Sunday, March 20, 2011
DCU's illegal disciplinary statute, still not replaced
Incredibly, the illegal disciplinary statute that caused this ruckus
and ruined many of our lives is still on the web, 4 years after being
ruled illegal by the High court and 9 years after the Labour court
demanded revisions “within two months”;
http://www.dcu.ie/info/statutes/statute3.shtml
It is illegal for the following reasons;
1.The 1997 universities act required that it should be drafted after “consultation” with the union. Carmel Hogan, the relevant SIPTU official, gave sworn evidence in 2009 that she was at best informed, and certainly not consulted;
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0024/print.html
2.It does not provide for “tenure” as the 1997 act requires. Judge Clarke commented that “tenure” cannot merely be a length of time, let alone one like 3 months;
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H20.html
It is contrary to industrial relations practice for the following reasons;
1.The Labour court commented that representation should be stitched in
http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/185190278967d05380256a01005bb35e/80256a770034a2ab80256c87003c73a4?OpenDocument
2.It interacts with a set of contracts issued after 1995 that excluded tenure and academic freedom, opening the door to definition of tenure as 3 months' notice, and drafted with no reference to the union, despite being billed as a part of a new “comprehensive agreement” with the union
3.Frank Clarke pointed out a subtle trapdoor allowing summary dismissal; since “tenure” was 3 months, and even an internal appeal would take at least that length to convene, the statute is a recipe for summary dismissal - with or without cause. Therefore, even if you don't do anything wrong you can be sacked with no appeal within the university, and must take your chances in the High court, paying for it yourself, as the union cannot strike for an "individual dismissal". If you lose at the high court, DCU will take your house to pay costs. If you win, as we've seen they will appeal to the supreme court, and you will have no income for the 4 years or so the case drags on, with costs in the millions
Then again, of course, that was and is the point - to introduce summary dismissal, without cause, at a state university and to intimidate the staff into following what looks like a corporatist agenda - you are really working for Microsoft, not the Irish people who pay your wages
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
20 u Marta 2011
http://www.dcu.ie/info/statutes/statute3.shtml
It is illegal for the following reasons;
1.The 1997 universities act required that it should be drafted after “consultation” with the union. Carmel Hogan, the relevant SIPTU official, gave sworn evidence in 2009 that she was at best informed, and certainly not consulted;
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0024/print.html
2.It does not provide for “tenure” as the 1997 act requires. Judge Clarke commented that “tenure” cannot merely be a length of time, let alone one like 3 months;
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H20.html
It is contrary to industrial relations practice for the following reasons;
1.The Labour court commented that representation should be stitched in
http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/185190278967d05380256a01005bb35e/80256a770034a2ab80256c87003c73a4?OpenDocument
2.It interacts with a set of contracts issued after 1995 that excluded tenure and academic freedom, opening the door to definition of tenure as 3 months' notice, and drafted with no reference to the union, despite being billed as a part of a new “comprehensive agreement” with the union
3.Frank Clarke pointed out a subtle trapdoor allowing summary dismissal; since “tenure” was 3 months, and even an internal appeal would take at least that length to convene, the statute is a recipe for summary dismissal - with or without cause. Therefore, even if you don't do anything wrong you can be sacked with no appeal within the university, and must take your chances in the High court, paying for it yourself, as the union cannot strike for an "individual dismissal". If you lose at the high court, DCU will take your house to pay costs. If you win, as we've seen they will appeal to the supreme court, and you will have no income for the 4 years or so the case drags on, with costs in the millions
Then again, of course, that was and is the point - to introduce summary dismissal, without cause, at a state university and to intimidate the staff into following what looks like a corporatist agenda - you are really working for Microsoft, not the Irish people who pay your wages
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
20 u Marta 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Open letter to Brian mac Craith
A Bhriain, a chara
We both, I hope, understand how Ireland works. In 1995, then minister for enterprise, Richard Bruton, was invited by the head of computing at DCU to see the then newfangled worldwide web. Bruton turned up at 7am and left an hour later, suitably impressed. On hearing of what he considered an unauthorized visit to “his” campus – by a government minister -Danny O'Hare went ballistic, rampaging over to the computing department to make his displeasure felt. The head of computing was subsequently dismissed -then reinstated, albeit a broken man, his public humiliation complete.
