A SCOTTISH college principal was told about her impending suspension in a corridor within earshot of other staff, according to an official report.
The claim is included in an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the suspension of Susan Walsh, the principal of Clyde College, in Glasgow, in February this year.
However, it is disputed by some of the college's officials.
The confidential document was commissioned by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) after concerns were raised over the way Mrs Walsh was dealt with by George Chalmers, the chairman of the Clyde College board, following allegations of bullying by unions.
The report, written by law firm DLA Piper, accepted the decision to suspend the principal was taken by Mr Chalmers on the basis of legal advice and "under express delegated authority set out in the constitution of the college".
But it added that the manner in which the chair communicated the news to the principal "raises some comment and concerns".
The report states: "It seems undisputed that the chair and vice-chair had a sensitive conversation with the principal regarding, at the very least, the potential for suspension in a corridor within earshot of other support staff. We have been advised by at least three individuals that a large part of this conversation was overheard."
The DLA Piper report goes on to suggest the "public" nature of the suspension and the fact no follow-up disciplinary action was taken months after the original decision had implications for any subsequent employment tribunal.
"Whilst suspension is not a disciplinary action, it may be incorrectly perceived to be suggestive of blame or inappropriate conduct and having become public knowledge can be extremely damaging to the individual," it states.
"The public nature of the suspension and period of time during which it has been in place will be relevant factors for consideration by an employment tribunal with regard to the reasonableness and fairness of the process."
Overall, DLA Piper found the decision to suspend was taken after legal advice that took a "clear view" that suspension was "both recommended and warranted" in the circumstances.
But it adds: "Taking all of the above into account, the suspension appears to have been invoked by the board in a manner which has not properly taken into account the requirements of the procedure."
The report goes on to make a number of key recommendations to improve governance in all colleges including new procedures to deal with disciplinary action against senior staff and guidance on whether other board members should be involved in such decisions.
It also suggests more specific official guidelines setting out when college boards should contact the SFC if they are dealing with such matters.
Mrs Walsh, who is still currently suspended on full pay, was appointed principal of the newly-formed college in 2013 following the merger of Anniesland, Langside and Cardonald colleges.
The report, some of which is disputed, found the relationship between the college board and the senior management team had "operated effectively" until February this year when a letter from senior officials from the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) union was tabled at a board meeting.
Despite the letter setting out a number of concerns, including the management style of Mrs Walsh and allegations of bullying, the report found the "general perception" of her style of leadership was that it was "robust, but also clear and fair".
However, the report notes one board member had an "awareness of other concerns" over Mrs Walsh's leadership, but that no further information was divulged because the circumstances were part of the disciplinary investigation.
Mr Chalmers was also described by some as "intimidating" and that he could be dismissive of the perspective of students.
The report goes on: "Matters appear to have become more difficult during February between the principal and chair in particular with what appears to be a very marked and swift decline in their working relationship."
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel