(b)exclude the officer from all University premises or facilities,

pending a final decision; but shall only do so if he or she considers such action necessary in the interests of the health and safety of any person or for the protection of University property. Any such suspension or exclusion shall be confirmed or varied by the secretary of the competent authority, after consultation with the responsible person, as soon as reasonably practicable.

19. If it appears to the competent authority that the removal from office of a University officer on medical grounds should be considered, the secretary of the competent authority

(a)shall inform the officer accordingly, giving notice of the reasons;

(b)shall notify the officer in writing that it is proposed to make an application at University expense to the officer’s medical practitioner for a medical report and shall seek the officer’s consent in writing in accordance with the requirements of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988;

(c)may, at that time or at a later stage, require the officer to undergo medical examination at University expense by a qualified medical practitioner nominated by the competent authority; and

(d)may, after consultation with the responsible person,

(i)suspend the officer from the performance of her or his duties without loss of stipend, and

(ii)exclude the officer from all University premises or facilities,

pending a final decision, if he or she considers it expedient to do so.

20. The secretary of the competent authority, in consultation with the responsible person, shall review regularly any decision to suspend or exclude an officer under either Regulation 18 or Regulation 19 above. Any suspension or exclusion shall cease on the completion or discontinuance of proceedings under this section of these regulations.

21. If in the light of any medical report obtained under Regulation 19 above the competent authority is satisfied that a University officer should be required to leave her or his office on medical grounds, and if the officer accepts the opinion of the competent authority, the office shall terminate on those grounds.

22. If the officer does not agree that her or his removal from office on medical grounds should be considered, or if after a medical report has been obtained the officer declines to leave her or his office on medical grounds, the competent authority may direct that removal should be considered in accordance with the code of practice referred to in Regulation 23 below.

23. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for removal on medical grounds. Such a code of practice shall provide for removal from office on those grounds and shall provide for appeal by an officer against any such removal.

Redundancy

24. Where the competent authority decides

(a)to propose that redundancies should be made affecting an institution under their supervision, and

(b)the proposal, if implemented, would result in the removal of a University officer from office by reason of redundancy

it shall engage in such consultation as it considers desirable, having regard to the legal obligations of the University, before deciding whether to confirm or modify its proposal.

25. Where a selection for redundancy needs to be made, the competent authority shall identify criteria for selection and shall engage in such consultation as they consider desirable, having regard to the legal obligations of the University, before deciding on such criteria.

26. The competent authority shall then apply those criteria as confirmed or modified to select University officers for removal from office by reason of redundancy. No person shall be removed from office by reason of redundancy without first being offered a meeting to discuss the matter.

27. Each person selected to be removed from office by reason of redundancy (whether following selection or otherwise) shall be advised in writing of

(a)the action taken by the competent authority under the provisions of this section of these regulations;

(b)the selection criteria used (if any);

(c)her or his right of appeal and the time within which any appeal must be instituted; and

(d)the date on which the removal from office is to take effect.

28. The removal from office shall take effect from the specified date unless, before that date, the competent authority has withdrawn in writing the notice under Regulation 27 above. Such withdrawal shall not prevent removal from office following a fresh notice.

29. The competent authority shall consult on any modified proposal or any modified criteria if it considers it desirable to do so, having regard to the legal obligations of the University.

30. The competent authority shall report to the University if the authority of the University is required under Statute C, II, 1 or Statute C, III, 2 or Statute C, V, 1 or Statute D, IA, 2, and in such a case no removal from office shall take effect before the necessary authority for a redundancy situation has been granted by the University.

31. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for appeal by any person selected for removal against any such removal.

Retirement

32. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for the retirement of University officers and for the continuation of employment beyond the normal retirement age specified in Statute D, I, 11.

Grievances and Mediation

33. The University shall approve, and may amend, by Grace a code of practice for the redress of grievance by members of the University staff. The Council shall issue, and may from time to time revise, guidance on mediation.

34. The code of practice for grievances shall require that grievances are addressed informally in the first instance, so far as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case; shall provide for the possibility of mediation; and shall provide for formal review. The code may provide for certain specified cases in which a grievance shall proceed immediately to the formal review stage.

35. Where the formal review of a grievance results in recommendations to the competent authority, it shall respond to those recommendations. Where it results in recommendations to some other University body or to a University officer, the competent authority may require a response to those recommendations from that body or officer as the case may be.

36. In the absence of provision to the contrary, no grievance shall be entertained in relation to any action taken or any decision made under any disciplinary procedure within the University that includes provision for appeal (including any action taken or decision made in any appeal under the procedure) otherwise than in accordance with the provision for appeal.

37. Where the person conducting any process under a disciplinary procedure within the University considers that the subject matter of a grievance of a defendant in that process relates to or overlaps with the subject matter of the disciplinary process, he or she may direct that the grievance be considered by her or him within the disciplinary process and not otherwise.


ANNEX C

Proposed Codes of Practice

Code of Practice for academic freedom

Rights and freedoms of those in academic positions

Individual rights and freedoms: academic freedom, publication rights, and the international exchange of information

1.Access to the academic positions in the University (which, for the purposes of this Code, means University officers) will be based solely on appropriate academic qualifications, competence, and experience and will be equal for all members of society without any discrimination.

2.Those in academic positions will enjoy within the University freedom within the law of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly, and association. They will not be hindered or impeded in exercising within the University their civil rights as citizens, including the right to contribute to social change through freely expressing their opinion of state policies and of policies affecting higher education, and will not suffer any penalties simply because of the exercise of such rights.

3.The University will seek to maintain academic freedom, that is to say, the right of those in academic positions, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the University, freedom from institutional censorship, and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. They may fulfil their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression. The University will seek to maintain its democratic atmosphere.

4.Those in academic positions have the right to teach without any interference, subject to accepted professional principles including professional responsibility and intellectual rigour with regard to standards and methods of teaching. They will not be forced to instruct against their own best knowledge and conscience or be forced to use curricula and methods contrary to national and international human rights standards. The University will determine its own curriculum.

5.Those in academic positions have the right to carry out research work without any interference, or any suppression, in accordance with their professional responsibility and subject to nationally and internationally recognized professional principles of intellectual rigour, scientific inquiry, and research ethics. They are encouraged to publish and disseminate their research results in order to assist them to acquire the reputation which they merit, as well as to promote the advancement of science, technology, education, and culture generally. To that end, they will be free to publish, as authors or co-authors, the results of research and scholarship in books, journals, and databases of their own choice, and under their own names.

6.Those in academic positions have the right to undertake professional activities outside of their employment, particularly those that enhance their professional skills or allow for the application of knowledge to the problems of the community, provided such activities do not interfere with their primary commitments to the University in accordance with its policies and regulations and with national laws and practice where they apply.

