Grievance Policy Page

Protocol 7 : the higher education provider is to codify its internal grievance procedures and publish them with information about the procedure for submitting complaints to the relevant ombudsman or the equivalent relevant agency.

“While this is good practice, I wonder whether it is properly part of governance protocols which should be more directed to relations between the governing body and management.”

“Unless there is a major issue requiring Council attention, internal grievance procedures are operational”

University Governors reflection on National Governance Protocols, Summary Report
UGPD Program, National Institute for Governance, November 2006

Why is this a governance issue?

• Historically universities claimed some autonomy from the ordinary civilian authorities as self-governing, self-policing communities: while modern universities continue to claim some autonomy from university governors reserve ultimate university authority to themselves.
• Many universities highest arbitrater of a grievance is a committee of council. Some external authority as check and balance of Council/Executive power and authority
• Who checks governors? Today, arguably, the principle of primary responsibility to the Institution codifies accountability before the Courts.

Why grievance is an issue?

• Staff, students and others do not know what the procedures are, including the Ombudsman's role

whilst such procedures may exist individual staff may choose to ignore them and this can cause a lot of problems -

University Governors reflection on National Governance Protocols, Summary Report
UGPD Program, National Institute for Governance, November 2006

The review found a surprising lack of knowledge of the role of the Victorian Ombudsman in reviewing universities' decisions and recommended that the Victorian Ombudsman and the Victorian Vice-Chancellors' Committee prepare and publish a statement of the role of the Victorian Ombudsman in reviewing universities' decisions (recommendation 14).

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

• Allowances made to institutions on basis of their internal mechanisms do not guarantee the existence of those procedures.

Background and History

Universities are defined as a body politic as well as a body corporate, an acknowledgement of the overwhelming importance of the community of scholars, a community that explicitly manages its composition (by admission and expulsion of graduates to the faculty).

Historically these communities, their leadership and decisions have always been subject to some concept of oversight, accountability or review. In the age of Church institutions, often a bishop as a ‘visitor', in the age of State institutions, a monarch or representative as a ‘visitor'[1]:

3.3.4 University visitor All Victorian universities are subject to review by the university visitor, which by legislation is the Governor of Victoria. By custom the Governor appoints a referee to advise on petitions, who is traditionally a current or retired judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

Anciently the visitor had very broad powers of review, that in other areas of public life and government have become administratively separated in the twentieth century:

• Courts of Law
• Civil and Administrative Appeals and Residential Tenancies Tribunals
• Industrial Relations Commissions
• Human Right and Equal Opportunity Commissions
• State and sector Ombudsmen

Together with society at large Australian universities have become subject to some of these external jurisdictions (but not all – sometimes conditionally exempt by legislation). Alternative mechanisms have been utilised by those in the academic community with the powers to do so, e.g. staff on industrial relations. Concurrently the visitor's role has become increasingly anachronistic.

The multiplicity of forums for review of universities' decisions does not enhance the effectiveness of any one forum. Neither does it expand the various remedies available to a person seeking to review a university's decision. Indeed, it can be confusing and present an obstacle to an efficient and expeditious solution as prospective petitioners investigate the Visitor's jurisdiction and its advantages over other forums.

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

Conversely there has been an increasing expectation that institutions adhere to appropriate internal procedures for those in the community that do not possess such resources, i.e. especially students in regards of academic grievance, sexual harassment and accommodation. In particular the massification of universities, growing to one million students nationally, increased both the power of individual staff management and instances of disaffection. However only some of these procedures are codified, and policies and internal authorities often conflict.

Recommendation 15: internal student grievance procedures (paragraph 3.3.3)
That universities codify and collate their various internal student grievance procedures and publish them with information about the right and procedure for submitting complaints to the Victorian Ombudsman.

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

What is the governance response?

Recently the attention to governance of public institutions in general, and universities in particular, has prompted the renegotiation of the ‘autonomy' of universities in Australia as “public institutions established to serve public ends” (e.g. ACT Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2004). In particular, since

“the university visitor's jurisdiction overlapped with that of the ombudsman, as indeed it overlaps with that of a number of other bodies… The review therefore recommends that universities' Acts be changed to provide that the university visitor has ceremonial functions only (recommendation 16).”

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

“Review Recommendation 16: university visitor: … it is considered that acceptance of this recommendation will lead to less confusion about the appropriate approach to be taken by those who find universities' internal grievance procedures do not address their concerns.

Government Response to the Review of University Governance, State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

Recommendation 15 (above) was reflected nationally by Protocol 7.

The intent of the recommended changes is to enhance public confidence that effective decisions are being made by those who are charged with responsibility for advancing the universities' public purposes.

Review of University Governance , State of Victoria , Melbourne , 2002.

[1] David Price and Peregrin Whalley, "The university visitor and university governance", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , vol 18 no 1, pp 45-57, (1996); George S Zlawski , "The university visitor: a guest from another age", Vestes: the Australian universities' review, vol 27 no 2, pp 21-28, (1983).