The internal investigation

At first I complained internally about the institutional racism I was experiencing within the organization, but not being satisfied with the way my grievances were handled, I appealed. At that time a White member of the team put in her own grievance about an incident that had something in common with my complaints. I believe this helped to get the organization take my complaints more seriously, and a team of White senior officers was sent to carry out an internal investigation. They reported as follows: Internal investigation findings 1 Leadership

There was an imbalance of power as the hierarchy was male dominated, there was a lack of sensitivity to gender role and an unfortunate air of “machismo” to it.

There had been a breakdown in leadership and a lack of clarity about management, sometimes areas of accountability and responsibility were not clear and that contributed to the resistance to altering familiar ways of doing things and implementing the organization’s policies and procedures.

32Professional boundaries are blurred to such an extent that length in service accounts for more than skill, training, or professional based responsibilities; opinions of qualified staff including the most senior clinicians were not given priority over those of unqualified staff who had been in the post for longer time.

Individuals in leadership roles were unable to exert effective leadership partly due to the roles being ambiguous and also the leadership being undermined by senior members who had been there for a long time and they challenged their authority and at times went above their heads to a more senior member.

Leadership was unclear and confused about their role despite having a job description which clearly outlined their responsibility and accountability.

Whilst groups are valued they do not provide an opportunity for individuals to explore on one-to-one their performances and receive personal direction and support.

2 Professional conduct

The organization had lost sight of staff as people with their own rights and expectations about how they should be treated as employees.

The behaviour of some clinicians was unacceptable and crossed the expected professional line; it was insensitive and lacked judgment; lacked common sense; lacked awareness of appropriate professional behaviour; the behaviour of some clinicians fell below standards expected of professionals and the internal structures for managing staff conflict were lacking, ambiguous, or not followed.

Two of the investigators feedback that Ms Mubika’s appeal was justified and one investigator went further to say that he had found the behaviour of one of the senior managers to be disruptive and arrogant that at one point he had to ask him to behave himself.

It was extraordinary that the senior clinician who made the racial joke had not given a full immediate apology.

The staff team had ceased to respond, possibly even at times did not recognize the inappropriateness of some behaviours. This helps to explain but not excuse the conduct of some of the staff.

3 Background of the events

The investigating panel considered the context when the complaints took place:

There was concern about the staff turnover; accounts of staff members breaking down or taking sick leave occasioned by high levels of anxiety.

33There was rapid change, high level of stress and demand occasioned by sickness and staff turnover and by the prolonged period of inquiry into the grievances.

The clinicians were caught up in an institutional process which affected all members including Ms Mubika whose grievances date from a long time ago and had not been raised at the time and others had not observed signs of distress at the time when the events occurred therefore it appears that there was considerable element of retrospective interpretation born out of frustration as her grievance seemed to be going nowhere and was a result of some institutional process.

4 Language used

The comment about a sore thumb had been unfortunate but not intended to be offensive and that Ms Mubika had not been distressed about it at the time it was said.

The panel expressed concern at the abrasive and confrontational style used in the staff group reflected in the terms staff used to describe it—cruel, brutal and humiliating and that the staff has lost all compassion or sensitivity for individuals.

5 Policies and procedure

There is concern at breaches of confidentiality around the process of recruitment.

Serious err ors were found in the recruitment process and there was lack of familiarity with accepted practice and legislation; lack of awareness of Equal Opportunity legislation; failure to keep applications confidential; and there was inappropriate involvement of the whole team in decision-making, and leaking information about the outcome before the candidates were informed.

6 Difficulties in resolving the issues in-house

The general view was that everything can and should be sorted out “in-house”. There was resentment directed towards the perpetrator (Ms Mubika) and officers of the wide organization who had been requested to resolve matters through the Grievance Procedure.

The panel recognizes that Ms Mubika is a sensitive person, and that even in relation to handling her compassionate leave, there were others who considered that she was overreacting and making unfair complaints; Ms Mubika did not always let people know what her plans were but at times expected preferential treatment.

34The panel concluded that Ms Mubika played some part in the difficulties that led to the grievance. It also commented on the reports that she stayed to “sort out” a senior clinician. The panel believes that it lost the opportunity to deal effectively with Ms Mubika’s grievances and any further attempts merely made the situations and the relationships worse.

Initially I was given an abbreviated version of the above report, but then found out from a White colleague I previously complained about that there was a more comprehensive one. I insisted on having it. When I read it I felt blamed: for example, they claimed that I was overreacting and making unfair complaints about how my compassionate leave had been handled, yet they had refused me any compassionate leave, resulting in my using my annual leave to go to Zimbabwe for the funerals. As I had several bereavements within a short space of time I used most of my annual leave and ended up without any to use to accompany my daughter, Kimberly, to Zimbabwe when her father died. At fifteen years of age Kimberly had to make a ten-hour flight on her own to her father’s funeral. (Her sister, Karen, had gone on holiday to Zimbabwe the day before, not knowing that their father was dying.)