Self-governance and collegiality

7.Those in academic positions have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the government of the University and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including the University, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the University.

8.The principles of collegiality include academic freedom, shared responsibility, the policy of participation of all concerned in internal decision-making structures and practices, and the development of consultative mechanisms. Collegial decision-making should encompass decisions regarding the administration and determination of policies of higher education, curricula, research, extension work, the allocation of resources, and other related activities, in order to improve academic excellence and quality for the benefit of society at large.

Duties and responsibilities of those in academic positions

9.Those in academic positions in the University should recognize that the exercise of rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities, including the obligation to respect the dignity and rights of all members and staff of the University, to respect the academic freedom of other members of the academic community, and to ensure the fair discussion of contrary views. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research on an honest search for truth. Teaching, research, and scholarship should be conducted in full accordance with ethical and professional standards and should, where appropriate, respond to contemporary problems facing society as well as preserve the historical and cultural heritage of the world.

10.In particular, the individual duties of those in academic positions in their academic freedom are:

(a)to teach students effectively within the means provided by the University; to be fair and equitable to students with disabilities, and to treat students equally, irrespective of gender, race, age, transgender status, sexual orientation or religion or belief; to encourage the free exchange of ideas between themselves and their students; to be available to them for guidance in their studies; and to ensure, where necessary, that the minimum content defined in the syllabus for each subject is covered;

(b)to conduct scholarly research and to disseminate the results of such research or, where original research is not required, to maintain and develop their knowledge of their subject through study and research, and through the development of teaching methodology to improve their pedagogical skills;

(c)to base their research and scholarship on an honest search for knowledge with due respect for evidence, impartial reasoning, and honesty in reporting;

(d)to observe the ethics of research involving humans, animals, the heritage, or the environment;

(e)to respect and to acknowledge the scholarly work of academic colleagues and students and, in particular, to ensure that authorship of published works includes all who have materially contributed to, and share responsibility for, the contents of a publication;

(f)to refrain from using new information, concepts, or data that were originally obtained as a result of access to confidential manuscripts or applications for funds for research or training that may have been seen as the result of processes such as peer review, unless the author has given permission;

(g)to ensure that research is conducted according to the law; that it does not violate international codes of human rights; and that the results of the research and the data on which it is based are effectively made available to scholars and researchers in the University, except where that might place respondents in peril or where anonymity has been guaranteed;

(h)to avoid conflicts of interest and to resolve them through appropriate disclosure and full consultation, so that they have the approval of the University;

(i)to handle honestly all funds entrusted to their care for the University for research or for other professional or scientific bodies;

(j)to be fair and impartial when presenting a professional appraisal of academic colleagues and students;

(k)to be conscious of a responsibility, when speaking or writing outside scholarly channels on matters which are not related to their professional expertise, to avoid misleading the public on the nature of their professional expertise;

(l)to undertake such appropriate duties as are required for the collegial governance of institutions of higher education and of professional bodies.

11.Those in academic positions should seek to achieve the highest possible standards in their professional work, since their status largely depends on themselves and the quality of their achievements.

12.Those in academic positions should contribute to the public accountability of the University and of higher education institutions generally without, however, forfeiting the degree of institutional autonomy necessary for their work, for their professional freedom, and for the advancement of knowledge.

Code of Practice for probationary periods

The responsible person

1.The responsible person, in relation to an officer, is the Head of the appropriate Department or other institution, or the Chairman of the Board, Syndicate, or other body which is chiefly concerned with the officer’s duties. He or she is responsible for the duties assigned by this code of practice, but may delegate their actual performance to other persons, and in particular may appoint another person to oversee the probationary period. References to the responsible person should be read accordingly.

2.It is the duty of the responsible officer to ensure that a sufficient and accurate written record is kept in relation to each probationary period of which he or she has oversight.

3.Where any concerns or uncertainties arise in relation to this code, the responsible officer should consult the Human Resources Division without delay. Their role is to advise on the requirements of fair procedure. It is not to influence the judgment of the responsible person in relation to the probationary process. Employment is a complex area of law in which the need to decide matters fairly and to avoid unlawful discrimination is especially important.

What is probation?

4.Probation is the period of the appointment during which a new member of staff will show capability to undertake the duties of the position to which he or she has been appointed, and during which he or she will receive guidance and support to that end.

5.Instances of misconduct, rather than lack of capability, should be dealt with separately in accordance with the relevant disciplinary procedures and not under this code of practice.

Starting work

6.It is the duty of the responsible person to meet the new officer individually when he or she starts work. That meeting should discuss the officer’s duties, mutual expectations, and the new officer’s development needs.

7.It is the duty of the responsible person to assign a mentor to each new officer on appointment. The mentor should be an experienced senior colleague able to give advice and to provide valuable links and support over the whole range of the new officer’s duties. The new officer should be able to share problems and concerns with her or his mentor in confidence.

8.It is the duty of the responsible person to ensure that the following are made clear to and are understood by the new officer:

the duties to be performed;

that the work of probationary staff is monitored to ensure that any problems that occur are discussed with the probationer as and when they arise;

the identity of the mentor assigned to the new officer, and the mentor’s role;

the training and development activities in which the new officer will be expected to participate;

that an overall view of the officer’s progress, commitment, and general contribution to the work of the institution will be formed during the probationary period, and how that will be done; and

that clear evidence of consistent, satisfactory performance of duties during the probationary period will be required for an appointment to be confirmed upon its completion.

9.It is the duty of the responsible person to make a record of the meeting and to copy it to the new officer.

The probationary period

10.It is the duty of the responsible person, during the course of the probationary period, to gather information as to progress at appropriate intervals. So far as is reasonably practicable, that information should bear on the full range of duties as well as on general contribution. It should be gathered from all relevant and appropriate sources.

11.It is the duty of the responsible person to meet the probationary officer at least once a year to review progress. Standard forms, provided by the Human Resources Division, must be completed by the responsible person and by the probationary officer. Where concern arises about aspects of the officer’s performance, the responsible person should notify the Human Resources Division, who will advise on the steps to be taken, probably including holding more regular progress review meetings.

12.Performance will be assessed against the criteria appropriate for the office held; it will therefore be concerned with appropriate outputs. There must be no doubt that the probationary officer has been performing according to all the relevant criteria and at an appropriately high level. Where concerns arise about the performance of a probationary officer (whether or not at a progress review meeting), he or she should be notified in writing of those concerns without delay.

13.A new mentor may be appointed by the responsible person at any time; but such an appointment will not normally be made except at the request of the probationary officer or of the current mentor, or where replacement is necessary (for example, where the current mentor is leaving the University).

Early confirmation of appointment

14.Where the responsible person is of the view that the appointment of the probationary officer should be confirmed before the end of the specified period of probation, he or she will so notify the Human Resources Division, who will advise.

