(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 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.
The circumstances left me professionally incapacitated. Macquarie's withholding of startup resources also damaged
the progress of my PhD student, who was already handicapped by the blocking of postgraduate instruction.
In the annual report of her progress, I notified Macquarie of the ongoing damage:
"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 have 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."
During the same period, I filed travel forms to present new research on CO2 at an international scientific conference
and a lecture series that had been scheduled by major research centers in Europe. Included were universities in Paris,
Hamburg, Oslo, and Cambridge. The presentations were an implementation of the international travel that,
in the Startup Package, Macquarie had pledged to provide and had approved. It was also in fulfillment of the
principal duties of my CORE appointment, to advance Macquarie's new Strategic Plan - to become internationally
recognized in research and develop strategic alliances with major research centers. The new research on CO2,
however, did not comport with the political dogma of Macquarie academics. On the contrary, it demonstrated that
(i) the ice core record of CO2, on which that dogma relied, was dubious and (ii) the behavior of climate models,
on which the political dogma likewise relied, differed fundamentally from observed behavior.
In establishing these failures, the new research undermined the foundation of the global warming movement.
Summaries of the new research were, as a matter of practice, included with the travel forms to present the material.
The travel forms were filed in the same fashion as previous travel - prior to the deadline for accessing the Startup
Package (end of 2012), which Macquarie had imposed retroactively. The travel arrangements were likewise made
in identical fashion, to secure space for a heavily subscribed international conference. These travel forms, however,
were not processed as before. In fact, they weren't processed at all. Instead, the forms were sequestered:
neither approved nor rejected. The treatment blocked any objection to administrative abuse - until, that is,
the deadline for accessing that travel support had passed. Thereby, it subverted the Startup Package Agreement,
wherein Macquarie pledged to provide that support, not to mention the Employment Contract, which established
research, its communication, and development of strategic alliances with international research centers as
principal duties. It's noteworthy that this treatment of my appointment and Startup package was conducted
while Macquarie ignored Solicitor's repeated requests for discussion of these very issues.
The travel agent notified me that the air travel still had not been authorized and would soon have to be cancelled.
With my appearance scheduled at major research centers in Europe, I notified the dept office of the importance
of action on the travel forms:
"Please pass along the following advice to whoever is sitting on my travel paperwork.
STA travel has advised that my travel paperwork still has not been authorized.
Failure to ticket by the close of business today will result in its cancellation,
preventing it from being purchased before the end of the year."
The office notified me that administrative affairs were being overseen by Paul Beggs, who was in the process of
replacing Poulsen as dept head. In fact, the HR manager notified Beggs that administrative action on the forms
was his responsibility. The foregoing notices were given a familiar treatment: They were simply ignored.
No action was taken. As the retroactive deadline on startup resources approached, the travel forms
fell into an administrative abyss. The clock was ticking.
To comply with Macquarie's retroactive condition on the Startup Package, the travel was booked on the credit card
linked to my Startup Package, wherein that travel had been pledged and approved. The procedure was, in fact,
identical to bookings of earlier travel. That was the purpose and practice of the credit card issued to CORE appointees,
as the HR manager later admitted. It is also noteworthy that, when the approved research travel was booked,
Macquarie was in possession of some $20,000 of leave salary which it owed me - far in excess of the travel booking.
Later, the excuse given for why my travel forms were not acted upon was that an element, the so-called
"absence on duty form", was missing. That allegedly-missing element magically appeared - after the deadline
on the Startup Package had passed.
-
February 2013: Beggs, now formally head of dept, rejected the absence on duty form - what had been claimed was missing. His justification? Why, Salby had not made arrangements to cover his teaching. How could he have? Salby's teaching had not even been defined. The PDR, which was then Beggs' responsibility, was required to define teaching (a key element of workload) through discussion and agreement:
"Workloads must take into account the PDR and reflect professional circumstances."
The PDR had not even been conducted - again. And, concurrently, Solicitor's repeated requests to discuss
Salby's teaching continued to be ignored.
The treatment made it clear that Macquarie had no intention of complying with the Employment Contract. Moreover,
the period of research travel was almost entirely during term break - when classes are not even held. In fact,
the class which Beggs alleged would conflict with my research travel was co-taught by several academics.
