Lecturer wins unfair dismissal case after being told to get PhD

Former Huddersfield lecturer claimed his mental health suffered due to increased workload of mandatory doctoral study 

April 30, 2021
University of Huddersfield
Source: iStock
University of Huddersfield

An academic has won an employment tribunal case for unfair dismissal after he lost his job under a mandatory PhD policy brought in by a university.

Jonathan Duxbury, a former senior lecturer in accountancy at University of Huddersfield, was told in 2013 that he would need a doctorate to continue teaching at his level.

It followed the introduction of a policy at Huddersfield the same year insisting that all full-time permanent lecturers should have a PhD or study to obtain one.  

According to a statement released on behalf of Mr Duxbury’s lawyers after the ruling, he enrolled for a PhD in 2014 but told the university that the increased workload would be unmanageable and would impact his mental health.

However, Mr Duxbury – who does have professional accountancy qualifications – was told he still needed to continue with his doctorate, something “which exacerbated Mr Duxbury’s mental health condition”, according to the statement.

After a number of disciplinary meetings, the lecturer was sacked, the statement says, leading to him taking his case to an employment tribunal with the backing of the University and College Union (UCU).

A ruling at Leeds Employment Tribunal has now found that he was unfairly dismissed.

Mr Duxbury, 57, said that in his view, forcing him to study for a PhD “made no sense”.

“The students had always been happy with my teaching and I saw no benefit for anyone in me taking on such an onerous course, especially when – as I am in my 50s – it was going to have little standing on my future career prospects,” he said.

Iain Birrell, a trade union law specialist at Thompsons Solicitors, which represented the lecturer, said the issue “could have been resolved with a reasonable concession” from Huddersfield when he first raised concerns but the case “ended up becoming a battle of attrition that benefitted no one”.

“The judge in the hearing said herself that Mr Duxbury had acted with integrity, while the university had been ‘wholly unreasonable’ with a ‘closed mind’ to Mr Duxbury’s reasonable expectation that his health would be considered and measures put in place to protect it,” he said.

“In addition, the judge agreed that the university’s claims that the PhD course wouldn’t invade his personal time were at complete odds with the reality faced by Mr Duxbury and many of his colleagues.”

Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows that around 80 per cent of full-time academic staff at Huddersfield had a PhD in 2019-20, a proportion that has climbed rapidly since the policy was introduced.

A spokeswoman for the university said the outcome of the tribunal “relates to the circumstances of one member of staff”. 

“The tribunal judgment made reference to the university being entitled to introduce policies that develop the staff and student experience and the introduction of the doctoral study requirement was considered reasonable,” she said.

Mr Duxbury, who stands to receive a settlement to be decided at a later date, said he had managed to get a job lecturing part time at another university.

“I feel my confidence is starting to improve again. But for years, I was subject to a number of demoralising disciplinary procedures that stemmed solely from me raising what was a legitimate issue.”

UCU regional official Julie Kelley said it had been “shameful” that the case had dragged on for many years instead of Huddersfield “meaningfully engaging with concerns raised back in 2014”.

“Let this be a shot across the bows for any employer thinking about acting in a similar manner,” she added.

simon.baker@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (10)

What a stupid and pointless thing to do to a lecturer.
Gosh, such a cry baby. The university did nothing wrong. You are expected to hold a PhD in order to teach at higher education level; the surprise, in my eyes, is that he was allowed to even start in his present job without one. How can he supervise or advise students on their PhD projects, if he's never done one himself?? Crazy This anti-intellectualism has got to stop.
It’s seems clear from your comment you lack both the capacity for empathy required to teach or the intellectual capacity to write in a coherent manner. Both invalidate you childish remark.
Unfortunately, you do not seem to live in the real world nor do you have any proper writing skills as you are meant to back up your statements. Let me explain something to you: Every job has certain requirements and you need to meet them. Lecturers not only in Britain, but worldwide and bearing in mind the degree of competition out there, need a research qualification. Empathy doesn't play into it; it is qualifications + experience that get you jobs. Although come to think of it, seeing the Greensill and PPE procurement scandals in the British media, maybe things do not work like that in the UK. Maybe all you need is to be 'liked by your students' or the right contacts??
It’s seems clear from your comment you lack both the capacity for empathy required to teach or the intellectual capacity to write in a coherent manner. Both invalidate your childish and spiteful comment.
It is very pleasing to see Mr Duxbury has won his case. Holding a PhD indicates an ability to carry out research, it say little about someone's ability to teach, I bet in their more lucid moments the management of universities really know this. Having spent a decade teaching in a Russell Group university and witnessed so many examples of 'Dr. This' and 'Professor That' struggling to communicate with their own colleagues in meetings and presentations, most members of university staffs know this to be self evident. Given that most universities generate the majority of their income from customers (a.k.a. students) who come to be taught, then for most establishments a concentration on staffing them with people that really know their subject and, very important, have the ability to communicate with others about it in an impactful manner should be a top priority. Holding a PhD is no guarantee of this and there are many better metrics to use to measure this.
You don't have one, so therefore it's not important. I see....
It was not necessary when they initially employed him was it though? They completely failed to explain why it is suddenly necessary now for him to have now. If you think the possession of a PhD means someone will be a good lecturer then you are deluding yourself. Even if it does help and is seen as a good thing to ask for when hiring now, it does not wipe out his years of experience evidently doing a fine job. His subject area is a very applied one and advising PhD students will not be a major part of his duties.
At sadt110_derby_ac_uk: Unfortunately, you do not seem to live in the real world nor do you have any proper writing skills as you are meant to back up your statements. Let me explain something to you: Every job has certain requirements and you need to meet them. Lecturers not only in Britain, but worldwide and bearing in mind the degree of competition out there, need a research qualification. Empathy doesn't play into it; it is qualifications + experience that get you jobs. Although come to think of it, seeing the Greensill and PPE procurement scandals in the British media, maybe things do not work like that in the UK. Maybe all you need is to be 'liked by your students' or the right contacts??
At daver: At least you did not pretend, like the other posters, that a DPhil/PhD is either a joke or punishment. In reality, it is supposed to be something edifying that allows you to delve into a topic you love, and come out of it at the other end better for it. Regarding the article itself, didn't it say that there were 80% of staff that already held one and that the gap was narrowing rapidly? I suspect that contrary to what we are led to believe, he wasn't liked there. It seems like a classic case of trying to get rid of a member of staff. They knew he wouldn't be able to cope and they used it to push him out.

Sponsored