Agreed extension of the probationary period

15.Where the responsible person is of the view that the probationary period should be extended because factors beyond the probationary officer’s control have left insufficient time for a fair assessment of suitability, or where the probationary officer has made a request to that effect, the responsible person will so notify the Human Resources Division, who will advise.

Final assessment

16.The Human Resources Division will notify the responsible person of the time at which to make a final assessment and the evidence which should be assembled for that process.

17.It is the duty of the responsible officer, when the evidence is assembled, to arrange in writing to meet the probationary officer to discuss the final assessment.

18.If the responsible person intends to confirm the officer’s appointment, or to recommend it for confirmation, he or she will so notify the probationary officer when arranging the meeting. Otherwise the responsible person will say that that is not the case and will notify the probationary officer of her or his right to be accompanied at the meeting by another officer or University employee or by a trade union official.

19.It is the duty of the responsible person, after the meeting, to write to the probationary officer either

saying that the appointment is confirmed, or is to be recommended for confirmation; or

saying that the probationary period is extended and by what period, and specifying the steps that should be taken by the probationary officer to improve performance during the extended probationary period; or

giving notice of dismissal, and notifying the officer of her or his right of appeal against that decision; or

saying that a recommendation, other than confirmation, is to be made to the Appointments Committee and the nature of that recommendation.

20.Where the matter is referred to the Appointments Committee, the Secretary of the Committee will write to the probationary officer with the decision of the Committee. If the decision is to extend the probationary period, the letter will say by what period and will specify the steps that should be taken by the probationary officer to improve performance during the extended probationary period. If the decision is not to reappoint, the letter will say that and will tell the officer of her or his right of appeal against that decision.

Appeal

21.Within ten working days after the date of the letter of non-confirmation resulting in termination of office, the officer may appeal in writing to the secretary of the competent authority setting out the grounds of appeal.

22.On receipt of an appeal, the competent authority will appoint one or more persons to inquire into the matter and (unless the appeal is withdrawn) to report. The person or persons inquiring into the matter will not report before the appellant has been afforded the opportunity of a meeting at which he or she may be accompanied by an officer or University employee or by a trade union official.

23.Where, after considering the report of the person or persons inquiring into the matter, the competent authority allows an appeal, it may exercise its powers under Statute D, IA, 8 and Statute D, XVII, 7(b) and may direct reappointment for an extended probationary period of a specified term or until the retiring age. Where a direction for reappointment is made then it will be effective (if need be retrospectively) from the date of termination of the appellant’s appointment.

24.The decision of the competent authority will be final in the matter.

Code of Practice for disciplinary action

Investigation

1.In any case of suspected unsatisfactory conduct or performance of an officer, the responsible person should consider whether to investigate the matter personally or whether to delegate all or any part of the investigation to another person. The investigation should proceed in a timely fashion.

2.The investigation may take the form of the assembly of evidence for use at a disciplinary hearing and an initial evaluation of that evidence. It may involve an investigatory meeting with the officer. Such a meeting must be clearly distinguished from a disciplinary hearing. The purpose of the investigation is to enable the responsible person to decide whether or not disciplinary action should be taken.

3.In a case of misconduct that proceeds to disciplinary action, the responsible person will need to consider whether to conduct that action her or himself, or to delegate its conduct. The responsible person should normally delegate it if he or she has been involved in a substantial way in the investigation of the matter.

4.Guidance on the conduct of any investigation is available from the Human Resources Division.

Notifying the Human Resources Division

5.Where, after investigation, the responsible person has decided to take disciplinary action against an officer under Regulation 12 for removal from office, discipline, and grievances, he or she should notify the Human Resources Division without delay, who will inform the secretary of the competent authority.

6.The role of the Human Resources Division is to advise on the requirement of fair procedure. It is not to influence the judgment of the responsible person in the disciplinary action taken. The involvement of the Division in all cases – however apparently straightforward – is essential, as employment is a complex area of law in which the need to decide matters fairly and to avoid unlawful discrimination is especially important.

Possible removal from office

7.If the responsible officer is of the view that removal from office may be justified, then he or she must refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor for the authorization of disciplinary action to proceed on that basis. If action on that basis is authorized, it should proceed as described from paragraph 24 below. Otherwise it should proceed as described from paragraph 9 below.

8.Where, during the course of disciplinary action, the responsible person forms the view that removal from office may be justified, he or she must adjourn the action and refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor for authorization of disciplinary action to proceed on that basis. If action on that basis is authorized, it should be started afresh as described from paragraph 24 below. Otherwise it should be recommenced by the responsible person.

Writing to the officer

9.The first step is for the responsible person to write to the officer. The letter should contain enough information for the officer to be able to understand both what it is that he or she is alleged to have done wrong and the reasons why it is not acceptable. It should also invite the officer to a meeting at which the matter can be discussed, and it should inform the officer of her or his right to be accompanied at the meeting. Where the responsible person has decided to delegate to another person the conduct of the disciplinary action (whether because of her or his personal involvement in investigatory stage, or for some other reason), the letter should say to whom its conduct has been delegated. The officer should be given copies of any documents that will be produced at the meeting.

The right to be accompanied

10.The officer has the right to be accompanied by another officer or University employee or by a trade union official. The officer must make a reasonable request (not necessarily in writing) to the responsible person to be accompanied. For example, a request to be accompanied by a person who is a material witness or who has a conflict of interest in the matter at issue would probably not be reasonable. For a person to qualify as a trade union official, he or she must be certified in writing by the union as having experience of, or having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings. The officer has no right to insist on being accompanied by a particular person against that person’s will.

11.Before the hearing takes place, the officer should tell the responsible person whom he or she has chosen as a companion. It can sometimes be helpful for the companion and responsible person to make contact before the hearing.

Holding a meeting

12.Where possible, the timing and location of the meeting should be agreed with the officer and with any companion of the officer. The length of time between the letter and the meeting should be long enough to allow the officer to prepare but not so long that memories fade. The responsible person should hold the meeting in a private location and ensure there will be no interruptions.

13.At the meeting, the responsible person should explain the complaint against the officer and go through the evidence that has been gathered. The officer should be allowed to set out her or his case and to answer any allegations that have been made. The officer should also be allowed to ask questions, present evidence, call witnesses, and be given an opportunity to raise points about any information provided by witnesses.

14.If the officer cannot attend a meeting the responsible person should be informed in advance as soon as possible. If the failure to attend has arisen as the result of circumstances outside the officer’s control and unforeseeable at the time the meeting was arranged (for example illness), the responsible person should arrange another meeting. A decision may be taken in the officer’s absence if he or she fails to attend the rearranged meeting without good reason. If the officer’s companion cannot attend on a proposed date, the officer can suggest another date so long as it is reasonable and is not more than five working days after the date originally proposed by the responsible person. That five-day time limit may be extended by mutual agreement.

