The University of Otago has been accused of making an ''erroneous'' statement at an employment hearing this week - and of attempting to silence staff concerns about a senior manager.
The claims were made in two letters from the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) to the university.
The letters were leaked to the Otago Daily Times after the director of the university's marketing and communications division, Virginia Nicholls, was accused at an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) hearing this week of bullying and being responsible for a ''toxic'' environment in her division.
The most recent of the documents - a letter understood to have been sent to union members for comment before its submission to university vice-chancellor Prof Harlene Hayne yesterday - took issue with a comment at the ERA hearing that the environment in the division had ''improved significantly''.
The comment, by chief operating officer John Patrick,
referred to actions taken by the university after it received a report last December by lawyer David Sim.
''It is unclear upon what measure Mr Patrick is making such an assertion,'' the letter reads.
''At no time has he approached the union for our opinion on the current work environment. More tellingly, he has not approached staff for their opinion.''
TEU organiser Shaun Scott said in the letter it could only be presumed that Mr Patrick's ''erroneous view'' was based on discussion with Ms Nicholls - which he said was an inappropriate way of coming to a conclusion ''given the long-standing issues raised through the Sim investigation''.
Mr Patrick's comment was contrary to feedback the union received from staff, which showed a ''lack of clarity of information and direction have remained, creating difficulties both within the division and in maintaining positive relationships with external colleagues''.
''It is clear that morale remains low for many staff,'' Mr Scott wrote.
The university yesterday declined to comment on matters raised in the letters, with acting vice-chancellor Prof Richard Blaikie issuing the following statement: ''The university is not able to comment on this matter as it relates to issues that are still under consideration by the ERA; once the ERA finding is released the university will be in a position to comment.
''We will also not respond to questions that pertain to leaked documents and, as the university has not yet received a copy of the draft letter you refer to, we cannot comment on that either.''
The two letters - the earlier believed to have been sent to the university in March - claimed there had been a lack of action since the university received the Sim report.
Staff felt the university's response silenced them rather than addressed the problems raised, the letters said.
''The fact that 26 specific 'allegations' from staff within the division were upheld as a result of the investigation, and that some steps were taken to assist the director to make changes in her management practices, demonstrate that there were serious problems. The failure of the university to follow up with any process to assess the work environment for staff subsequently ... reinforces for many a feeling the university has no concern for their wellbeing,'' this week's letter said.
The leaked documents show staff and the union took issue with a meeting held by Mr Patrick on February 28 this year, at which staff were told they could raise any concerns over Ms Nicholls' management directly with him. Mr Scott wrote in the March letter that the meeting made staff fearful of raising issues in part because of a ''threat'' of restructuring if the situation did not improve.
''Members were very clear they do not feel safe raising complaints, given the clear message that any 'frivolous' or 'vexatious' complaints will not be viewed well, and will be taken up with the individual [and manager] concerned.
''This was taken by some members, and the union, as a threat, and gives the appearance that the process established is to ensure there are no complaints.''
The issue was taken up again in this week's draft letter.
''As we predicted, complaints and concerns were not forthcoming, as the threat of restructuring or disciplinary action had the effect of enforcing silence on the staff,'' Mr Scott wrote.
The union was also ''disturbed'' about a meeting held between human resources director Kevin Seales and staff before the ERA hearing.
''Such an approach again gives rise to the view that the university was more interested in closing discussion than addressing the very real concerns for staff in the division.''
The union was concerned about the university's response to the finding in the Sim report that the environment within the division was ''untenable as far as staff health and wellbeing is concerned''.
''If indeed this is one of the findings in the Sim report, this should have been addressed with the union and staff, with transparent measures put in place to resolve this,'' Mr Scott wrote.
Mr Scott yesterday told the ODT he would prefer not to ''litigate'' the issue in the media and would ''prefer'' to resolve it through discussions with the university.
Having the letters leaked was ''potentially counterproductive'' for union members in the division, he said.
