Lincoln University staff are distraught after they were duped into being frank with a report-writer who turned out to be their future boss.

During the week of January 11, more than 20 staff were asked to meet and be interviewed one-on-one with a "visiting academic", who was preparing a report for the university's council.

The man was Professor Robin Pollard, who revealed to a few at the end of their discussions that he was the preferred vice-chancellor candidate. He was given the job, and would start mid-March.

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) believed the appointment had been "unnecessarily fraught", and did nothing to help resolve low staff morale and lack of trust in management at the university.

It was considering legal options, including making a complaint to the Employment Relations Authority about the university's breach of good faith.

The university said the appointment process had been necessary to respect the need for Pollard's confidentiality before any offer was made or accepted.

TEU organiser Cindy Doull said staff were "quite open and frank about the university and their concerns" with Pollard, and many were "distressed" about being deliberately misled.

The council had promised – like with the past two vice-chancellor appointments – that staff from key departments would be involved in the hiring process.

They expected to find interview questions through focus groups, and to meet with five candidates in either January or February, but it did not happen.

"Some time in January the council decided that there was only one preferred candidate and they were going to bring him over to meet staff. They introduced him to them and said he was a visiting academic."

Whether it was "incompetence or deliberate", the union was concerned staff had been misled or deceived, Doull said.

It had been pushing for better staff engagement to mend low staff morale and lack of trust, especially after the "Andy West saga".

West resigned as vice-chancellor in June, and received a resignation payment to "acknowledge his contributions to the university", despite concerns about spending on consultants.

At the time, the union spoke out about a growing divide between senior leadership and staff.

Staff were now "fairly distraught that they were put in to this position where they had talked to their future employer".

Concerned staff who contacted the union would "stand by what they said but would have phrased it differently".

"He didn't disclose his true intentions to all people.

"No ethics committee would pass this as a good and ethical process," Doull said.

Chancellor Tom Lambie said the council had confidence in Pollard's appointment and the process that was "necessary to follow on this occasion".

Pollard had been visiting on holiday to fit around his role in the United Kingdom at the time.

"He wished to undertake due diligence while here to assist with his assessment of the university and the role."

Once given the role of vice-chancellor, Pollard communicated personally with all staff and students he met with.

"It is regrettable that the timing dictated the need to amend the process that had been originally communicated to staff," Lambie said.

Employment lawyer Andrew Scott-Howman had never heard of such an "unusual set of circumstances" in a staff appointment, but said it could be a breach of good faith.

"The process communicated as the one followed for hiring has been departed from."

Hiding the identity of the future vice-chancellor from staff was likely to have soured employment relations from the beginning, he said.

It meant staff were "effectively getting offside with the new boss before they start, without even knowing".

"It seems there has been . . . an element of deceit or, even if not meant, then some form of misrepresentation."