15.The companion should be allowed to address the hearing in order to:

put the officer’s case;

sum up the officer’s case; and

respond on the officer’s behalf to any view expressed at the hearing.

The companion can also confer with the officer during the hearing. It is good practice to allow the companion to participate as fully as possible in the hearing, including asking witnesses questions. But the companion has no right to answer questions on the officer’s behalf, or to address the hearing if the officer does not wish it, or to prevent the responsible officer from conducting the proceedings in any way.

Decide on outcome and action

16.Following the meeting the responsible person must decide whether any disciplinary sanction is justified or not. Where it is decided that no formal action should be taken the officer should be so informed. Where it is decided that some disciplinary sanction is justified the responsible person will need to consider what form it should take. Before making any decision, account should be taken of the officer’s disciplinary and general record, her or his length of service, actions taken in any previous similar case, the explanations given by the officer, and – most important of all – whether the intended disciplinary sanction is reasonable under the circumstances.

17.Where the responsible person decides that a disciplinary sanction is justified by reasons that include a failure or inability to perform, or unsatisfactory performance of, the duties of office, he or she shall consider what steps should be taken to assist the improvement of the officer’s performance.

Action: initial warning

18.Where the conduct or performance of the officer is judged to have been unsatisfactory, the responsible person may issue an initial warning, which will state in writing:

the nature of the unsatisfactory conduct or performance;

the improvement that is required;

the timescale for achieving that improvement;

a review date; and

any support that will be provided to assist the officer.

It should further say that it represents the initial stage of a formal procedure and that failure to improve could lead to a final warning and, ultimately, to removal from office. It should refer to the officer’s right of appeal.

19.A copy of the warning should be kept and used as the basis for monitoring and reviewing performance over a specified period not exceeding a year.

Action: final warning

20.Where possible an officer should be given at least one chance to improve her or his conduct or performance before a final written warning is issued. However, if the officer’s misconduct or unsatisfactory performance – or its continuance – is sufficiently serious, it may be appropriate to move directly to a final warning.

21.A final warning should also normally be given where there is a failure to improve or change behaviour in the timescale set by an initial warning at the first formal stage but only after fresh disciplinary action has been taken and the officer given a chance to present her or his case at a meeting.

22.A final warning will specify in writing details of the nature of the unsatisfactory conduct or performance. It should warn the officer that failure to improve or modify behaviour may lead to removal from office or to some other penalty. It should refer to the officer’s right of appeal.

23.A final warning should specify a period, not exceeding two years, after which it will normally be disregarded for disciplinary purposes.

Removal from office

24.Where the Vice-Chancellor has authorized disciplinary action to proceed on the basis that removal from office is a possible outcome, the Registrary will appoint a disciplinary committee comprising a chairman and two other members, each selected from Panel A or Panel B maintained by the Council under the regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances. The officer appearing before the disciplinary committee will be entitled to object for good cause to the presence on the committee of any of its members. The chairman will rule on any objection and her or his decision will be final.

25.The steps described above to ensure fair procedure should be followed with any necessary adaptations. The Registrary will be responsible for corresponding with the officer and for arranging a meeting of the disciplinary committee to hear the matter. In writing to the officer to inform her or him of the decision of the disciplinary committee, the Registrary will refer to the officer’s right of appeal.

26.The disciplinary meeting will be conducted by the chairman, who may set time-limits for any stage of the proceedings in order that the matter should be heard and determined in a fair manner as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. The chairman may make such arrangements to receive secretarial or legal help or advice as he or she may see fit.

27.The chairman may, on the application of the officer, permit her or him to be accompanied by a person who is not an officer or University employee or trade union official.

28.The case will be presented to the committee by the responsible person, who may be accompanied by a companion of her or his choosing, who must be another officer or University employee. The responsible person should also be allowed to ask questions, present evidence, call witnesses, and be given an opportunity to raise points about any information provided by witnesses.

29.If the disciplinary committee concludes that the conduct or performance of the officer is such that he or she should be removed from office, it will determine accordingly; if not, it will take such action (if any) as it may see fit, within the scope of the powers of the responsible person following a disciplinary meeting.

Appeal

30.An appeal must be made in writing to the Registrary within ten working days after the date of the initial or final warning or notice of removal from office, as the case may be, and must state the grounds of appeal. No ground not specified in the notice of appeal will be considered by the appeal committee without the consent of the chairman.

31.The Registrary will appoint an appeal committee comprising a chairman, selected from Panel B, and two other members, each selected from Panel A. The officer appealing will be entitled to object for good cause to the presence on the committee of any of its members. The chairman will rule on any objection and her or his decision will be final.

32.Before the appeal hearing, the appellant and the responsible person should submit and exchange written statements. No witnesses may give evidence to the appeal committee except with the consent of the chairman.

33.The appeal meeting will be conducted by the chairman, who may set time-limits for any stage of the proceedings in order that the matter should be heard and determined in a fair manner as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. The chairman may make such arrangements to receive secretarial or legal help or advice as he or she may see fit.

34.The chairman may, on the application of the officer, permit her or him to be accompanied by a person who is not an officer or University employee or trade union official.

35.The appeal committee may allow or dismiss an appeal, in whole or in part. Its decision is final as regards process within the University.

Code of Practice for removal on medical grounds

Notifying the competent authority

1.Where the responsible person believes that the removal from office of a University officer on medical grounds should be considered, he or she should notify the secretary of the competent authority without delay.

2.Where the responsible person has so notified the secretary of the competent authority, or where the responsible person is notified by the secretary of the competent authority that it appears to the competent authority that the removal from office on medical grounds should be considered, the responsible person should thereafter act in accordance with the advice of the secretary of the competent authority in the matter.

Writing to the officer

3.The first step is for the secretary of the competent authority to write to the officer in accordance with Regulation 19 for removal from office, discipline, and grievances and to follow the process in Regulation 21. Only if that does not result in a consensual course of action will the formal process specified below be needed.

Formal consideration of the matter

4.The Registrary will constitute a medical committee comprising a chairman and two other members. Of those three persons, one will be selected from Panel C and each of the other two from Panel A or Panel B maintained by the Council under the regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances. The officer appearing before the medical committee will be entitled to object for good cause to the presence on the committee of any of its members. The chairman will rule on any objection and her or his decision will be final.

5.The Registrary will be responsible for corresponding with the officer and for arranging a meeting of the medical committee to hear the matter. The officer should be given copies of any documents that will be produced at the meeting.

6.The secretary of the competent authority is entitled to be a party to the proceedings and may appoint a representative to act for her or himself for that purpose. Where the Registrary is the secretary of the competent authority, he or she must ensure that arrangements for delegation are made that separate entirely the Registrary’s role under this code of practice from that of the secretary of the competent authority under this code.

