The Dublin Institute of Technology has ambitious plans for its new campus, but it has still to resolve a long-running bullying row between key academics, writes John Downes

Faced with the upcoming move to the college's €1 billion Grangegorman campus, it is a headache that Prof Brian Norton, president of the State's largest third-level college, Dublin Institute of Technology, could doubtless do without.

At issue? An increasingly damaging and divisive bullying row between two of his most senior members of staff working in the college's flagship business faculty.

This has seen a total of 31 claims relating to issues such as personal humiliation and bullying levelled against the director of the faculty, Paul O'Sullivan, by his junior colleague, Dr James Urquhart, head of the Graduate Business School.

The matter appeared to have come to a head in December of last year, when an independent investigation upheld six of the allegations made by Dr Urquhart against his boss.

These are believed to have included incidences of private and public humiliation regarding the day-to-day running of DIT's Graduate Business School.

Conducted by rights commissioner Janet Hughes, the lengthy investigation included interviews with a range of witnesses, including both men and Prof Norton.

While the majority of the other complaints were not upheld, the confidential report is also understood to have found that Urquhart had sustained a case of bullying against O'Sullivan.

In another finding, it held that O'Sullivan had acted inappropriately in relation to several other complaints.

This was not the end of the row, however. Despite the report's findings, in March of this year DIT decided not to impose a disciplinary sanction on O'Sullivan. Instead, it ruled that he must partake in relevant training, and undertake not to engage in the type of behaviour outlined in the report.

But it also singled out certain criticisms of Urquhart, who lodged the bullying claim, contained in the report, and the difficulties in the relationship between the two men.

As a result, it proposed changing Urquhart's reporting relationship with his boss, Paul O'Sullivan.

DIT's decision not to take formal disciplinary action on foot of the report almost immediately prompted a strong reaction from Urquhart's trade union, the Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI), which launched an appeal against DIT's interpretation of the findings of the report.

The union has refused to comment on the matter.

However, it is understood to have argued that DIT has not followed its own established procedures on bullying and harassment in failing to impose disciplinary measures against O'Sullivan, and has challenged whether DIT has the authority to overturn, as it did, at least one of the report's findings.

So why has the college failed to impose disciplinary sanctions on foot of the findings of an independent investigation into the matter? Finding the answer to this question has proven difficult.

But proof, if it were needed, of the seriousness with which those at the college are taking all this is underlined by the fact that none of those involved - including O'Sullivan, Urquhart and Norton - would comment when contacted by The Irish Times.

They are perhaps only too aware of the damage any bullying controversy could cause to the reputation of the college, particularly at a time when the competition for students and resources among third-level colleges has seldom been tougher.

In a statement issued to this newspaper, DIT and Prof Norton refused to say whether it had taken any disciplinary proceedings against O'Sullivan. The institute's policy was to investigate such matters in a confidential manner which was fair to both sides, it said.

"In such a case neither the institute nor any colleagues involved should breach that confidentiality by commenting in any way," it said. "Any allegation of this nature would be dealt with in line with our established policies on bullying and harassment but as a matter of policy the Institute does not comment on individual HR matters."

For his part, O'Sullivan pointed out, through a solicitor's letter which following a request for an interview, that he could not comment on what is a confidential matter.

However, he is understood to have appealed the report's findings, and to be seeking a full rehearing of the allegations made against him in front of former Labour Court chairman, Finbarr Flood.

"Our client is under strict obligation to his employer, DIT, to maintain confidentiality over any such matter, the existence of which is not being confirmed," the letter stated. "To breach this duty by confirming any information to you is simply impossible for Mr O'Sullivan. You will appreciate that such communication to you would render him liable to disciplinary action at the hands of his employer."

In a recent development, both sides met with Finbarr Flood to discuss their respective appeals. A key issue is the terms of reference of these appeals - either a full rehearing or simply an examination of DIT's ruling on the matter.

However, the TUI is believed to be concerned about the length of time any full re-hearing might take, and the impact this could have on Urquhart, who first made his allegations of bullying against O'Sullivan almost three years ago.

Some with knowledge of the workings of DIT say that infighting among academics, as elsewhere in the third-level sector, is nothing new.

They point out that the appeals process should be allowed to conclude before any final decisions are made in relation to the matter.

But as a publicly-funded institution, and one which has an increasingly large financial bill arising from the case, taxpayers might also have the right to ask what is being done to address the issues raised by the case.

Some estimates put the current cost of the case to date at around €500,000 , largely paid for by DI, the TUI and O'Sullivan. Should the case end up in the High Court - as some have suggested is now likely - this figure looks set to continue to rise.