UNIVERSITY staff do not want to see their sacked Principal get his job back, an industrial tribunal heard yesterday.
The tribunal also heard how the University Court was hit by ''a bombshell'' when it discovered a major restructure was bitterly opposed by staff despite the Principal having claimed there was ''widespread approval'' for the scheme.
Professor Stan Mason was sacked from Glasgow Caledonian University last year after an investigation into allegations of nepotism in the employment of relatives and close friends or their relatives.
Mr Brian Murphy, Clerk to the University Court, yesterday told the tribunal in Glasgow how staff had completely lost confidence in Dr Mason after his plan to restructure Glasgow Caledonian had turned the institution into ''chaos''.
He said that Dr Mason had been the driving force behind the move to change the university's structure from three different faculties to six separate schools.
This had been accepted by the university's Senate - the supreme academic governing body.
But after the report of an inquiry panel into the allegations made against Dr Mason was presented to the University Court, a subsequent Senate meeting last June decided to reject the whole restructuring process.
Mr Murphy said: ''There was widespread hostility and there wasn't any possibility that the restructuring could continue because of that.''
The University Court was ''appalled'' at the situation which had developed.
''There had been 16 appointments already made, including Deans of School which are very senior posts. These posts no longer existed because the Senate recommended we go back to the old system.''
Mr Murphy said that Dr Mason and other members of the senior management team had given the University Court assurances that there was ''widespread support'' within the university for the restructure.
He added: ''It now came as a bombshell that the Senate was opposed to the restructure and the Court had no option but to accept this advice as the Senate is not a tame body - it has academic jurisdiction over the university.
''The university appeared to be in chaos. Within a matter of months of deciding to change the system we were reverting back to the original system.
''It was an extremely costly exercise and has only been completed within the last month or so.
''There was an enormous amount of bitterness unleashed in people's minds. I think it was targeted towards the Principal and the management team.''
Asked by Mr Ian Truscott QC, representing the university, if Dr Mason was successful in winning his unfair dismissal whether it would be possible to reinstate him, Mr Murphy said: ''I believe that such an arrangement would be completely impracticable.
''If he does not have the support of the academic community his position becomes untenable. He requires the willing co-operation of the academic staff within the university.''
The tribunal will continue in July. Before it adjourned, a reluctant witness, Professor John Sizer, was ordered to appear. The tribunal heard that a number of letters from Dr Sizer revealed he was reluctant to give evidence.
Dr Sizer, chief executive of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Committee, last month submitted a report which was critical of Dr Mason. The report called on the university to recover #51,121 from Dr Mason for ''improper'' use of two cars and #1453 for a family holiday.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article