The right to be accompanied

7.The officer has the right to be accompanied by another officer or University employee or by a trade union official. The officer must make a reasonable request (not necessarily in writing) to the secretary of the medical committee to be accompanied. For example, a request to be accompanied by a person who is a material witness or who has a conflict of interest in the matter at issue would probably not be reasonable. For a person to qualify as a trade union official, he or she must be certified in writing by the union as having experience of, or having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings. The officer has no right to insist on being accompanied by a particular person against that person’s will.

8.Before the hearing takes place, the officer should tell the Registrary whom he or she has chosen as a companion.

Holding a meeting

9.The meeting will be conducted by the chairman, who may set time-limits for any stage of the proceedings in order that the matter should be heard and determined in a fair manner as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. The chairman may make such arrangements to receive secretarial or legal help or advice as he or she may see fit.

10.The chairman may, on the application of the officer, permit her or him to be accompanied by a person who is not an officer or University employee or trade union official.

11.The meeting should be conducted so as to ensure that

the officer has received the whole of the written evidence that is before the medical committee;

the officer is given the opportunity to set out her or his case and to respond to any evidence before the committee;

the officer is given the opportunity to ask questions, present evidence, and call witnesses;

the officer’s companion is allowed to confer with the officer during the hearing and to represent the officer by putting and summing up her or his case and responding on her or his behalf to any view expressed at the meeting (though the companion has no right to answer questions on the officer’s behalf, or to address the committee if the officer does not wish it, or to prevent the chairman from conducting the proceedings in any way).

12.If the officer cannot attend a meeting he or she should inform the Registrary in advance as soon as possible. The chairman will then decide how to proceed, having regard to the requirements of fair procedure, the rights of the officer concerned, and the need to achieve a resolution of the matter.

13.Where the medical committee is of the view that the officer should undergo medical examination by a qualified medical practitioner nominated by the competent authority, it will ask the secretary of the competent authority to act under Regulation 19(c) for removal from office, discipline, and grievances.

Deciding on the outcome

14.Following the meeting the medical committee will decide whether or not the officer should be removed from her or his office on medical grounds. Before deciding to remove from office, the committee should consider whether that decision might be avoided by reasonable adaptations affecting the officer’s working arrangements or other reasonable adaptations. The Registrary will write to the officer and to the secretary of the competent authority notifying them of the decision. If the decision is to remove from office, the letter should refer to the officer’s right of appeal.

Appeal

15.An appeal must be made in writing to the Registrary within ten working days after the date of the decision letter of the medical committee, and must state the grounds of appeal. No ground not specified in the notice of appeal will be considered by the appeal committee without the consent of the chairman.

16.The Registrary will appoint an appeal committee of three members, comprising a chairman and two other members. Of those three persons, one will be selected from Panel C and each of the other two from Panel A or Panel B. Unless the one from Panel C is independent of the University (in the sense described in Regulation 4 for removal from office, discipline, and grievances), at least one of the others must be from Panel B. The officer appealing will be entitled to object for good cause to the presence on the committee of any of its members. The chairman will rule on any objection and her or his decision will be final.

17.The appeal will be determined following an oral hearing, at which the appellant and the secretary of the competent authority (or her or his representative) will be entitled to make a statement and to address the appeal committee. The appellant may be accompanied by a University officer or employee or by a trade union official, who may represent the appellant.

18.Before the appeal hearing, the appellant and the secretary of the competent authority (or her or his representative) should submit and exchange written statements. No witnesses may give evidence to the appeal committee except with the consent of the chairman.

19.The appeal meeting will be conducted by the chairman, who may set time-limits for any stage of the proceedings in order that the matter should be heard and determined in a fair manner as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. The chairman may make such arrangements to receive secretarial or legal help or advice as he or she may see fit.

20.The chairman may, on the application of the officer, permit her or him to be accompanied by a person who is not an officer or University employee or trade union official.

21.The appeal committee may allow or dismiss an appeal, in whole or in part. Its decision is final as regards process within the University. The Registrary will write to the appellant, the responsible person, and the secretary of the competent authority notifying them of the decision.

Code of Practice for appeal against selection for removal or dismissal on grounds of redundancy

1.An appeal must be made in writing to the Registrary within ten working days after the date of the notice of selection, and must state the grounds of appeal. No ground not specified in the notice of appeal will be considered by the appeal committee without the consent of the chairman.

2.Where the Registrary is the secretary of the competent authority, he or she must ensure that arrangements are made to separate entirely the Registrary’s role under this code of practice from that of the secretary of the competent authority under this code.

3.The Registrary will appoint an appeal committee comprising a chairman, selected from Panel B, and two other members, each selected from Panel A maintained by the Council under the regulations for removal from office, discipline, and grievances. The officer appealing will be entitled to object for good cause to the presence on the committee of any of its members. The chairman will rule on any objection and her or his decision will be final.

4.The appeal will be determined following an oral hearing, at which the appellant and the secretary of the competent authority (or her or his representative) will be entitled to make a statement and to address the appeal committee. The appellant may be accompanied by a University officer or employee or by a trade union official, who may represent the appellant.

5.Before the appeal hearing, the appellant and the secretary of the competent authority (or her or his representative) should submit and exchange written statements. No witnesses may give evidence to the appeal committee except with the consent of the chairman.

6.The appeal meeting will be conducted by the chairman, who may set time-limits for any stage of the proceedings in order that the matter should be heard and determined in a fair manner as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. The chairman may make such arrangements to receive secretarial or legal help or advice as he or she may see fit.

7.The chairman may, on the application of the officer, permit her or him to be accompanied by a person who is not an officer or University employee or trade union official.

8.The Registrary may appoint a single appeal committee to deal with more than one appeal. In that case, the chairman may decide to hear jointly one or more of those appeals where he or she is of the view that it would be fair and expedient to do so.

9.Following the hearing of the appeal, the appeal committee will consider the facts of the case and may allow or dismiss an appeal, in whole or in part. The Registrary will write to the appellant, the responsible person, and the secretary of the competent authority notifying them of the decision.

Code of Practice for the retirement of University officers and for the continuation of employment beyond the normal retirement age

The normal retirement age

1.The normal retirement age specified in Statute D, I, 11 for a University officer is the end of the academical year in which he or she attains the age of sixty-seven years.

2.Statute D, I, 11 prevents the continuation of an officer in her or his University office after the normal retirement age. Therefore any continuation of employment will be in an unestablished post on terms determined in accordance with this code of practice.

3.Except with the consent of the competent authority, any continuation of employment will be for a period not exceeding three years. A former University officer who is continued in employment may apply for a further continuation at the end of that period in accordance with this code of practice (disregarding paragraph 7 and applying paragraph 18 below).

Scope of the code of practice

4.This code of practice applies to University officers. It may be applied to such other categories of University staff as the competent authority may determine.

