• January 2008: Macquarie offered its Professorship in Climate.             

       

            Terms: Salary at the highest academic level (E Step 2) + 25% salary loading.

                         The latter was to be based on "agreed performance criteria"                          

                          that were to be set and evaluated in the annual Performance & Development Review (PDR):  

​

                                        "The PDR will develop performance objectives"

                                                        "will determine performance expectations"

                                                        "will support achievement of teaching and research objectives of the Strategic Plan"

 

                          Duties were to be "as agreed with your manager", likewise through the annual PDR.
                          The PDR was to be central to operation of the CORE Professorship - because it assessed

                          the "contribution to achievement of the Strategic Plan" and was where forthcoming

                          research and teaching were required to be defined - per agreement.

​

                          Those duties were supposed to achieve the following:

​

                                "Research is a major focus of academic activity"

                                "Improve international research collaborations and linkages"
                                "Research activity is translated into teaching.. especially for research training"
                                "Build a research profile - at international levels".

​

        These and other terms of the appointment were articulated in the Letter of Offer, Terms Sheet,

         and an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) which, collectively, formed the Employment Contract:

​

​               “The terms and conditions of your employment will be as set out in this letter, the attached terms sheet and AWA.”

                          

          The AWA was the foundation of the Employment Contract. An individual agreement with me. 

          the AWA excluded the collective agreement of the union, the so-called Enterprise Agreement (EA).

          The EA itself excluded me because my salary (Level E Step 2 + 25% loading) exceeded the salary cap

          of the EA (Level E Step 2 + 15%). In fact, during recruitment, Macquarie notified me of just that:

​

                           "You are not covered by the Enterprise Agreement". The Agreement has an exemption.
                              It does not apply to staff who earn in excess of 15% above the maximum salary for a professor,
                              which obviously includes you.”.

                           

          Macquarie also advised that the employment it offered was, like my appointment in the US:

                           

                                       "essentially.. a tenured appointment"

 

           Further, Macquarie advised that its employment would be accompanied by statutory protections,

           notably, regulatory oversight:

​

                                       "There is a workplace Ombudsman to assist employees

                                          and ensure that employers meet their obligations."

​

                                        "There are protections in place for all of these arrangements."

 

            Among the Employment Contract's terms were the following protections:

​

                                An unresolved dispute "is to be referred to the Director of HR,
                                  who shall meet with the complainant.. within 5 working days".

​

                                  If the matter remains unresolved, "Parties agree.. that the matter will be referred

                                  to the Industrial Relations Commission [renamed Fair Work Commission]."

​

                                In an allegation of misconduct, "the Officer will be given

                                  an opportunity to respond and seek assistance".

​

Along with the Employment Contract, Macquarie also offered a Startup Package of technical resources,

to enable me to rebuild my research program and function professionally in Australia:

​

                                    "I can confirm a Startup Package of that magnitude

                                      (as previously discussed by Professor Deane) will be available."

​

Included were two research assistants over 3 years, to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code

to enable my atmospheric models to operate in Australia, as well as international travel for scientific conferences

and collaboration. The Startup Package was approved and later re-aproved - both in writing. 

 

During my recruitment, Macquarie also offered that, if I accepted its chair, I would develop new postgraduate coursework to train students for research.

​

Based upon the offered Employment Contract, contractual and statutory protections, and  Startup Package,

I accepted Macquarie's Professorship.

​

• March 2008: I attempted to hire the first of two research assistants in the Startup Package                                                which Macquarie had pledged to provide. I was then turned away, with the notification that

       a hiring freeze was in place. The hiring freeze was in place when Macquarie offered the Startup Package.

       Five years later, when Macquarie terminated my appointment, it was still in place.

​

Macquarie's legacy program was qualitative, with little quantitative skill that underpins modern research in climate. Increasingly, I was diverted to teach the qualitative classes of legacy [academics], traditional teachers with little expertise

in quantitative research. The classes to which I was diverted were unrelated to research and research training - the principal duties of my CORE appointment. At the same time, I was prohibited by legacy academics from teaching any classes relevant to those duties.

​

To achieve Macquarie's new mission, I organized with Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) a

national climate research and training program. Co-sponsored by those national research centers,

the national climate program was to be headquartered at Macquarie. Together with postgraduate teaching

and a summer colloquium that it was to operate each year at BOM, the national climate program

attracted interest from other universities who sought participation of their students.

​

• January 2009: I was then notified by Macquarie's legacy academics (notably, Paul Beggs) that I would not

       be permitted to devote my time to postgraduate teaching – not even the class which, during my recruitment,

       I had been offered to develop. Instead, my teaching would have to be devoted exclusively to the

       qualitative undergraduate classes of legacy academics. Postgraduate teaching, one of the principal duties

       of my CORE appointment, would have to be performed on my personal time.

