Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

On 11 April Elsmore wrote to me saying that more than a month had passed since he
had sent me a copy of the legal Opinion, together with a recommendation from the
petitioning Fellows; when might he expect to receive a reply from me? This was a
specialised legal document, quoting case law and had been sent to the Visitor's
solicitors with a request that it shouold be submitted to the Visitor for his personal
consideration. For obvious reasons I had not responded; this was a further attempt to
put pressure on me. I wasn't taken in. However I wrote to Elsmore that I had asked
the College solicitors (on 23 March) to enter into discussions with Glazebrook.
Elsmore should have been aware of this because a letter had been distributed to all
Fellows.
At this time too attempts were made by relatively neutral Fellows to resolve the
impasse. Meetings were held between some of them and some of the petitioners. I
think that it was recognised that I couldn't move because of the confrontational
attitude of my critics. How to break the "log jam" ? It was reported to me by a senior
Fellow that most of my critics did not want me to go would like to get out of the
situation they found themselves in; Brading wished to hang on.
Towards the end of Aprll the Visitor's solicitor wrote to me that he had considered
Glazebrook's Opinion, but that it did not alter their conclusions described in the
correspondence. He pointed out that even if there were no question of an appeal by
the Bursar to the Fellows' Council (on the grounds that there was no effective
disciplinary procedure in force), the Bursar, under the Employment Protection Act
could complain to an Industrial Tribunal. He disagreed with Glazebrook over the
interpretation of a case quoted by Glazebrook, quoting from the case as follows:
"Parliament has by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act l978 implicitly
provided that Industrial Tribunals are to have concurrent jurisdiction with
University Visitors in matters relating to unfair dismissal of University staff and if in
the course of proceedings under that Act a question arises concerning the
interpretation or application of the internal laws of the University it must be resolved
by the Tribunal hearing the case. To the extent that the l978 Act affords wider
protection, the jurisdiction of the Visitor has been largely superseded." In brief he
said, "the substantive issue turns not on the domestic internal laws of the College but
upon employee relations and disciplinary procedures", with which the Visitor should
not be concerned except if there was an appeal. He sent copies to Elsmore and the
College solicitors and trusted that the problems would now be resolved by
negotiation.
The reconstituted Working Party had held its first meeting on 5 January l989. At a
meeting of the Association on 20 February, the minutes of a recent meeting of the
Finance and General Purposes Committee meeting were discussed. This meeting
had shown, that although the fight was going on in terms of the petition for a
visitation, the Bursar was still performing unsatisfactorily, with serious
consequences for the health of the College's finances. The committee reported that it
had met on 6 February, and adjourned the meeting because the Bursar had produced
an unacceptable set of minutes which did not reflect the true position and had
"failed once again to produce the fiunancial data necessary to the work of the
363