5.Where the institution or body which is chiefly concerned with the officer’s duties is within a School, then the procedure described in the following paragraphs will apply. Where that is not the case, then a similar procedure approved by the competent authority will apply.

Application for the continuation of employment

6.The Human Resources Division will write at the beginning of the academical year at the end of which an officer reaches the normal retirement age telling the officer of her or his retirement date and the steps to be taken to request continuation of employment after that date. The letter will be copied to the responsible person for the officer concerned.

7.However, in order to allow for forward planning, at least a year earlier than that the responsible person will discuss with the officer her or his future plans and will write to the officer asking that any application for the continuation of employment should be received in writing on the form provided for that purpose not later than 31 October twenty-three months before the normal retirement age. Such an application may be for full-time or part-time employment and should state a new proposed date of retirement. It should be accompanied by the officer’s full curriculum vitae.

8.On receipt of an application for the continuation of employment, the responsible person will write to the officer inviting her or him to a meeting to discuss the matter at which the officer has the right to be accompanied by a University employee or by a trade union official. If the officer so wishes, he or she may notify the responsible person in writing that such a meeting is not required.

9.Applications for the continuation of employment will be considered by a Retirement Committee constituted by the School, who will receive

(a)the officer’s application and curriculum vitae;

(b)any additional written evidence from the officer;

(c)a report from the responsible person, which will include

(i)a statement of the benefits to the institution or body chiefly concerned with the officer’s duties of retaining the services of the officer, weighed against the benefits of discontinuing or replacing those services;

(ii)a statement of the resource implications for the institution or body;

(iii)an undertaking that the institution or body will assume financial responsibility for the continuation of employment, or a statement of the extent to which that is not the case and the reasons for it;

(iv)an assessment of the application against the forward plans for the institution or body, and a statement of the plan for the future discontinuance or replacement of the officer’s services; and

(v)a recommendation for the approval (and on what terms, if different from those of the application) or for the rejection of the application;

(d)a report from the Head of the School, which will include

(i)a statement of the benefits to the School of retaining the services of the officer, weighed against the benefits of discontinuing or replacing those services;

(ii)a statement of the resource implications for the School;

(iii)a report on any statement by the responsible person that the institution or body concerned with the officer’s duties is unwilling to assume financial responsibility for the continuation of employment; and

(iv)an assessment of the application against the forward plans for the School.

10.The Council of the School, after consultation with the Human Resources Division, may approve any policies in amplification of this code of practice. Any such policies shall be made public and shall be specifically notified to all officers nearing the retiring age.

11.The Retirement Committee will send the papers relating to each application, together with the minute recording their recommendation on it, to the Council of the School for approval. Where the recommendation is for the continuation of employment, the minute should state the recommended terms of that continuation. All applications received by 31 October in accordance with paragraph 7 above should be considered as a gathered field by the Retirement Committee and by the Council of the School, and the Council of the School should aim to complete the process by the following 31 March.

12.The papers and the minute recording the decision of the Council of the School in respect of each application will be sent to the Human Resources Division and to the competent authority, accompanied by an undertaking by the School to assume financial responsibility for all continuation of employment.

13.The officer will be notified in writing by the secretary of the competent authority of the decision to offer a continuation of employment or to reject the application for continuation. The decision letter will specify a date by which the officer must accept any offer of continuation in writing (after which it will lapse), and (unless an offer is made on the terms applied for) will tell the officer of her or his right of appeal against that decision.

Appeal

14.Within ten working days after the date of the decision letter, the officer may appeal in writing to the secretary of the competent authority setting out the grounds for appeal.

15.On receipt of an appeal, the competent authority will appoint one or more persons to inquire into the matter and (unless the appeal is withdrawn) to report. The person or persons inquiring into the matter will not report before the appellant has been afforded the opportunity of a meeting at which he or she may be accompanied by an officer or University employee or by a trade union official.

16.After considering the report of the person or persons inquiring into the matter, the competent authority may dismiss the appeal, or may offer a continuation of employment on such terms as it may see fit.

17.The decision of the competent authority will be final in the matter.

Late applications

18.Where an application for the continuation of employment is received later than the date specified in paragraph 7 above, the responsible person shall at once notify the Human Resources Division, who will advise on the process to be followed. That process will, so far as is reasonably practicable, follow the procedure specified above.

The management of conflict of interest

19.Where the officer concerned is the Head of the appropriate Department or other institution, or the Chairman of the Board, Syndicate, or other body which is chiefly concerned with her or his own duties, the responsible person shall be the Head of the School.

20.Where the officer concerned is the Head of the School, the responsible person shall be the secretary of the competent authority (both in relation to the office of Head of School and in relation to any other office held by the officer concerned, but in respect of any other office the secretary of the competent authority shall seek the advice of whomever would otherwise be the responsible person).

21.No officer shall receive any papers or participate in the discussion of any body in relation to her or his own application for the continuation of employment.

22.The responsible person for an officer shall not participate in any discussion by the Retirement Committee of that officer’s application (but may participate in such discussion by the Council of the School).

Annual review

23.During the Easter Term of each academical year, the papers from Schools and comparable authorities will be received by the Human Resources Committee, who will review the operation of this Code of Practice and will report to the Council and to the General Board.

Code of Practice for the redress of grievances

General

1.Every member of staff has a right to raise any concerns, problems, or complaints relating to her or his terms and conditions of appointment or employment, unless the matter is subject to other agreed procedures. The purpose of this code is to resolve such grievances as informally, fairly, consistently, and speedily as possible.

2.Most grievances should first be raised informally by the member of staff with her or his line manager or other person to whom the member looks for instruction and guidance.

3.A member of staff may at any time withdraw a grievance or may agree that it has been resolved.

4.The purpose of this Code of Practice is to provide an appropriate means for University staff to seek redress of workplace concerns. Where after investigation a grievance is found to be vexatious or malicious and without any reasonable foundation, disciplinary action may follow.

Mediation

5.At the first and second stage of the grievance procedure the aggrieved member of staff and the person responsible for considering the grievance shall consider whether to refer the matter to mediation.

First Stage

6.If the grievance cannot be resolved by informal discussions, then the member of staff may make a written complaint to the Head of the institution in which her or his appointment is held.

7.If the grievance directly concerns the Head of the institution, the member of staff should write to the Director of Human Resources, who will appoint a person to act in place of the Head of institution in the Second Stage of the grievance procedure.

8.On receipt of a written grievance a Head of institution should notify the Human Resources Division without delay, who will inform the secretary of the competent authority.

9.That applies also in the case of a written grievance from a former member of staff relating to her or his previous appointment or employment.

10.The role of the Human Resources Division is to advise on the requirement of fair and correct procedure. The involvement of the Division in all cases – however apparently straightforward – is essential, as employment is a complex area of law in which the need to decide matters fairly and to avoid unlawful discrimination is especially important.