Beggs had neither the capacity nor the authority to determine on what days individual academics would be teaching.
That authority was held by the Class Convenor - the party who coordinated the schedules of all academics
teaching the class, not by a manager who was ignorant of the material. The Class Convenor notified Beggs unequivocally
that the teaching schedule had not yet been set:
"I and Murry have not yet discussed the course schedule for this year yet."
How could they have? The class had not yet even been assigned.
Beggs’ untimely rejection of my research travel was groundless. It was also invalid: Dictating what and when
an academic taught in a class that was shared with other academics was authority that Beggs did not possess.
Nor had Beggs conductd the PDR, which was required contractually to set workload.
I objected to Beggs rejection of my research travel. Beggs' administrative abuse was also a subversion of
the Startup Package Agreement, wherein Macquarie had pledged and approved:
"Two international trips to scientific conferences".
Simultaneously, I notified Beggs that I would be overseas during April to implement the approved resources and to
fulfill the principal duties of my appointment. Beggs was then required to hold discussion to resolve the disputed matter.
He did not. My complaint met the same fate as requests for discussion by Solicitor. It was ignored.
-
January-February 2013: After failing to conduct the PDR and Macquarie refusing requests for discussion, notably of my teaching duties, Beggs issued his assignment of my teaching. (It's noteworthy that Beggs issued this edict of my duties in the dead of summer, when classes are not held and academics are off performing research - especially academics whose principal duties are research.) The assignment was clearly not "as agreed with your manager" - because repeated requests to discuss my teaching were ignored and refused. Nor did it take into acccont the PDR - because the PDR (Beggs' responsibility) was not even conducted.
And what were the teaching duties to which Beggs assigned me? The Professor of climate was virtually excluded
from teaching climate, diverted to undergraduate non-climate classes. There, he was to provide only 2 hrs of lecture
but 322 hrs of menial support - to junior academics , who were to provide the lectures (viz hundreds of hours
of marking their students' papers). While prohibiting the Professor of climate from communicating research on climate
at international venues, from developing strategic alliances with international research centers on climate,
and from teaching climate, the Professor of climate was required to sit at his desk to mark student papers
for junior academics - even during term break, when classes are not held. Issued without discussion,
let alone the required agreement, the assignment was incongruous with my appointment.
Macquarie admitted that it was eventually re-assigned - to a student.
My duties and how they were being defined were plainly in dispute, discussion having been sought repeatedly.
Beggs' assignment violated contractual protections, even institutional policy governing disputed issues:
"The university shall not change work, staffing, or the organization of work, if such is the subject of the dispute..
nor take any other action likely to exacerbate the dispute."
It's noteworthy that the reduction of role was unprecedented - meted out exclusively to Salby. No other academic
in the so-called "climate group" was or had been subjected to such treatment. Beggs' operation of my appointment
was tantamount to "constructive dismissal". Had I accepted Beggs' improper assignment,
I would have waived principal benefits of my appointment as Professor of climate.
I objected to the material alteration of role:
Beggs was again required to conduct discussion to resolve the disputed matter. He did not.
Instead, Beggs promptly filed a complaint with the Dean, alleging that I refused to teach.
Beggs advanced this allegation while failing to conduct the PDR, wherein duties were required to be developed
through discussion and agreement, with account of professional circumstances. And, notably,
Beggs advanced his false allegation while ignoring Solicitor's requests for that very discussion.
The Dean was then required to conduct discussion. which had long since been requested. He did not. Instead,
he required compliance with Beggs' improper edict, which reduced my role to menial support of junior academics.
As the PDR had not been conducted and explicit requests for discussion of my duties had been refused,
my duties remained those which had last been developed in accordance with the Employment Contract:
through discussion and agreement. Regarding the class which Beggs invoked to rationalize his blocking
of my research travel, the teaching schedule (notably, what and on which days I was to teach) had,
owing to Beggs' administrative abuse, never been properly set by the Class Convenor.