​

This untimely disclosure was diametrically opposed to how the CORE appointment had been represented.

It also subverted the Startup Package Agreement, wherein Macquarie pledged to provide technical support

​

                          "to organize Honours and Postgraduate Training with BOM and CSIRO"

​

The restriction by legacy academics made even fulfillment of the principal duties of my CORE appointment and advancement of Macquarie's new mission virtually impossible.  Without postgraduate training, I could not produce qualified students who could engage in research, let alone be competitive at an international standard.

And, just coincidentally, without research students, my teaching would forever be relegated to service the

qualitative classes of legacy academics.

 

Students produced by the legacy program lacked basic quantitative skills necessary to perform modern research.

My first teaching assignment was of 3rd-year students, those about to graduate from that program. I was stunned to find

that, although about to receive a degree in climate science, they lacked even a conceptual understanding of the subject.

How could they be in this primitive state after passing through a purported program in climate science?

 

Why soon became clear. The legacy program operated according the LCD principle: the Lowest Common Denominator.

Maximize enrollment (in Australian vernacular,"bums on seats"), at the abandonment of quality. Tthe legacy program

had virtually no admission requirements and little more in the way of graduation standards. The status quo was

an exercise in educational tourism. That is what my CORE appointment was expected to move Macquarie away from.

​

The need for a higher standard was recognized by other CORE appointees:

​

                            "I strongly support Murry's idea of a more technically oriented course."

​

Such advancement, however, was opposed by legacy academics, who zealously protected the status quo.

The bar was on the ground - but they wanted it lower.

​

The Faculty Manager had organized financial infrastructure to operate the national program of climate research

and research training that I had organized with BOM and CSIRO. After witnessing legacy academics' obstructions,

notably, their prohibition of my postgraduate teaching, he characterized the situation as follows:

"They're going to make you jump through flaming hoops."

  

An announcement and recruitment flyer for the national program had been produced, with approval of Macquarie offices. Legacy academics had its distribution halted. They then had the material destroyed. A website to recruit

qualified undergraduates for postgraduate study and training for quantitative research, material likewise approved

by Macquarie offices, met a similar fate: It was was disabled by legacy academics.

​

The postgraduate class, which during my recruitment, I had been assigned to develop to prepare students

for [quantitative] research met a similar fate. That new class, with rigorous quantitative development,

had been welcomed by BOM:

​

                         "This looks like a particularly good subject for any Macquarie students

                           who are contemplating a possible career in the BOM."

 

An announcement was posted to recruit students for that class. It was removed by legacy academics.

Following discussion with Paul Beggs, the department head then notified me that even that class

would not be recognized towards fulfillment of my duties. Teaching that class:

​

             "should not be seen as a reason for any reduced commitment to allocated workload."

​

I could develop the class that Macquarie offered during my recruitment, material that would prepare students for research. But, if I wanted to teach that class, it too would have to be done on my personal time.

​

Meanwhile, the Startup Package which Macquarie pledged to provide to enable me to rebuild my research program continued to be withheld. After countless gyrations, I still had not received even the first major component.

The chronic delay was recognized by an HR manager:

​

            "[Murry Salby ] has had the runaround  from staff in the discipline"

         

             "I know you have waited a long time for this position description.

               I apologise fo rhe delay at this end."

​

After 3 years of my being led around in circles, Macquarie lost even a record of the Startup Package:

​

              "We have not found any trace of approval."

​

During the protracted delay in resourcing me, I was left professionally incapacitated. Computer tools that I had developed

over my career of 30 years were inoperative. Macquarie's expertise and resources were virtually nonexistent - even in its

so-called "Concentration of Research Excellence", where any technical exercise was a challenge:

​

               "The purported climate research center in which I’m appointed has 1 printer.
                  It’s invariably out…. of toner, paper, etc. I asked the administrator why there is never paper.
                 She responded that it’s expensive, then unlocked her drawer, and handed me 5 pp."

​

I was relegated to teaching qualitative classes of legacy academics. The impact on my research productivity

was recognized by a reviewer:

​

                "His track record up until a few years ago was strong. There seems to have been
                  a slow down since his arrival at MQU, with only a few papers published since 2008."

​

In fact, during the 5 years before I joined Macquarie, I produced 26 refereed publications. During the 5 years after

I joined Macquarie, I produced only two. And those derived from research conducted at BOM during my sabbatical there.