Second Stage

11.The Head of the institution will arrange a meeting with the member of staff, if possible within five working days after receipt of the complaint, and will inform the member of her or his right to be accompanied, confirming that information in writing.

12.The member of staff has the right to be accompanied by a University employee or by a trade union official. The member must make a reasonable request (not necessarily in writing) to be accompanied. For example, a request to be accompanied by a person who is involved in the substance of the grievance would probably not be reasonable. For a person to qualify as a trade union official, he or she must be certified in writing by the union as having experience of, or having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings. The officer has no right to insist on being accompanied by a particular person against that person’s will.

13.Before the hearing takes place, the member of staff should tell the Head of institution whom he or she has chosen as a companion. It can sometimes be helpful for the companion and the Head of institution to make contact before the hearing.

14.Where possible, the timing and location of the meeting should be agreed with the member of staff and with any companion of the member. The meeting should be held in a private location and there should be no interruptions. If the member’s companion cannot attend on the proposed date, the member can suggest another date so long as it is reasonable and is not more than five working days after the date originally proposed by the responsible person. That five-day time limit may be extended by mutual agreement.

15.At the meeting, the member of staff should be allowed to explain the complaint and say how he or she thinks it should be settled. If a point in the meeting is reached where the Head of institution is not sure how to deal with the grievance or believes that further investigation is necessary, he or she should adjourn the meeting to get advice or to investigate further.

16.The companion should be allowed to participate as fully as possible in the meeting, and to confer with the member of the staff during the course of the meeting. But the companion may not answer questions on the member’s behalf; nor address the meeting if the member does not wish it; nor prevent the Head of institution from conducting the proceedings in any way.

17.The Head of institution should give the grievance careful consideration before responding.

18.The Head of institution should write to the member of staff within a reasonable time, and normally not more than five working days after the meeting, responding to the grievance and referring to the member’s right of appeal. Where it is not possible to respond within five working days the member should be given an explanation for the delay and told when a response can be expected.

Third Stage

19.If the member of staff wishes to appeal, he or she may, within ten working days after the date of the letter of response, write to the Director of Human Resources asking that the grievance be referred to the Human Resources Committee.

20.On receipt of such a request, the Human Resources Committee will appoint one or more persons to inquire into the grievance with a view to resolving it, and to report.

21.If the grievance is withdrawn, or agreed to have been resolved, by the member of staff who made it, then the person or persons inquiring into the grievance shall not be obliged to proceed further or to report.

22.The Human Resources Committee will decide, after consideration of the report, what action (if any) to take.

23.The Human Resources Committee and the person or persons appointed to inquire into the grievance shall proceed with all reasonable speed.

Rules of inquiry

24.The following rules shall apply as regards an inquiry under the Third Stage of the grievance procedure:

Before any report is made, the aggrieved member of staff shall be heard. Such a hearing need not be by all of the persons (if more than one) inquiring into the grievance.

The aggrieved member of staff shall be entitled to be represented or accompanied for that purpose by a trade union officer or another member of staff.

Subject to the above rules, the conduct of the inquiry shall be determined in a way considered just and fair by the person or persons conducting it.


ANNEX D

Proposed guidance to be issued by the Council

Guidance on mediation

What is mediation?

1.Mediation is a process of discussion with an independent person to help two sides find a way of resolving the issues between them and moving on.

Is mediation the best course?

2.It may well be, if the two sides want to find a way forward and maintain and carry forward a productive working relationship. It may not be, if the main concern of either side is the determination of the rights and wrongs of an issue or the establishment of legal rights.

What authority does the mediator have to decide the matter?

3.None. The mediator’s role is to help the parties find common ground, but he or she cannot tell them what to do. It is not for the mediator to make judgments in the matter.

Who are the parties to a mediation?

4.The parties will include the aggrieved person and the person against whom the grievance lies.

Is the Head of institution or her or his representative a party?

5.That will depend on the circumstances of the matter and the mediator will advise.

How does the mediator work?

6.It is for the mediator to decide how he or she will go about the task. Commonly, however, the mediator will begin by talking to both parties separately.

7.The mediator will want to know your views and how you feel about things, and will want to know what you think should be done. The mediator may have her or his own ideas and suggestions and want your reaction to them. The mediator may encourage you to understand what the other party thinks and feels, and will want any ideas that you have as to a middle way.

8.Each side should speak frankly, because the mediator has to have a full understanding of the situation to do a proper job. Nothing that you say will be passed on by the mediator to anyone else without your consent.

9.When the time is right, the mediator will bring the two sides together and give each the opportunity to speak to the other and say what they feel without interruption. The mediator may then ask questions, as will have happened already in private session, and may suggest solutions for comment.

What if all goes well?

10.The mediator will write down what is agreed and ask both sides to sign to confirm its accuracy.

Must I stick to what I have signed?

11.You will be expected to do your best to do that, otherwise there is little point in the whole process. However any agreement reached will not be legally binding unless both sides have specifically asked for that, in which case you will be given the opportunity to take legal advice before signing other than provisionally.

What if it does not work?

12.At any time the mediator or either party may decide that mediation is unlikely to work and should be discontinued.

What then happens to the grievance?

13.It is unresolved and the formal process under the Code of Practice for the redress of grievances remains.

Can either side (or the Head of institution) insist on mediation?

14.No. Moreover either side can withdraw its agreement at any time.

Who will the mediator be?

15.The Council of the University will maintain a panel of persons willing to act as mediators. The mediator will be selected by the Registrary from that panel and will be someone who has had no previous dealings with the parties involved.

Where will the mediation take place?

16.It will be held somewhere other than the institution concerned. A venue with at least two rooms will be needed for the mediator to meet privately with the two sides.

Can I bring a representative or friend?

17.Yes, but the mediator should be notified of who you propose to bring in advance as both sides need to know who is attending.

How do I prepare for mediation?

18.The mediator may give you guidance on preparation when the mediation is arranged. The parties may be asked to write down in advance the problem they want the mediator to help with and a short account of events. The mediator will also normally have received copies of papers relating to a grievance in order to help her or him prepare for the mediation.

Can I ask for recommendations from the mediator?

19.Yes, but both sides have to agree to that. If both sides agree, the mediator will provide written recommendations after the conclusion of the mediation process, but will only provide them if the mediation fails. (If it succeeds, there will be a record, prepared at the time, of what is agreed.)

Do I have anything to lose by mediation?

20.Not really. If mediation fails the grievance procedure will continue to be available.

Are there any conditions for mediation?

21.It is a strict condition of mediation that the parties to the process should maintain confidentiality. In particular it is a strict condition that the mediator should not be asked to give evidence on the content of the mediation at a later date.

