Security whistleblowers allege "bullying regime" across Imperial

In December 2021, Security staff from Silwood Park submitted a grievance against senior members of the Security team, Human Resources (HR), and Campus Services management. They complained of wrongful cuts to their pay and annual leave, and a lack of transparency in these decisions, underlined by deceitful and coercive behaviour by senior members of staff. The independent investigator upheld their complaints. 

I’ve never quite figured out if the management team are Machiavellian or just inept.

Over one year on from the ruling, there has allegedly been little accountability or action. 

Having finally given up on holding out for change, Security staff from Silwood Park approached Felix. They also felt that issues had escalated to the point of threatening staff and student safety. “There is a lot to tell,” they warned me. 

Thus began a string of phone conversations with Security officers from across the South Kensington, White City, and Silwood Park campuses who felt it was time to share their stories. In several instances, both the officer and I would be on the South Kensington campus – I in the Felix office, and he about to start a 14-hour long night shift – but I would never meet them in person: they were afraid senior Security staff would check CCTV or swipe card access to identify them. 

This is the culture of fear instilled in Security staff at Imperial. Having faced over a decade of cuts to their benefits, they were already disillusioned with Imperial. But this has been exacerbated by an alleged bullying culture which, as they fought with individuals from Campus Services management and HR became evermore prominent. 

As Felix spoke to officers, tales of gross corruption unravelled, including alleged bullying by management, betrayal of employee relations by HR, and financial misconduct by senior members of the Security team. As a retired member of Security staff laid bare his experiences, he articulated: “I’ve never quite figured out if the management team are Machiavellian or just inept”.

Felix investigates the myriad of claims put forward by Security officers at the end of their tethers. 

Security suffer repeated cuts to overtime pay and annual leave

When Security disputed a 9-shift equivalent cut to annual leave, they realised they had been under-allocated leave for 13 years. 

The Security team has suffered multiple cuts to their pay, annual leave, and overtime since 2010.

• Silwood Park security work a rotating eight day pattern, comprising two day shifts (6am6pm) followed by two night shifts (6pm-6am).
• Security officers receive the equivalent of 39 days of annual leave (25 normal days off + 8 Bank Holidays + 6 College Closures), in alignment with the College allocation for all staff.
• This 39 days is equivalent to 327.6 hours per year for the hours Security work.
• Since 2010, Silwood Park Security officers have only been receiving 292.5 hours of annual leave.

In 2015, Security officers lost more annual leave and premium payments, and were allegedly “threatened with the sack” if they did not accept. 

[We were] robbed blind left, right, and centre.

Altering pay and annual leave modifies the terms and conditions of Security’s employment, which they would have agreed to on signing their contract when joining the team. To do so requires consultation between management, staff and unions. However, since 2010, Security’s management has instead been implementing these changes through issuing documents referred to as ‘Departmental Standing Orders’, thus bypassing consultation. Campus Services management attempted to legitimise the use of standing orders to modify terms of employment by falsely claiming that Security staff had all agreed in writing to the use of these instruments when signing their contract. 

In 2018, to account for a reduction in weekly working hours of 37.5 to 37 for other working Level 1 staff, Security received an additional 26 hours of annual leave. In April 2021, Security were informed of further reductions to their annual leave:

• The additional 26 hours of leave was removed.
• Their annual leave was incorrectly calculated by HR and reduced to 286.65 hours.
• Overtime pay for officers working on Christmas Day was cut. 

On querying the removal of the 26 hours, management informed Security that it had been a “one-off goodwill gesture”, and that they would not be receiving it on an annual basis, contradictory to what management initially confirmed. 

From 2015, booking a day shift off only cost Security staff 7.5 hours. In 2021, terms were again changed so that Security staff needed 12 hours to book off a day shift. This extra 4.5 hours per shift cost them 9 full shifts worth of annual leave. “Over the years they’ve just been cutting, cutting,” a member of Security staff told Felix.

Security also did not understand why their leave had been further reduced. Therefore, they did the calculations themselves and realised that HR had made an error, and in the process discovered that for over a decade they had been receiving significantly less than they were entitled to. “[HR] robbed us blind left, right, and centre,” one officer exclaimed. When they raised this with HR and attempted correct it, a senior member of HR repeatedly refuted their claims and persistently attempted to justify her calculations. “I believe her actions are a disgrace and should be openly explained,” another says.

We are not getting fair hearings.

Once again, there had been no consultation process, despite changes to the terms and conditions of employment. When Security officers asked HR to discuss the issues, the meeting was refused and management responded: ‘It was made perfectly clear that the decision which was HR-led and agreed to by the Unions, has already been made and is in accordance with the Law concerning Annual Leave. The decision is final.’ Since Unite and Unison had not consulted any of their members, Security wrote to those unions. Whilst Unite allegedly attempted to meet with management, this was ineffective. On the other hand, the Unison representative for the College replied “to be honest [I] think that security officers have been lucky that the arrangement lasted as long as it did. It certainly isn’t fair on the rest of the college that we don’t get the same privilege.” Security officers feel they were failed by their Unison representative especially, and since then many of them have opted to join the GMB union instead. The concerned Imperial Unison representative did not respond, and Unison Greater London declined to comment.