Setting the particular days on which I was to teach in that class was the authority of the Convenor - not Beggs,
a policy that Macquarie later conceded in testimony:
Having teaching schedule set by the Convenor, through coordination with other academics teaching a class, was a benefit of all academics. But not Salby. For Salby, Beggs removed that benefit. This was not the only benefit of Salby’s appointment which Beggs removed. Beggs’ excuse for blocking Salby’s research travel was that Salby must sit at this desk - even during
term break, when classes are not held :
"Salby was expected to be on campus “during semester break, in which academic staff
are generally required at the university to perform their many non face-to-face teaching duties.”
Beggs' rationalization for blocking research travel violated Macquarie's own policy:
Notice: Beggs' treatment would have prevented me from ever acquiring the travel resources
which Macquarie had agreed to provide. It would also have prevented me from presenting my research on climate (a principal duty of my CORE appointment), which just happened to contradict Beggs’ advocacy of public policy
for the Carbon Tax. The administrative abuse breached the Startup Package Agreement, wherein Macquarie
pledged to provide those travel resources. Breached equally was the Employment Contract, which appointed me
as Professor of climate in Macquarie's so-called "Concentration of Research Excellence".
-
February 2013: Beggs filed a formal complaint, accusing me of "serious misconduct"- that I had refused to teach. In fact, I had offered to teach any of half a dozen classes in the subject of my appointment - the classes taught by other academics in the so-called "climate group". Later, Beggs sought to distance himself from the matter, denying that he had brought allegations. The record, however, is indelible. In the letter from Director of HR, who acted on the allegation:
"Matters have been referred to me by the Head of Department."
I was then suspended without pay, locked out of my office, and charged with "serious misconduct" - because I objected
to the reduction of my role and exacerbation of issues that were in dispute. Simultaneously, my student - the one whom Macquarie required to abandon her PhD scholarship in Europe, was prohibited from speaking with me - even to publish
our research on CO2:
"According to them, I shouldn’t even contact you.. even to discuss publishing our results (?!)."
The student was left rudderless. Macquarie's competence in atmospheric dynamics and ozone (the focus of
her approved research) was even more vacuous than Macquarie's competence in the science of climate.
Macquarie took these actions on the authority of the Enterprise Agreement - an instrument which my
Employment Contract excluded.
I was suspended and accused of misconduct because I objected to Beggs' improper assignment of duties
and reduction of my role, a benefit of my employment to which Macquarie was contractually and legally
required to respect by engaging in discussion.
-
March 2013: Solicitor wrote the VC, chronicling Macquarie's repeated refusals to discuss the issues (including my forthcoming duties), matters which Macquarie then invoked as a pretext to accuse me of misconduct:
"MQ's actions are unreasonable, incorrect at law, and constitute a breach of contract and procedural fairness."
"MQ's unilateral variation of Professor Salby's employment contract, without his consent,
to significantly alter the duties for which he was employed, constitutes a breach of his
employment contract resulting in constructive dismissal."
"The MQ Enterprise Agreement does not govern my client's employment."
"MQ's handling of this matter is astounding.
MQ's refusal to engage in dialogue has resulted in my client
● being placed on leave without pay for refusing to perform duties which
are contrary to his employment contract and his role of Professor and
● being investigated for gross misconduct under an enterprise agreement
which does not even apply to him."
Solicitor then formally rejected Beggs' improper assignment of duties and notified Macquarie that,
even aside from the EA's exclusion by the Employment Contract, Macquarie had failed its statutory duty
to operate my appointment by the Enterprise Agreement:
"The material variations to my client’s duties are rejected.
s.188 of the Fair Work Act requires “genuine agreement” for an Enterprise Agreement to be operative.
We again request a meeting to discuss my client’s duties,
which are to be within his skill and competence, as required by the employment contract."
Later, Macquarie's VC claimed that he had not received Solicitor's letter. (Note: preceding letters of Solicitor
were likewise addressed directly to Macquarie's executive administration. They too were ignored.)
During April, I was overseas presenting my research, in fufillment of the Startup Package Agreement and the principal duties of my appointment - the only duties that had been defined in accordance with the Employment Contract. Regarding Beggs' allegations of misconduct, Solicitor then notified Macquarie that a detailed response would be assembled
following my return to Australia.