It's noteworthy that, in 2009, while Macquarie withheld the startup resources it had pledged to provide,

Macquarie reported its research productivity in a national assessment. Therein, Macquarie claimed credit

for those 26 publications - research that I had produced in the US, before I had even heard of Macquarie university.

​

Obstruction by legacy academics and continued withholding of my startup resources prevented me from performing

research and from training students for research. They also jeopardized the national climate program which had been organized with BOM and CSIRO, who became increasingly concerned over the delay:

​

                "Murry, Any developments on the summer workshop proposal – CAWCR participants, Karoly involvement?

​

I complained to Macquarie administration - first to the Dean. My complaint was ignored.

​

I next complained to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) for Research:

​

                "I was advised by [the dept] that [postgraduate] training does not fulfill a faculty member’s
                  teaching responsibilities. It must be performed on the faculty member’s own time."

​

                 "The [legacy] curriculum is inadequate – especially for [postgraduate]  training.

                  The need for more substantial development of skills is well recognized by other CORE appointees.

                 "[Postgraduate] recruitment is, after half a year, still going around in circles."

​

The complaint was ignored.

​

The mounting concerns were raised on my 2009 PDR submission, which was required to

 

                                                        "identify professional needs" and

                                                            "facilitate discussion of issues that impact performance".

 

The PDR was required contractually. It was not conducted.

 

• April 2010: Instead, I was notified that my salary loading was being terminated. The action reduced my salary by 25%      from that at which I had been recruited. The Employment Contract required that salary loading be evaluated through  the PDR.  It was not - the PDR was not even conducted. The Employment Contract required that loadin be evaluated according to"agreed performance criteria", which had been set 9 months earlier in the preceding PDR.                              It was not - those criteria were likewise ignored.

 

       The new legacy-academic manager who took this action but failed each of those responsibilities (M Poulsen)

        had not even met me. He justified the termination of loading on grounds of performance - while startup resources

        that Macquarie had pledged to enable me to function professionally continued to be withheld.                                          

        As he had not conducted the PDR, Poulsen was entirely ignorant of the circumstances.

        He didn't even know what book I was producing:

​

                               "He is developing a new book titled.. Aviation Weather."

 

I complained to my previous manager, to whom the 2009 PDR form had been submitted. My complaint was ignored. 

 

I complained to the DVC of Research, reiterating obstructions to my duties and to Macquarie's declared mission:     

​

                   "Teaching responsibilities in the department are not available for [postgraduate] training.
                     MQ is ill equipped to produce students who can perform climate research at an international standard."

        

My complaint was ignored.

 

Obstructions to postgraduate recruitment and training, complaints over which had likewise been ignored,

rendered the national program on climate research and research training unfeasible.

I notified BOM and CSIRO that the program had to be cancelled.

​

During the gyrations, a bright young student from Europe sought to work with me towards a PhD. At that time,

she held a PhD scholarship from a well-regarded European university, one home to Nobel laureates in physics.

She was described as the top student in her program.

 

When her university declined to issue a joint degree with Macquarie, the responsible Macquarie administrator advised:

"Then we will steal her." To work with me, Macquarie required the student to relinquish her PhD scholarship

and withdraw from her European university. The student's PhD research, which focused upon atmospheric dynamics

and ozone,  was approved by Macquarie. However, her research, like mine, required my computational tools and, hence,

the same startup resources that I required to rebuild my research program in Australia.

​

Meanwhile, the Faculty Manager (who soon thereafter resigned) had repeatedly sought to unfreeze my startup resources.

His efforts, pursued over several months, met the same fate. They too were ignored:

        

                   "I’m unhappy to say I still have not got an answer for you.
                   The DVC Research still hadn’t replied to the email I sent."

​

• July 2010: Having exhausted other internal avenues, I then complained to the VC:

​

                  "This saga has dragged on beyond comprehension."
 

                   "To join me at Macquarie, [ my student]  sacrificed her PhD candidacy and support in [Europe].
                     While the above issues drag on, what she has joined me for is an exercise in finger twiddling."

​

                    "While efforts to reestablish my research proram have been hindered internally,

                      my annual review has been passed to a non-scientist. Oblivious to the circumstances,

                      he recommended that my salary loading be terminated."

               

 

         The DVC of Research then granted the Faculty Manager an audience.

 

My Startup Package was re-approved. But Macquarie then imposed an auxiliary condition - retroactively and unilaterally: The Startup Package would be available for only for two and a half years, until the end of 2102. No such restriction existed

in the original Startup Package Agreement, which provided 3 years of technical support to rebuild my research program.

As was recognized by an HR manager:

 

                          "There does not appear to be any time limit on when this can be used."