This is something Security officers believe HR use to their advantage: in 2022 HR planned to hold a joint review with Unison only (excluding Unite) on the working week and Terms and Conditions for Security officers. “We believe this was a deliberate effort to make changes with the Union rep most sympathetic to her wishes,” an officer says. Furthermore, despite GMB now representing the majority of Security staff, the College has not recognised them, and so they are not obliged to invite them to consultations. “We are not getting fair hearings,” says another.

Staff speak of “bullying regime” of senior Security team 

Security officers allege “bullying culture” by supervisors is exacerbated by collusion with HR

Security officers said that over the years, some of their colleagues have been mistreated, and even asked to leave, because they have upset someone, overhead something, or “don’t fit in”. A Silwood Park officer told Felix “I believe bullying and intimidation has been rife within our department for a long time and has been used to keep us in line and to stop us questioning management’s decisions.”

He told Felix how he was bullied by a member of management for years who would call him “knob jockey” behind his back, supposedly in an attempt to “alienate people”, and how his complaints were always dismissed. The individual has since been made redundant, yet even now, the concerned officer feels the “bullying regime” pervades. Having recently had surgery for a heart condition, he cites how a week before surgery, he asked to be excused from his patrols as his heart was only functioning at 20%. He was refused, whilst a few weeks later a colleague with a sprained ankle was relieved of their patrols. Having been a committed member of College Security for over a decade, he is now leaving Imperial for another security job elsewhere: “As far as I am concerned, I have been constructively dismissed. Because I just can’t take it any more,” he said. 

Several other members of the Security team feel they have been “singled out” as part of management’s attempt to “divide and conquer”. An officer notes that, since he was involved in union meetings of 2015, he feels he has been “discriminated against compared to other staff ”. “I would never recommend anyone working for Imperial College;” another said, “it’s a bullying culture.” 

Officers also feel that their supervisors either send staff to new locations, add new duties, or cut overtime shifts as bullying tactics. The above officer’s shift representative was moved from Silwood Park to a London Campus. He resigned shortly after, “under duress (from management and his supervisors)”, the officer suspects. 

If you can't go to HR, where can you go?

The Security officers’ situation is made all the more desperate by the behaviour of HR, who they feel are “in cahoots” with management. One officer said that in situations where he and his colleagues had hoped HR would mediate between Security officers and management “they instead seemed spiteful!” 

Allegedly, a member of Security staff was asked to leave shortly after overhearing the then-head of security boasting about a pay bonus he had received from the College due to his success in drastically reducing spending on Security. He did not appeal because he felt that collusion between Security management and HR would make it a futile attempt. 

Just last week, an officer from Silwood Park explained to HR his grievances with management, and why he was speaking to Felix. The following day, this officer had an overtime shift he had signed up for cut; he says this is only the second time he has had overtime pulled in 13 years. He suspects this is retaliation for what he said about management and for speaking with Felix. Indeed, HR informed management some time ago of Security’s action to talk to Felix, in what the officer calls a “betrayal of employee relations”.

“HR and Security management are just looking after each other”, the officer says, “and if you can’t go to HR, where can you go?”

Imperial College London responded: “Everyone deserves to feel safe at Imperial. Bullying and harassment is unacceptable and must not be tolerated anywhere within our community. As well as our existing Harassment, Bullying and Victimisation Policy, we recently developed a suite of core College Values and Behaviours to embed a positive and inclusive culture at all levels. We have a team of Harassment Support Contacts who can provide confidential support to staff who feeling bullied, harassed, or intimidated at work, and our Report and Support Tool allows staff to disclose unwelcoming behaviours - including bullying.”

Security staff feel failed by the College’s complaints procedure 

Security staff cite disappointment with amount of action and accountability since going through grievance process last year.

Feeling they had been “betrayed” by both HR and Unison, who were “as bad as our bosses”, the eight Security officers at Silwood Park submitted a grievance against Imperial College management and HR in November 2021. In it, they complained chiefly about the lack of initial consultation in changes to annual leave and the subsequent reluctance to address this. They also requested that their annual leave was rectified, and that HR and management conceded that there had wrongfully been no consultation and resolved for this to not happen again in the future.

We now had nothing to lose.

However “the changes made to our annual leave were not the sole reason that we felt that it was time to make a stand, it was more that it was the final straw;” an officer said. “After years of watching our contracts being eroded, we felt there was nothing left to take from us and that we now had nothing to lose.”

Within a week of submitting the grievance, an extra, unexplained full patrol of the campus was added to their shift duties. Security officers believe this to be a direct consequence of having initiated the grievance. The patrol was to commence on the 1st December 2021: the same day that security had their grievance meeting with an independent investigator. 

