Defend our universities! Stop dismissal of Dr Robert Austin from RMIT. Defend academic freedom!

Formal Appeal Against Dismissal

The basis of my appeal is that RMIT has failed to properly apply its Probation Policy and Probation Procedures in relation to my employment.

Since my commencement at RMIT in February 2005, I have had four nominal supervisors: Dr Christopher Ziguras, Dr Paul Battersby, Ms Guosheng Chen and Professor Manfred Steger. Whilst there was an initial attempt to meet and develop a workplan as required under the Probation Policy, this has in fact not eventuated and I have not been assisted in developing one. To my knowledge, management offered a single unworkable meeting on theme, at the end of first semester 2005 (Chen to Austin, 27.4.05).

Despite this, the assessment and regard with which my teaching and research are held is highly favourable, as per the Probation Review Meeting Form of 28 September 2005. However, under the category of “Service” to the university, the new Head of School, Professor Steger, has sought to terminate my employment on the basis of untested and unverified allegations of a lack of collegiality, and the spurious assertion that I do not “fit”.

The probation policy obliges the supervisor to hold regular meetings to allow for feedback and to provide an opportunity to actively support staff to respond to and address any perceived concerns. This has not happened.

I have had one meeting with Christopher Ziguras in May 2005 which dealt with a number of school matters, including some complaints that I had made or supported in relation to a number of concerns within the school. Amongst the issues discussed were the validity and veracity of anonymous student complaints which were never tested or substantiated, and advice from the Program Manager of International Studies that I present Latin American Studies from 2006 in a way which does not offend business students. Faced with such an intrusion into my academic autonomy, I objected. This has evolved into an assertion of lack of collegiality.

My first probationary meeting with Prof. Steger was held on 14 September 2005. When we were about to commence the meeting, I noticed a tape recorder on the desk behind our meeting table and asked if the meeting was being taped. I also expressed my objection: the HOS had not sought agreement from either myself or the NTEU representative present to tape the meeting. His PA was already present to take minutes. At this point, the Head of School abruptly terminated the meeting. It was later rescheduled for 28 September 2005.

The 28 September meeting saw the tabling of a memo with four points of concern. The meeting did not give me any genuine chance to respond and discuss the stated concerns in any rational way. There were again references to anonymous complaints/concerns, all of which have yet to be tested or substantiated. It was at this meeting that the infamous Bolt article was referred to as evidence of my lack of collegiality, at point 4. The meeting naturally ended on a tense note. However the formal Probationary Review Meeting Form filled out by the Head of School is not accurate, and is knowingly false in relation to what transpired.

At no stage has the Head of School attempted to develop any appropriate strategies to address perceived concerns in this process. Providing me with an EAP Pamphlet does not constitute the discussion of staff development and training needs. When the Head of School was asked for copies of materials referred to and relied upon to assert his views, these were denied on the grounds of confidentiality. The Probation Review Meeting Form of 28 September 2005 notified a final Probation Review meeting to take place in the first week of November 2005.

Two days later, in a display of less than collegiate conduct, the same Head of School and PVC Cumming disrupted a gathering of Spanish sessional staff and colleagues off campus, just after 8.30 a.m., in Druids Café. The PVC demanded my immediate return to campus, stating that he wanted an immediate meeting, without explanation; and falsely claimed that this process had been endorsed by the NTEU branch president. I refused. PVC Cumming had already intercepted and interrogated me as I entered the Café, and had evidently been pacing the pavement outside from 8.20 a.m.

Moreover, the next probation meeting was abruptly called for 12 October. There, new anonymous and untested allegations were aired, allegedly on behalf of some sessional staff. When copies of these were requested in order to clarify the exact nature of the “complaints” by the NTEU representative, they were again denied on the grounds of confidentiality. Despite this, I denied the thrust of the allegations and was attempting to present an alternative view, when the Head of School stated he was not happy with my response, and shortly afterwards that he had no alternative but to recommend termination to the PVC. The NTEU representative stated that, as a result of this, he would have no alternative but to notify an Industrial Dispute. This was done on 13 October 2005, and it is still a live dispute.

Throughout this process, management has increasingly demonised my alleged “lack of collegiality”, all under the nebulous concept of “fit”. Their approach has paid virtually no regard to my performance in relation to teaching and research, including development of a major international exchange program (see attached report) and winning five UMAP and one accompanying academic scholarships to Chile in 2006, all of which would be properly considered as service to the university.

At no stage have I had a workplan, nor have my various supervisors provided genuine support, assistance or advice in establishing me as an academic member of RMIT. Ms Chen, the nominated day-to-day supervisor, does not meet the requirements as outlined in the RMIT Enterprise Agreement 2000 (Schedule 2, Clause 10, “Academic Staff Supervision”). This in itself has caused tension, given the traditional VET focus of the Language programs and the essential contrast with a Higher Education focus. In my view, this hints at the real genesis of the major underlying and unarticulated issues in this matter, and management’s unshakeable preference for appearance over essence.

At all stages in my employment at RMIT I have been prepared to discuss all issues with my supervisors in an open and objective manner, but have been denied any genuine opportunity to do so, and have been subjected to punitive actions as a result. This, in my view, breaches a fundamental tenet of the principles of natural justice, which is a key consideration of RMIT probation procedure.

In an effort to prepare a better-informed response, I formally requested access to my complete personnel file on Monday 7 November 2005, for the following day. As per attached correspondence (Hansen to Austin and Austin to Hansen, 8 and 9 November 2005), the file provided was bereft of anything pertaining to the substantive matters in the probation process. Once again, management has denied natural justice.

To conclude, I would welcome the opportunity to be interviewed by the appeal committee in order to assist it reach an informed view of the way in which my probation has been handled by the university, and to clarify any questions committee members may have in relation to the proper application of process.

Robert Austin, BA (Hons), Dip Ed, M. Ed, Ph.D
Melbourne, 9 November 2005

posted by Defend Our Universities committee @ 5:00 pm