​

Despite their re-approval, the pledged resources remained frozen. In a meeting with Poulsen and the HR manager,

I reiterated my complaint:

 

                    "We’ve now been moved back to square one – where we were 3 yrs ago,
                       when Macquarie made these representations, on the basis of which I agreed
                       to relinquish my career, my tenured professorship, and my life in the US.

 

The first research assistant was not provided for another half year, leaving only 2 of the 3 years of support

which  Macquarie had pledged to provide. Even that was not provided. After 5 years and countless attempts

to acquire the 3 years of two research assistants that Macquarie pledged to provide, Macquarie provided

only 1 year of one of the assistants.

The VC did respond to my complaint - in two sentences. Except for the belated release of the Startup Package,

concerns over the operation of my appointment, including the improper reduction of salary,

received the same treatment as predecessors: They were ignored.
 

• December 2010: As a last attempt to resolve the failures internally, I exercised a contractual protection                     under dispute resolution. I lodged a formal complaint with the Director of HR. He was required contractually                   to respond within 5 days. He did not. In fact,  he did not even issue a response - ever. The improper reduction                 of salary was not corrected. The 2009 PDR was never conducted. And, consequently, my duties were not                       "as agreed with your manager", likewise required contractually. 

 

• March 2011: I then exercised the next level of contractual protection. I lodged a complaint with the Fair Work Ombudsman, who was supposed to exercise regulatory oversight of my appointment. The Ombudsman then                notified me that Macquarie had never registered my AWA, the statutory instrument of my Employment Contract. Macquarie's failure to fulfill its responsibility just happened to circumvent the Ombudsman's jurisdiction -                        the regulatory oversight which Macquarie represented during my recruitment would protect my appointment.

 

Macquarie was summoned before the Fair Work Commission to address my concerns. It refused arbitration of the issues        - on the grounds that, because it had not registered the AWA, the Commission lacked jurisdiction.

(Note: A fundamental principle of English law prohibits a party from benefiting from its own wrongdoing.)

Macquarie's conduct conveniently circumvented regulatory oversight of my appointment. I did not have regulatory oversight under the AWA because Macquarie did not register the AWA. I did I have regulatory oversight under the EA

(a protection held by other academics) because my Employment Contract excluded the EA. And, because of that feature

of my Contract, the union would not represent me in concerns over Macquarie's operation of my appointment (representation afforded to other academics). After relocating to Australia on Macquarie's representations,

I was left in contractual no man's land. My only recourse was to have compliance with the Employment Contract

enforced under common law - at my expense.

​

The 2010 PDR was conducted by Poulsen, the legacy-academic manager who failed to conduct the 2009 PDR,

was oblivious to the prevailing circumstances, but then reduced my salary by 25%. Poulsen's conduct of the 2010 PDR

was no more competent. Mounting concerns over the operation of my appointment were raised in the PDR form.

In the PDR, Macquarie  was contratually required to address those concerns. Poulsen simply ignored them.

Moreover, I was later informed by an HR manager that Poulsen had secretly altered the PDR review - after both of us

had certified its final form. Later, Poulsen admitted that he had not disclosed his retroactive comments and rating,

let alone afforded me an opportunity to respond. His conduct of the PDR violated the Employment Contract,

as well as institutional policy. Also violated were statutory protections in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (HELA), which required Macquarie to provide:

​

                       "direct consultation with employees on HR  matters"

and

                       "fair and transparent.. performance management".

​

The pattern of contractual non-compliance continued. The 2011 PDR was not conducted. The 2012 PDR was not conducted.

​

• August 2011: Poulsen eventually disclosed that my appointment was not even being operated according to                terms of the AWA, the foundation of the Employment Contract. Instead, it was being operated according to the EA, which the Employment Contract excluded. Further, Poulsen demanded that I accept the EA:

​

                       "You, according to HR, like all of the rest of the staff, work under the Enterprise Agreement.
                         As such, you are required to meet the obligations as specified in that agreement."

 

Thereby, Macquarie rejected the Employment Contract, which expressly excluded the EA.

​

While my Startup Package was withheld, I undertook the production of a new book - all that I could do without 

the resources to rebuild my research program. In the course of preparing Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate,

I found it necessary to explore uncertainty surrounding the increase of atmospheric CO2. Although central

to the clamor about global warming, the explanation embraced for that increase was far from understood.

My research revealed that evidence relied upon for the CO2 increase being of human origin was a house of cards.

Under scientific scrutiny, it quickly collapsed.