Guidance on what constitutes gross misconduct

Gross misconduct, constituting grounds for removal from office without notice, may include the following:

gross negligence;

conviction for an offence such as to render the person convicted unfit for the performance of the duties of her or his office or for employment by the University;

conduct of an immoral, scandalous, or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of office or for employment by the University;

misconduct in research;

theft or misappropriation of University property, or the property of any member of the University community or visitor to the University;

forgery;

threatening or using physical violence against a member of the University community or visitor to the University, or against University property;

serious acts of bullying or harassment of a member of the University community;

wilful and serious breach of duty regarding non-disclosure of confidential information (otherwise than arising from the officer making a protected disclosure);

wilful refusal to carry out the duties of, or comply with the conditions of, the office;

unreasonable refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction;

being unfit to perform duties as a result of unprescribed drugs or alcohol;

any other act of serious misconduct.

References in this guidance to a member of the University community includes any member of the University, staff or student and, where appropriate, a member of the staff of a College or of any institute, unit, or other organization associated with the University and a student of any institution. Reference to a visitor to the University includes any person legitimately present within the University precincts.


ANNEX E

The effect of the proposed changes

This Annex shows the effect of the proposed changes in tabular form, updated from the similar table shown at Annex B to the white paper:

Staff category

Process

Current provision

Proposed provision

Vice-Chancellor

Removal from office

Complaint by 3 members of Council to Chancellor; hearing by University Tribunal; appeal to Septemviri

Complaint by 3 members of Council to Chancellor; hearing by Septemviri; appeal to court comprising High Steward, Deputy High Steward, and Commissary

Removal for medical incapacity

As for University officers

No special provision

Grievances

No provision

No provision

University officer in Schedule J

Discipline

By Head of institution: investigation then warning, or complaint to Vice-Chancellor, or reference under B, VI; appeal under grievance procedure

By Vice-Chancellor: investigation then reference to University Tribunal, or reference to Head of institution, or reference under B, VI. University Tribunal: removal, or lesser penalty; appeal to Septemviri

By Head of institution: investigation then warning, or reference under B, VI

Subject to leave for proceedings from Vice-Chancellor: hearing by a disciplinary committee of 3 persons selected from standing panels, then warning or removal from office

Appeal to an appeal committee of 3 persons selected from standing panels

Removal for medical incapacity

Consideration by competent authority; reference to a Medical Board of 3 persons; appeal to Septemviri

Consideration by competent authority; reference to a medical committee of 3 persons selected from standing panels; appeal to an appeal committee of 3 persons selected from standing panels

Removal for redundancy

Decision by University to make redundancies; selection for redundancy by a Redundancy Committee of 5 persons; approval of selection by University; appeal to the Septemviri

Decision by University to make redundancies; selection for redundancy by the General Board; appeal to an appeal committee of 3 persons selected from standing panels

Grievances

Reference to head of institution; reference to Vice-Chancellor; reference to a Grievance Committee of 3 persons appointed by the Council

Reference to head of institution; possible mediation; reference to one or more persons appointed by the Human Resources Committee

Removal at end of probationary period

Code of practice issued by the competent authority

Decision of Appointments Committee; appeal to Septemviri

Code of practice approved by the University

Decision of Appointments Committee; appeal to committee of one or more persons appointed by competent authority; power of competent authority to direct reappointment

University officer not in Schedule J

Removal for redundancy

As for University officer in Schedule J

As for University officer in Schedule J, but no decision by University to make redundancies required

Other processes

As for University officer in Schedule J

Staff category

Process

Current provision*

Unestablished academic and academic-related staff

Discipline

By Head of institution: investigation then warning, or reference to disciplinary committee of two University officers in institution appointed by secretary of competent authority. Disciplinary committee: dismissal, or disciplinary transfer, or warning.

Appeal to committee of three persons appointed by secretary of competent authority

Removal for medical incapacity

No specific provision

Removal for redundancy

No specific provision, general employment law requirements apply

Grievances

Reference to Head of institution; reference to Chairman of Faculty Board or of relevant Council of School; reference to grievance committee of three persons appointed by Human Resources Committee; reference to committee of three persons appointed by secretary of competent authority

Probationary period

Codes of practice issued by competent authority for academic staff, academic-related staff, and contract research staff

Assistant staff

Discipline

By Head of institution: investigation then warning, or dismissal.

Appeal against warnings to the Human Resources Committee. Appeal against dismissal to University and Assistants Joint Board, and then (for established assistants only) to Council

Removal for redundancy

No specific provision, general employment law requirements apply

Grievances

Reference to Head of institution; reference to Director of Human Resources; reference to University and Assistants Joint Board

Probationary period

Code of practice issued by competent authority

* Subject to the approval of the current proposals, the Council and the General Board intend to review the procedures for unestablished academic and academic-related staff and for assistant staff and expect to be able to make substantial progress further towards unification of employment processes. (See in particular paragraphs 7(b) and 18(e) and (g) of the Joint Report.)

Footnotes

  • 1at http://raven.intranet.admin.cam.ac.uk/committee/council/statuteu.aspx

  • 2at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6140/16.html

  • 3which came into effect from 1 April 2009


  • 4As stated in the white paper, it is also proposed to add the list of officers in the General Board’s Notice ‘Study leave for the Holders of Certain University Offices’ (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 670) to Schedule J and to rescind that Notice.


  • 5As noted at paragraph 8(c) above, the General Board will consider the reclassification of offices that are currently classed as academic-related (i.e. not in Schedule J) where the primary role is in fact teaching and research.


  • 6Legal representation is of course permissible in an employment tribunal, or in appeal proceedings resulting from a tribunal decision.


  • 7See the judgments in R. (G.) v. Governors of X School and Y City Council [2009] EWHC 504 and in Kulkarni v. Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1861 (not referred to in G’s Case).


  • 8save for those conducted against them under Statute B, VI in their capacity as members of the University


  • 9See also the section Committees below.


  • 10The numbering is changed slightly from that in the white paper.


  • 11In that case the legal effect of contravention of the Code is defined in section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.


  • 12Statute D, VIII, 1(a); the Council would allow or direct the duties of the Registrary under the new arrangements to be performed by an Assistant Registrary (Statute D, VIII, 8). The point is an important one in view of the duality of the Registrary’s role as principal administrative officer of the University and as secretary of the Council, which is a competent authority. Delegation to an Assistant Registrary in the Administrative Division (Secretariat) would be the likely and natural course.


  • 13in that it provided that the University Commissioners should make Statutes including provision for academic freedom; they have done that and are now functus officio


  • 14The drafting in fact derives from Statute U, I, 1; however the words are otiose.


  • 15The other traditional modes of business might include Notice and Grace, or Grace and footnote, for relatively straightforward matters. They may include the consideration of non-legislative Reports, of the Council itself, or Syndicates, or other bodies, and also a sequential process involving several different elements.


  • 16Statute K, 17.