As part of the investigation, on 14th January 2022, two Security managers were interviewed and assumedly asked about this extra patrol. Three days later, a document detailing shift procedures, including the extra patrol, was emailed to Security staff. The document was backdated to 1st April 2021 – a few weeks before Security were told of changes to their annual leave – but Security staff claim to have never seen it before. Two months later the document appeared in the Silwood Park Security office; a supervisor was caught on CCTV carrying the “fraudulent” document into the office, on top of a microwave.

HR made us feel like we are liars.

“Whatever we tell them, they said “how can we cover this up and make it go away?”. They are not worried about any accountability whatsoever or admitting to anything” an officer despaired.

Nevertheless, the officers were relieved that in March 2022 the independent investigator ruled upholding all the complaints made in the Grievance and recommending that either the error in annual leave entitlement be rectified or that a consultation be launched.

In May 2022, a consultation was held with Silwood Park Security over Teams, which resulted in what one officer calls “a disgraceful attempt by management and a senior member of HR to try and justify the amount of annual leave that they had told us we would be receiving.” “HR made us feel that we were liars and we were thick,” an officer said. Therefore, Security officers wrote to the head of HR, requesting that the member be removed from the consultation due to a clear lack of objectivity. This was refused but she was not involved again.

The different standard of acceptable behaviour between levels is staggering.

“It felt like more of a charade,” says an officer, pointing out that the consultation was only for Silwood Park employees and not South Kensington employees, despite their Terms and Conditions having been wrongfully changed as well. Management and HR stated that they had already implemented the changes for South Kensington staff, with whom they had no intention of consulting as they had “accepted” the changes. 

The consultation process concluded with a correction of Security officers’ basic hours, but lacked any apology for the mistakes or the attempts to try and force officers into accepting them. Officers were also told they would not be getting neither the 26 hours back in leave nor overtime payment, and would not be receiving any compensation for the extra hours that had been missed off their allocation for over a decade. 

One year on from the ruling, little has changed, and Security officers are apparently no closer to obtaining an apology from the College: “There is no intent to look into the way HR behaved;” an officer says, “were we to behave in such a poor and questionable manner, we have no doubts that we would have been shown the door. The different standard of acceptable behaviour between levels is staggering.” 

In fact, despite their satisfaction with the ruling, the Silwood Park team feel utterly failed by the grievance process: “One of the many disappointing aspects of the grievance process experience was that the recommendations made in [the grievance] report were handed straight back to the people that the grievance was directed at, namely [HR] and security management. Having witnessed their attempts to cover up their other indiscretions, the lack of changes made was sadly predictable.”

They voiced their frustrations in an email to Professor Ian Walmsley, highlighting the ineffectuality of the grievance process. The email was simply forwarded to both the HR department and head of Security, both of whom the officers had raised the grievance against. The response from the Provost himself, after they re-sent the email, was “underwhelming and disappointing”.

The College responded: ‘The grievance in question was investigated by an impartial colleague outside of HR and all their recommendations accepted and were implemented. This included an apology issued to security staff regarding the communication of the change in calculation of annual leave entitlement, and a formal consultation on the changes which ran from 23 May to 30 June 2022. The review of the Standing Orders is still underway.

In summary

Disillusioned with management, and failed by HR and Unison, Security staff are running out of places to turn. Whilst representatives from GMB are welcome to accompany Security staff at consultations, unless they are recognised by the College, they have little power to stand up for their members’ rights. At the very least, Security staff are owed renumeration for their miscalculated annual leave from the last thirteen years, but they don’t even dare to hope for that.

I’m disillusioned with Imperial ... it’s just cancerous from top to bottom.

All the ruling of the grievance did was offer false hope; over a year on, no significant changes have been made. In fact, Security staff allege that they have suffered even more because of the grievance. They now fear retaliation from management for telling their story to Felix. “I’ve had some colleagues saying you’re going to lose us all our jobs,” an officer said, “but if we don’t speak up, management are just going to keep doing what they’re doing.” 

In a university rocked recently by a bullying scandal, Security staff are dismayed that their plight has been largely ignored: “when the (former) CFO and President got accused of bullying a few individuals, an independent investigator was brought in;” an officer points out, “management has been bullying us for years and nothing has been done.”

Furthermore, they now doubt the Provost’s commitment to stamping out bullying, following his “disappointing” display of indifference to their situation.

“I’m disillusioned with Imperial. It’s a bullying culture and it’s just cancerous from top to bottom,” an officer said. 

Meanwhile, agency personnel are eating away at Security’s overtime, whilst management allegedly wield the threat of being replaced by agency staff to enable their coercive behaviour, arguably putting staff and students at risk. Read the full Felix investigation into the College's use of agency staff here.

All this makes for a grim outlook for Security at Imperial. “It’s going to be bad for us but bad for the college more;” on officer comments on the exodus of in-house Security officers, “all the training and experience they had, knowledge of people, departments, is going to be lost.” 

The toll on staff is spiralling: lower staff numbers due to higher counts of stress-related sickness heighten workload, already exacerbated by agency staff. Security staff seem tired. A member of the team warns me: “the morale is so low and there’s no attempt to re-establish it all. It’s frustrating and people have had enough. Management are expecting people to give their all but just keep chipping away at them.”