A fourth allegation related to claims an intimate relationship he had with a group member created an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
A fifth allegation claimed he wasn’t honest about this relationship with the head of department.
The first three allegations were upheld, but details and the outcome of the remaining two are redacted from a report seen by the Herald.
Students in the science department were called to a meeting yesterday afternoon to discuss Sperry’s departure and address security issues.
A student spoken to by the Herald said the meeting covered the fact Sperry would not be returning from his leave, but did not go into specifics about the circumstances of his departure.
However, the student said university staff confirmed they were in the process of having Sperry trespassed from campus and it would be “imminent”.
“They gave information about support and then there was a presentation around security.”
The student said they were given general security information.
A slide presentation shown to students, and obtained by the Herald, was titled “Risk and Safety Advice”.
One of the slides read: “A former staff member is impacting on the safety, and/or feelings of safety of our people.”
It gave general advice and tips on what to do if students felt unsafe.
“Safety reminder: if you ever feel unsafe on or off campus, call 111 immediately.”
The student said there were many questions during the briefing, “about what to do if he’s seen off campus, on campus, those sorts of questions”.
People were relieved to have a resolution but had not expected a security talk, the student said.
They alleged concerns about Sperry potentially tailgating his way into the building were highlighted during the briefing.
Another student confirmed they were also told in the meeting the university was preparing a trespass order against Sperry and that students raised concerns about potential tailgating.
A university spokesperson told the Herald it has “a duty of care for the safety of staff and students”.
“In response to concerns raised by students, the University held a standard safety briefing on Tuesday in the Science Faculty.”
The meetings for current and former students, as well as supervisors, came after head of school Duncan McGillivray announced Sperry’s departure over email.
The meetings were “to discuss the practical implications for them and answer any questions related to this. More information will be sent directly to this group about that meeting”.
‘Offensive, humiliating or intimidating’
Sperry specialises in organic synthesis medicinal chemistry and green chemistry. He has been a faculty member since at least 2012.
His profile has now been deleted from the university website.
According to the investigation report, one university complainant alleged in 2018 she felt pressured by Sperry to run a reaction at a larger scale than she considered safe.
She claimed a fire then occurred, which she regarded as “almost fatal”.
Another student allegedly put out the fire, and she claimed Sperry said later that had that student not been there, she would be “in a morgue” and he would be “in jail”.
Sperry agreed a small fire occurred but disputed the characterisation that it was “near fatal” and denied making the “morgue/jail” comment or pressuring her to conduct unsafe work.
After weighing this and other lab safety complaints, investigators found that while Sperry took significant steps to promote lab safety, he showed patterns of inconsistent implementation and inadequate oversight, leading to several avoidable or poorly managed incidents.
Investigators also found Sperry handled reported hazards or related student concerns in an unduly casual or dismissive manner on three occasions.
An allegation relating to bullying or harassment was also upheld.
One complainant told investigators the environment created by Sperry’s “confrontational and undermining” interactions left students feeling insecure.
A University of Auckland investigation found that science professor Jon Sperry had displayed a “pattern of concerning behaviour”.
“When [students] struggled to answer a question or remained silent because they were too intimidated to speak, Jon would mutter phrases such as ‘For f***’s sake’, ‘Jesus Christ’,” he allegedly said.
The report acknowledged Sperry’s responses to the harassment and bullying complaints, which included concerns he raised about the breakdown of a personal relationship he shared with a staffer and his supervisory relationship with another.
“Even allowing for these factors, we detect a pattern in Professor Sperry’s responses of attempting to undermine the integrity or to question the motivation of all witnesses with whom we interacted,” the report said.
On balance, investigators found consistent accounts of his behaviour in group or one-on-one meetings from a wide range of witnesses.
“It was offensive, humiliating or intimidating to at least some individuals within the group.”
Investigators acknowledged the witnesses knew each other, but did not believe the allegations were deliberately orchestrated by collusion in an attempt to deceive, as Sperry had alleged.
Investigators found the upheld allegations demonstrated a “pattern of concerning behaviour” that needed to be addressed.
Some allegations were removed from the investigation’s scope. These included message exchanges between Sperry and one of the complainants, concerns about his professional boundaries and his alleged behaviour at Christmas parties.
Sperry declined to comment yesterday and the university said it did not comment on “employment matters”.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.