Sent to BU Senior Management Team 31 July 2025.

Bournemouth University UCU writes with grave concern to assert that Bournemouth University’s Senior Management Team is in sustained and serious violation of the Dignity and Respect (Harassment) Policy. This letter is both an act of documentation and a direct response to the accusation made during the 30 July 2025 JCNC: an accusation that not only deflects from the institutional harm being inflicted upon staff, but invokes this very policy as a tool of discipline against those who seek to uphold it.

We assert clearly: senior management is not just failing to protect the dignity of staff; it is systematically eroding it.

Section 1 – Purpose and Commitment (1.1–1.6) 

The policy outlines a commitment to zero tolerance for bullying, harassment, and victimisation, and a promise that all staff will be treated with dignity and respect. These commitments are not reflected in reality.

The restructuring process has created a workplace environment that is unsafe, demoralising, and degrading. Staff cannot ask questions of senior management in public fora, online or in-person, without disclosing their identity. This policy of enforced visibility during dissent creates a chilling effect. Similarly, staff were required to attach their names to feedback on consultation documents, deterring critical engagement.

Grievances raised under this policy have been ignored. Two collective grievances regarding managerial malpractice resulting in bullying and harassment remain unresolved, with no action to ensure appropriate managerial training, preparation, and treatment of staff going forward.

Section 2 – Scope and Responsibility (2.4–2.10) 

The COO and Director of HR are explicitly named in this policy as bearing responsibility for implementation. The reality, however, is that managerial capacity has collapsed across faculties. Line managers are unavailable or in limbo, and the university’s plan to “reduce administrative load” or extend contracts to plug the gaps is wholly inadequate. The impact on staff, who are already under extreme stress, is profound.

Section 3 – Harassment, Bullying, Victimisation

3.2.5 specifies that harassment includes:

“The deliberate exclusion of an individual from work-related activities or conversations in which they have a legitimate right or expectation to participate.”

This has occurred throughout the restructuring, including the exclusion of staff and trade union reps from decision-making on working groups, institutional failure to consult meaningfully on restructuring proposals, failure to share relevant documentation and information, and individuals excluded from discussions of their own workload planning and academic delivery, despite direct consequences to their roles.

3.2.5 also cites:

“Excessive monitoring and repeatedly setting unrealistic objectives.”

This is experienced daily by staff under line managers who weaponise ways of working, performance reviews, refuse reasonable leave, and operate under a climate of suspicion and scrutiny.

3.3.2 defines bullying as including:

“Unreasonable and persistent blocking of leave, training, or promotion.”

Staff have been:

• Told not to take leave, even when contractually entitled.
• Denied promotion for two years, with management indicating that promotions will remain suspended.
• Warned they may be selected for redundancy if they are on leave or unavailable.

3.2.6 & 3.3.5 clarify that harassment and bullying do not require malicious intent; what matters is the impact. Yet, management repeatedly justifies harmful practices as unintended, as if lack of malice excuses measurable harm. Further, it frames them as outliers, when documentation confirms that poor communication down managerial lines and systemic lack of training and cohesion create a culture of misinformation and distrust.

Section 4 – Principles and Protections (4.1–4.11) 

Reasonable adjustments have not been provided to disabled staff or those with long-term conditions during interviews or consultation meetings. There is no institutional clarity on how such adjustments will be managed through redeployment or return-to-role processes, which constitutes a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and of policy sections 4.2 and 4.6.

Rather than investigate misconduct, management has doubled down on a culture of denial. Staff have been subject to retaliation for speaking out, including union officers facing insinuations of unprofessionalism and misconduct.

Let us be clear: raising a complaint under this policy is protected. Union officers supporting distressed staff are acting in defence of dignity and wellbeing. And as section 3.3.3 notes:

“The occasional outburst of anger should not normally be interpreted as bullying.”

The one feature of conduct management seems concerned with is emotional expression, not systemic harm. There is a pattern of focusing on emotional expression while deflecting from the root causes of distress.

Section 5 – Reporting and Investigations 

Repeated issues raised in JCNC are dismissed, mischaracterised as resolved, or forgotten by the time of the next meeting. Complaints disappear into black holes. There is no visible institutional mechanism for acknowledging or tracking policy breaches. Reports are neither transparently logged nor acted upon in a timely manner.

Section 7 – Support and Culture 

Wellbeing services are perceived by staff as performative. The strategy document provided by senior management is little more than a web index, devoid of action or metrics. Both the institution’s and BU UCU’s staff wellbeing surveys show widespread distrust in institutional supports.

__

This university has failed to uphold its own dignity and respect policy, and its senior leaders have failed to take responsibility. In some instances, responses to union officers have appeared to discourage advocacy and critique, raising concerns about the right to representation.

We are preparing to raise these breaches with relevant external bodies should these issues remain unaddressed.

We urge you to reflect. We urge you to act. And we remind you: dignity at work is not a slogan. It is a contract. One that this institution is breaking.