DCU was set up as a Fianna fail (FF) institution. FF was then able, even in opposition, to exert pressure on government through strategically-placed hacks like O'Hare. Indeed, its penchant for appointing utterly unqualified hacks as judges of both the circuit and High court reached a nadir with the infamous Ahern Mahon tribunal appearance. Among the next two scheduled witnesses after Ahern were the two solicitors who had replaced Ahern's personal attorney, who in turn had killed himself in 1997. Trouble was, they were now, respectively, a circuit and High court judge. So Ahern resigned, saving the Irish public the crash course in the reality of power that I hope you, like I, have undergone. Now nobody gives a damn about FF, except insofar that they have rekindled civil war hatreds after their swansong performance in government.
Kate O'Mahony of the EAT was the last chance you had of a victory in my case. She delivered for FF; recission of a high court action; a 5-year adjournment on similarly illegal grounds (as my legal team demonstrated to her in Jan 2010), another 2-month adjournment on spurious grounds, the resurrection of the “Shaun of the Dead” panel that no-one familiar with the EAT ever expected to see again, and a truly insulting proposed remedy. You will by now have received legal advice even from the cretins at Arthur cox that she totally ignored the law, in a manner that no legal forum will do – even the FF judge nominees will be anxious to keep their noses clean. It is likely that I can successfully sue the EAT over the High court recission – as O'Mahony knew when she invented a precedent on the fly in January 2010, only to confess a minute later that – she made it up!
I have no interest whatsoever in the money involved in this case; I refused several settlements, and you will find that I never sought an increment in my time at DCU. You probably know that I have had serious health problems, and that my two daughters – separated from me so far through no fault of any of ours – are now of an age (17,20) where I must begin to be a bigger presence in their lives.
Yet I cannot, out of principle, accept a verdict that in any way attenuates the principle of tenure, and in particular academic freedom. I regard this insistence as a better inheritance to pass on than anything financial, or anything related to social status. I am therefore proposing the following as a settlement, in a collegial form. We can allow mine and your legal teams work out the details; better to communicate in this form than have you cross-examined in a public court to justify the actions of your predecessor;
1.I am to be reinstated with full teaching duties for the 2011-2012 academic year;
2.DCU can either offer full retrospection of pay, or – better – the chance to work after “official” retirement at 65 to earn the money. At Stanford, to take one example, tenured staff are not asked to retire, and I have lost a decade because of your predecessor's malfeasance;
3.DCU will supply an affidavit in my libel cases against the Daily Mail, Sunday Independent, and Irish times, giving an objective analysis of my work at DCU since 1987;
4.The grievance procedure I brought 2001-2002 will be brought to a conclusion within 10 days, as my contract requires;
5.I will be given research funds – including reimbursement of those unaccounted for – sufficient to bring my lab back to where it was in 2002.
This offer expires May 1, 2011. You are not being rushed into anything
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
15 u Marta 2011
PS Could not help noticing that Brian's e-mail, to which I wrote today as a fellow academic, is STILL being forwarded to Marion Burns, head of HR;
- The following addressees of your message have been processed by the mail server:
Marian.Burns@dcu.ie; Failed; 5.4.6 (routing loop detected)
PPS The above offer is independent of legal action I may take to ensure return of my property
We both, I hope, understand how Ireland works. In 1995, then minister for enterprise, Richard Bruton, was invited by the head of computing at DCU to see the then newfangled worldwide web. Bruton turned up at 7am and left an hour later, suitably impressed. On hearing of what he considered an unauthorized visit to “his” campus – by a government minister -Danny O'Hare went ballistic, rampaging over to the computing department to make his displeasure felt. The head of computing was subsequently dismissed -then reinstated, albeit a broken man, his public humiliation complete.