-
April 2013: While I was overseas, The Australian newspaper published my analysis of Australian temperature, which debunked an evocative report by Wil Steffen of the now-defunct Australian Climate Commission: "The Angry Summer". Based upon manipulated data, Steffen's report claimed that anomalous temperatures that year were the result of global warming. My analysis showed that the claim was nonsense.
Following the lecture series in Europe, I arrived at the airport in Paris for my return to Australia. I was then informed
that my return ticket had been cancelled. Instructions for its cancellation were issued by Macquarie.
Those instructions were issued shortly before my scheduled return to Australia - in desperation:
The ticket that Macquarie cancelled was non-refundable.
I learned later that Macquarie cancelled my return ticket when I was about to return during its misconduct proceedings, which Macquarie held precisely when it knew that I would be overseas. Macquarie likewise disregarded notices that,
upon my return, I intended to submit a detailed response to Beggs' allegations. Macquarie's treatment of the proceedings ensured that I would not be heard, protecting Beggs' misconduct allegations against challenge.
Macquarie's cancellation of my return ticket left me stranded in Europe, without arrangements for lodging or return travel.
When I eventually did return to Australia, I found a letter from Macquarie that, despite repeated notices, Macquarie had
held its misconduct proceedings in my absence, issued findings, and the proceedings would be concluded in 48 hrs.
I notified Macquarie that, despite its obstruction, I had returned to Australia and reiterated my intention to assemble
a detailed response to Beggs' allegations. I notified Macquarie further that, owing to Macquarie's obstruction,
assembling a detailed response in 48 hrs was impossible - especially since Macquarie blocked access to records in my office,
material that was needed for my response. Macquarie disregarded that notice as well. It promptly concluded its misconduct proceedings, hearing from Beggs but with no input from me. Unsurprisingly, the resulting report was rife with falsehood.
Notable among its claims:
"Prof Salby “has continued to refuse to teach”
“Prof Salby has claimed that teaching was not part of his agreed terms”
The truth was that Salby wanted to teach. He had offered to teach any of half a dozen classes. He had arranged quantitative instruction that was blocked. He had arranged teaching with BOM and CSIRO to prepare students for research, which was
likewise blocked. And he had repeatedly sought discussion of his prospective teaching, discussion which was required contractually but which was refused. If Salby had no intention of teaching, why would he have produced a 700 pp postgraduate text, with hundreds of technical problems and solutions? But this was not the standard of teaching
practiced by Macquarie university.
Also claimed by the report of the misconduct proceedings was the following beacon of truth:
"When the university attempted to register the AWA, it was rejected on the grounds
that it was less favorable overall than the EA.”
Clearly not. The truth is that Macquarie didn't even lodge the AWA, as recognized by the Fair Work Ombudsman.
This failure was even relied upon by Macquarie's Director of HR, who defended against the original complaint by arguing
that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction precisely because Macquarie did not lodge the AWA. These and other falsehoods relied upon by the misconduct proceedings were contradicted by the record. But, then, how could they know?
Revealed later was that Macquarie staff deliberately misinformed its decision makers, the administrators who were
encouraged to suspend Salby and have him tried for serious misconduct:
"the matter of Professor Salby's refusal to teach"
"He says he doesn't have to teach because of research commitments"
They lied. In fact, Salby wanted to teach - as he sought in the meeting with Poulsen and Solicitor:
"Devotion of not less than half of my teaching responsibility to postgraduate training,
with other teaching devoted to my area of expertise”,
the meeting wherein Poulsen got up and walked out.
The decision makers later testified that they had been kept in the dark on the true circumstances:
They were (i) oblivious to the fact that assignment of Salby’s teaching was an issue in dispute and
(ii) oblivious to Salby's and Solicitor's requests for discussion to resolve that issue and, pursuant to
contractual requirements, to develop his teaching through discussion and agreement and with account of the PDR
- requests that had been lodged at every level of the management chain. Solicitor's letters, which were addressed
directly to those decision makers, were, according to their own testimony, kept from those decision makers - the parties
who were encouraged to suspend Salby and then terminate his appointment. The Provost, who issued the termination,
was asked by the court:
"So would it be fair to say that the information was coming from one side and not from Dr Salby?"