 

• August 2011: The results were presented at a scientific conference and later in an invited lecture at the Sydney Institute. (The untenable circumstances  at Macquarie  were, in fact,cited briefly in the introduction to that presentation.)                The new results vitiated the ideological dogma of global warming, a dogma vaunted by Macquarie academics                to leverage research funding and political influence. Self serving, that dogma was flimsy on science yet vocal in               its advocacy of public policy to avert a looming threat. It's reflected in the public remarks of Paul Beggs:

 

                                  "The adverse impacts of this changing climate are clear and undeniable.

                                    The Australian government`s action on climate change through its carbon tax is to be applauded."

 

The significance of the new results presented at the Sydney Institute was widely recognized. They attracted widespread interest, not only in Australia but internationally. Consequently, the results also promptly attracted the ire of Macquarie academics, whose research funding depended upon their ideological dogma and the climate of fear  it generated.

Within [days], Macquarie academics issued a public renouncement of my new analysis:

​

                                                      "Salby Refutation Final! Final!

 

Ironically, they had not even seen the analysis. (Even if they had, it's doubtful they could follow it.)

​

• [September] 2011: Just weeks later, Poulsen notified me that my role was being altered: Thereafter, I would be excluded from teaching climate - the subject of my appointment. Instead, I would be diverted to non-climate units – to support other staff, junior staff who just happened to push the political dogma:
   

                    "The climate group has requested different staffing.

                      You will be assigned teaching/tutoring/marking/fieldwork in non-climate units.
                      We will be moving you to a situation where your teaching will be to help others (ie, general support)."
 

       I was the only Professor of climate with teaching duties. Climate was, in fact, the subject of my appointment,        

       established in the Employment Contract. Yet, under this administrative edict, Poulsen notified me that this would be

​

                                        "your new teaching role".

     

       The following are noteworthy: (i) The edict of my new duties was clearly not "as agreed with your manager" .

       (ii) My teaching is regarded highly:

 

                                         "Extremely strong teaching"

                                           "Salby is quite simply the best teacher I ever had in the APAS department"

                                           "Salby is the best teacher I’ve ever had".

 

It is plainly superior to the teaching of Macquarie's legacy academics, as recognized by Macquarie's own Strategic Plan: 

 

                       "Instead of teaching from books written by others, research-active academics

                         are the ones who actually write the books."

 

       (iii) While the Professor of climate was prohibited from teaching climate, the subject of his appointment was

       assigned to junior academics, to whom he was to provide menial support - the role of a student teaching assistant.

​

       I notified Macquarie where it it could position my "new teaching role". Concurrently, I offered to teach

       any of half a dozen classes in the subject of my appointment.

​

Meanwhile, efforts to release the second research assistant and remaining years of the first assistant in my Startup Package resumed the pattern that existed previously: Those efforts simply went around in circles - ad  infinitum. After retroactively  imposing a deadline on accessing the pledged resources (abbreviating the Startup Package Agreement that provided           3 years of technical support), Macquarie continued to withhold those pledged resources. The clock was ticking.

​

Beyond leaving me professionally incapacitated, Macquarie's withholding of startup resources damaged the progress

of my PhD student, who was already handicapped by the blocking of postgraduate instruction. In the annual report progress report, I notified Macquarie of the ongoing amae:

​

           "Technical resources committed in my Startup Package were relied upon by [the student]

               when she sacrificed her PhD scholarship in [Europe] to join me at MQ. They has not been provided.

​

• [October] 2012: After repeated attempts to address my concerns were ignored, I engaged legal support.                       Solicitor advised me that Macquarie was in breach of contractual as well as statutory responsibilities.                                    To resolve the issues, she sought discussion with the responsible manager: Poulsen. Solicitor's request for discussion     met the same fate as mine:  It was refused. Solicitor then demanded discussion of the issues at a forthcoming meeting, notably, discussion of my prospective teaching - discussion that was required by the Employment Contract:

​

                          "My client can and will raise the issues. They are:   Salby’s teaching duties
                                                                                                                   the AWA and the MQ EA
                                                                                                                   MQ’s startup package obligations
                                                                                                                   Salby’s salary loading and performance reviews."

​

• November 2012: A meeting was convened with Poulsen. When  Solicitor and I attempted to discuss the issues (notably,    my prospective teaching that was required to be "as agreed with your manager" ), Poulsen got up and walked out.

​

• December-January 2012: Solicitor then placed half a dozen requests for discussion with higher levels of Macquarie administration. She also notified them that I was being represented by her and that future communications were            to involve her. They met the same fate, as chronicled in a subsequent letter to the VC:

​

                   "MQ's handling of this matter is astounding.

                      I had incorrectly thought MQ would be willing to work with Professor Salby

                      to resolve his employment concerns, as the law requires."