DCU was set up as a Fianna fail (FF) institution. FF was then able, even in opposition, to exert pressure on government through strategically-placed hacks like O'Hare. Indeed, its penchant for appointing utterly unqualified hacks as judges of both the circuit and High court reached a nadir with the infamous Ahern Mahon tribunal appearance. Among the next two scheduled witnesses after Ahern were the two solicitors who had replaced Ahern's personal attorney, who in turn had killed himself in 1997. Trouble was, they were now, respectively, a circuit and High court judge. So Ahern resigned, saving the Irish public the crash course in the reality of power that I hope you, like I, have undergone. Now nobody gives a damn about FF, except insofar that they have rekindled civil war hatreds after their swansong performance in government.
Kate O'Mahony of the EAT was the last chance you had of a victory in my case. She delivered for FF; recission of a high court action; a 5-year adjournment on similarly illegal grounds (as my legal team demonstrated to her in Jan 2010), another 2-month adjournment on spurious grounds, the resurrection of the “Shaun of the Dead” panel that no-one familiar with the EAT ever expected to see again, and a truly insulting proposed remedy. You will by now have received legal advice even from the cretins at Arthur cox that she totally ignored the law, in a manner that no legal forum will do – even the FF judge nominees will be anxious to keep their noses clean. It is likely that I can successfully sue the EAT over the High court recission – as O'Mahony knew when she invented a precedent on the fly in January 2010, only to confess a minute later that – she made it up!
I have no interest whatsoever in the money involved in this case; I refused several settlements, and you will find that I never sought an increment in my time at DCU. You probably know that I have had serious health problems, and that my two daughters – separated from me so far through no fault of any of ours – are now of an age (17,20) where I must begin to be a bigger presence in their lives.
Yet I cannot, out of principle, accept a verdict that in any way attenuates the principle of tenure, and in particular academic freedom. I regard this insistence as a better inheritance to pass on than anything financial, or anything related to social status. I am therefore proposing the following as a settlement, in a collegial form. We can allow mine and your legal teams work out the details; better to communicate in this form than have you cross-examined in a public court to justify the actions of your predecessor;
1.I am to be reinstated with full teaching duties for the 2011-2012 academic year;
2.DCU can either offer full retrospection of pay, or – better – the chance to work after “official” retirement at 65 to earn the money. At Stanford, to take one example, tenured staff are not asked to retire, and I have lost a decade because of your predecessor's malfeasance;
3.DCU will supply an affidavit in my libel cases against the Daily Mail, Sunday Independent, and Irish times, giving an objective analysis of my work at DCU since 1987;
4.The grievance procedure I brought 2001-2002 will be brought to a conclusion within 10 days, as my contract requires;
5.I will be given research funds – including reimbursement of those unaccounted for – sufficient to bring my lab back to where it was in 2002.
This offer expires May 1, 2011. You are not being rushed into anything
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
15 u Marta 2011
PS Could not help noticing that Brian's e-mail, to which I wrote today as a fellow academic, is STILL being forwarded to Marion Burns, head of HR;
- The following addressees of your message have been processed by the mail server:
Marian.Burns@dcu.ie; Failed; 5.4.6 (routing loop detected)
PPS The above offer is independent of legal action I may take to ensure return of my property
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The law 8 Prondzynski 0
It is worth noting what the outgoing, criminal Irish government visited
upon us for a decade at DCU. Many of we academics are in technical areas
in which we claim competence, but are careful in the extreme about
offering consulting expertise in the “real world” where the imperatives
are different.
