Vice Chancellor on Notice: Delivered. Signed. Ignored - November 2021

Delivered. Signed for. No response followed.

What happens when you realise you have done everything right?  

You’ve followed the process.

You’ve documented the evidence.

You’ve asked—clearly, respectfully, lawfully—for help.

And still… nothing happens.

⸻

On 2 November 2021 at 2:40pm, a courier delivered a package directly to the Vice-Chancellor’s office.

It wasn’t lost.

It wasn’t delayed.

It wasn’t “missed.”

It was received and signed for.

The package contained a formal letter and a comprehensive set of printed evidence—documents outlining serious concerns about workplace harm, governance failures, and ongoing breaches of statutory obligations.

This was placing the most senior officer of the institution on direct notice.

⸻

What Was in That Package

The letter was clear.

It called for:

• Immediate cessation of harassment and victimisation

• Implementation of a legally binding Injury Management Plan

• Communication with treating doctors and health professionals

• A safe and supported return-to-work pathway

• A review of internal governance, HR practices, and WHS compliance

At its core, it made something unmistakable:

The harm was ongoing.

The risks were known.

The obligations were not optional.

The evidence accompanying the letter included medical confirmation of trauma linked to workplace conduct, with my GP explicitly stating ongoing harm caused by employees of the university.

And the request itself could not have been clearer:

“I request my return to work as per agreement in the injury management plan. Please ensure the discrimination, harassment and victimisation toward me ends immediately.”  

This was a lawful, reasonable request, grounded in an existing Injury Management Plan and supported by statutory obligations.

The letter went further—clearly setting out the employer’s duty to:

• implement a return-to-work plan

• communicate with treating health professionals

• comply with workers compensation and WHS obligations

There was nothing ambiguous about what was being asked and nothing optional about what was required.

This was a moment where leadership had a choice.

To act.

Or to ignore.

⸻

The Silence That Followed

There was no response.

No acknowledgment.

No support.

No investigation.

No governance review.

No compliance action.

Nothing.

Not even the most basic duty of care extended to a worker in documented psychological distress.

⸻

What That Silence Means

When a Vice-Chancellor is placed on notice with evidence of:

• Workplace harm

• Statutory non-compliance

• Governance failures

…and chooses not to act — that silence becomes a decision.

It is a decision to:

• Allow harm to continue

• Ignore legal obligations

• Abandon duty of care

• Protect systems over people

⸻

Governance Is Not a Mission Statement

Universities speak often of values.

Of dignity.

Of community.

Of ethical leadership.

But values are not what institutions say.

They are what they do when confronted with risk, harm, and accountability.

In this case:

• A worker asked for a safe return to work

• A legally enforceable framework existed to support that recovery

• The highest level of leadership was directly notified

And still—

nothing happened.

⸻

A Signed Receipt of Responsibility

The courier record matters because it removes every excuse.

The letter didn’t get lost.

It didn’t sit unread in a system.

It didn’t fail to reach the right person.

It was physically delivered.

It was signed for.

It was received.

Courier confirmation: Delivered 2 Nov 2021, 2:40pm. Signed for at the Vice-Chancellor’s office.

That signature is more than proof of delivery.

It is proof of knowledge.

And once there is knowledge, there is responsibility.

⸻

The Question That Remains

What does it say about governance—

when the most senior leader of an institution is placed on notice of harm, risk, and legal obligation…

…and does nothing?

⸻

Final Word

This letter was an opportunity:

• To intervene

• To protect

• To lead

That opportunity was delivered—by hand, by courier, with evidence.

It was signed for.

And it was ignored.

⸻

Vice Chancellor on Notice — What the Policies Required

The University’s own policies are operational commitments — grounded in law.

They require:

• a safe and healthy working environment

• a workplace free from discrimination, harassment and victimisation

• early intervention when risks to health and safety are identified

• active consultation and support for injured staff

• timely, coordinated return-to-work processes

The Injury Management and Rehabilitation Policy goes further.

It requires that:

• return-to-work plans are developed immediately following injury

• treating practitioners are consulted

• injured staff are supported in a timely and sustainable return to work

• contributing factors to injury are identified and addressed

And critically — responsibility does not sit at the margins.

It sits at the top.

The Vice Chancellor and President is explicitly responsible for ensuring:

• early intervention and support for injured staff

• identification of risks and contributing factors

• continuous improvement of systems to prevent harm

⸻

The University’s own Discrimination and Harassment Policy is equally clear.

Staff have a right to work in an environment:

• free from discrimination

• free from harassment

• where complaints are addressed fairly, sensitively, and promptly

Managers and supervisors are required to:

• take timely corrective action, even without a formal complaint

• ensure behaviour that creates harm is addressed

• protect staff from victimisation when concerns are raised

And the University’s own managerial guidance is unambiguous:

Failure to act on known harassment, discrimination or bullying carries legal consequences.

Supervisors and the institution itself may be held accountable. 

⸻

The Gap Between Policy and Reality

This was not a situation where the University lacked guidance.

The policies existed.

The procedures were clear.

The legal framework was embedded.

And the Vice Chancellor was placed on notice.

⸻

But policies are not measured by what they say.

They are measured by what happens when they are needed.

When harm is documented.

When risks are known.

When a worker asks — lawfully — to be protected and to return safely.

⸻

In that moment:

• no early intervention occurred

• no return-to-work plan was implemented

• no consultation with treating professionals was undertaken

• no corrective action was taken

• no protection from ongoing harm was provided

⸻

Reflection

“Vice Chancellor on Notice” is a governance moment.

Once leadership is on notice:

• knowledge is established

• responsibility is engaged

• inaction becomes a decision

⸻

Policies define the standard.

Law enforces it.

But leadership reveals whether either of them matter.

⸻

References

• Injury Management and Rehabilitation Policy  

• Work Health and Safety and Wellbeing Policy  

• Discrimination and Harassment Policy  

• Dealing with Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying – Manager Guide  

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 217-218