Prondzynski claimed to know about industrial relations. He lost every case in that area he took on. The so-called “success” of DCU during his tenure (nice word, that) is almost solely due to the fact that the Prime Minister was a local, and that the PM's brother was a member of parliament for the DCU electoral area, The reminder of the success is due to the talented staff and students DCU has, perhaps undeservedly (given its management) attracted; in the meantime, teaching staff have been viciously cut back in areas like computing
Here are references to Prondzynski's eight very costly failures, all of which were frivolous, vexatious and deeply damaging attempts to set in stone by use of law as instrument IR issues that should have been settled internally at no cost to the taxpayer. It is fair to say that none have been settled, and all these issues could re-emerge with only the names changed;
The Horgan case
;
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex+bias+lecturer+gets+EUR10k.-a0147232552
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/woman-lecturer-triumphs-in-sex-bias-court-fight-1166849.html
The Cahill case;
Injunction
http://universitywatchdog.wordpress.com/author/universitywatchdog/page/4/
High court defeat for Prondzynski;
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H20.html
Supreme court defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/836412m-bill-for-taxpayers-as-dcu-loses-dismissal-case-1971284.html
My case;
Labour court defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/185190278967d05380256a01005bb35e/80256a770034a2ab80256c87003c73a4?OpenDocument
Rights commissioner defeat for Prondzynski
http://academictenure.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-sean-o-nuallain-in-his-own-words.html
EAT defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/dcu-row-lecturer-is-awarded-euro45000-2406866.html
Forgive me, but as an Irishman I am incandescent with rage that the government allowed this foreign dilettante come in and destroy the lives of hundreds of good scholars at massive cost to the taxpayer
So much for the “canny” Scots, who are welcome to this useless and - in my experience – criminal bastard
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
15 u Marta 2011
Prondzynski claimed to know about industrial relations. He lost every case in that area he took on. The so-called “success” of DCU during his tenure (nice word, that) is almost solely due to the fact that the Prime Minister was a local, and that the PM's brother was a member of parliament for the DCU electoral area, The reminder of the success is due to the talented staff and students DCU has, perhaps undeservedly (given its management) attracted; in the meantime, teaching staff have been viciously cut back in areas like computing
Here are references to Prondzynski's eight very costly failures, all of which were frivolous, vexatious and deeply damaging attempts to set in stone by use of law as instrument IR issues that should have been settled internally at no cost to the taxpayer. It is fair to say that none have been settled, and all these issues could re-emerge with only the names changed;
The Horgan case
;
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex+bias+lecturer+gets+EUR10k.-a0147232552
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/woman-lecturer-triumphs-in-sex-bias-court-fight-1166849.html
The Cahill case;
Injunction
http://universitywatchdog.wordpress.com/author/universitywatchdog/page/4/
High court defeat for Prondzynski;
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H20.html
Supreme court defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/836412m-bill-for-taxpayers-as-dcu-loses-dismissal-case-1971284.html
My case;
Labour court defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/185190278967d05380256a01005bb35e/80256a770034a2ab80256c87003c73a4?OpenDocument
Rights commissioner defeat for Prondzynski
http://academictenure.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-sean-o-nuallain-in-his-own-words.html
EAT defeat for Prondzynski
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/dcu-row-lecturer-is-awarded-euro45000-2406866.html
Forgive me, but as an Irishman I am incandescent with rage that the government allowed this foreign dilettante come in and destroy the lives of hundreds of good scholars at massive cost to the taxpayer
So much for the “canny” Scots, who are welcome to this useless and - in my experience – criminal bastard
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
15 u Marta 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Tenure; a political, not a legal or IR issue
And yet DCU, NUIG etc are still insisting on their rights to weaken staff contracts, to the point of allowing summary dismissal. Even after all these verdicts, DCU has not amended its statute. The situation admits neither of a legal nor an IR solution.
What to do? One solution – which I favour and am acting on – is for scholars to live a dual existence between the state-created universities (which in reality include "private" ones like my current affiliation)and the ones we can create ourselves on the web. This frees us to teach and research free of the execrable admin staff at Irish universities (they tend to be better elsewhere), the high Court, admin tribunals, and so on.
The other - which will be great if it works out – is for the incoming government to dispel the entire current miasma, appoint visitors to DCU, UCC and NUIG, and indeed grasp the nettle constituted by the fact that all contracts since 1995 at DCU are illegal in any case.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D , Stanford University
12 u Marta 2011
