My family were also victims of harassment, intimidation, privacy violations and bullying by managers and senior executives of the university. Their documents tell the story of their experiences, which I summarise below:
• My family (two members of the general public) made their own formal complaint, for abuse, harassment, intimidation, violation of privacy, violation of their personal boundaries and intimidation with intent to silence them. This started when they submitted a detailed letter of complaint to the then Provost / now VC. The Provost redirected the serious complaint to the complaints portal. It was ultimately given to Rena Christmann, national manager of employment relations and safety, for its “operational management”. She was the very offender of serious WHS violations, that I had requested via Catholic Church Insurance and other agencies, to stay away from me and my family. And yet, the leader of the university put us right back into the hands of the biggest perpetrator. (See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/02/introducing-corporate-psychopath.html).
• The manager of my unit had inflicted the above violations, upon my family for years, both personally in my family’s home or on the phone, including after business hours, at night. This occurred especially at times of illness and death, including the morning after my dad’s suicide.
• Regarding my family’s formal and serious complaint, in well over four months, and after my family had made repeated attempts for updates on how their complaint was being handled and progressing, they only received one email with information from Ms Christmann – being that Q Workplace Solutions would be investigating their complaint. Ms Christmann never contacted my family to (respectfully) speak with them regarding the entire matter.
• Q Workplace Solutions never contacted my family to interview them regarding the particulars of their complaint, or to discuss anything to do with the matter. There was no contact made by them, at all.
• After four months had lapsed, my family sent Ms Christmann an email informing her that keeping my family in the dark for four months was abuse. They requested that Ms Christmann was not to contact them from now, and they would find another way for the complaint to be investigated. This email was sent to Ms Christmann at about 9pm. The following morning at about 7am, Ms Christmann sent an email informing them that they will receive some response by the following week, and proceeded to provide lies and excuses as to why the delay. The usual bullshit.
• My family sent Rena Christmann a final email, telling her that she disrespected their request to not contact them again as it was too late and they would find another way to have the serious complaint investigated.
• My family called Q Workplace Solutions to enquire how they conducted the investigation. They were told by this company that they could not speak with them because they weren’t the client, only the university was the client. (Note: Um, WTF? How is this ethical, respectful and an impartial, transparent and a proper “process” to ensure procedural fairness? How unethical is Q Workplace Solutions, for having become the “go to” in process corruption, as other victims in the university sector, have also experienced, as we are all discovering? Read https://michaelwest.com.au/process-corruption-no-brown-paper-bags-but-just-as-bad/). My family were told to speak with the university instead.
My family had initially called Q Workplace in the morning and were instructed to call back in the afternoon. The fore mentioned was the response in the call back. This company is playing cruel games with community members who are victims of abuse and harassment in a publicly funded university. This is a serious WHS issue!
Also, when my family called in the afternoon, they knew their name and that their case was with the university. My family had not disclosed these details in the initial call that morning. My family were told (verbatim): “… we know you’re not going to like this, but we’re not permitted to speak to you at all, because you’re not the client, [the university] is the client.”
How is this an independent investigation? It is not!
• Not long after, [the university] force upon my family, via email, the Q Workplace Solutions outcome of the investigation, and a letter by Rena Christmann (forced on my family) via law firm, Clayton Utz Lawyers, by a Matthew Condello. The lawyer via this firm, ordered my family, community members, the public, including an alumnus, who had a RIGHT to make a formal complaint, not to speak directly with [the university] but only through the law firm. Get lost, Matthew Condello of Clayton Utz law firm, for thinking people don’t know the law and their rights, especially from a law firm with a reputation of such unethical (and likely illegal) conduct. Stay away from my family!
The public have a right to know how this publicly funded university “handle” serious complaints of staff and senior executive staff misconduct for harassment and privacy invasion, including unauthorised access to private text messages. And now, it’s so much worse. Using a carriage service to menace, harass and intimidate community members for making a formal complaint to a university.
What does the VC have to say, in how this complaint was handled, under his leadership?
What does the Chancellor have to say? It has taken a heavy personal toll on this family. Is he OK with this serious misconduct? Because sadly, it gets worse.
The alleged report from Q Workplace Solutions, generally accused my family of lying about everything, that they could not prove anything and as far as Q Workplace Solutions and [the university] are concerned, this matter is closed (nb. The investigator’s name and signature appeared nowhere on the report).
• Allegations for which there were witnesses were dismissed, as much as things with no witnesses were dismissed, outside my family. Allegations for which there were specific dates / times were dismissed, as much as things without specific dates / times. Allegations in the family’s direct knowledge were dismissed as much as things that weren’t in their direct knowledge. Regarding my manager coming over to my family home on the morning after my dad’s death by suicide, ambushing my mother with questions about when I’ll be returning to work (only 12 hours after my dad’s sudden and shocking death for us), my family were in double shock with this distressing behaviour for them.
• In the attached letter by Ms Christmann, via this law firm, she informed my family, after the event, that K.T. from Q Workplace Solutions, investigated, and found that there was nothing to investigate and for [the university], there was no misconduct. This investigation sham was then followed with Ms Christmann proceeding to attempt to bully my family to not speak to anyone about their complaint and anything about the way it was managed, because they’re “bound by confidentiality laws” (Note - can someone cite the clause in legislation that states this?).
• After six months, my family did reply to Mr. Condello at Clayton Utz, regarding the harassment, intimidation and bullying tactics used to coerce members of the community into forced silence.
It is all compiled in Document 100.
This is the truth about process corruption and the sham that is an internal or “independent” investigation “organised” by an offending employer.
If this university consider such serious misconduct and breach of WHS codes “risk management”, it is NOT community engagement that is part of the University’s IDENTITY AND MISSION. Nor is this conduct aligned to the STAFF CODE OF CONDUCT.
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). S11.2-11.4
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). S27-29 and S31
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2011-010#sec.27
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW). Div. 11 Psychosocial risks
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2017-0404#ch.3-pt.3.2-div.11
References of the repeated history of Clayton Utz legal’s unethical conduct
Example One
Clayton Utz lawyer dismayed at smoker damages finding. (2002, April 16). Australian Associated Press.
Clayton Utz shreds evidence and reputation at same time. (2002, April 22). The Lawyer.
Clayton Utz to be investigated, Law Institute. (2002, April 12). Australian Associated Press.
Clayton Utz will not defend tobacco companies against smokers. (2002, July 18). ABC News.
Klinger, P. and Boyle, J. (2002, April 17). Drop Clayton Utz, say doctors. The Australian Financial Review.
Kremmer, C. (2002, May 3). Clayton Utz Drops Out Of Tobacco Case. Sydney Morning Herald.
Pheasant, B. (2002, April 24). Clayton Utz to run ethics audit. The Australian Financial Review.
Pheasant, B. (2002, July 19). Clayton Utz abandons tobacco work. The Australian Financial Review.
No moral judgements in lawyers' advice - Clayton Utz head. (2002, August 5). Australian Associated Press.
Schmidt, L. (2003, April 10). Clayton Utz v. the media. BRW.
Shiel, F. (2002, June 26). Clayton Utz tipped to lose state work. The Age.
Shiel, F. (2002, July 19). Clayton Utz dumps tobacco industry litigation. The Age.
Simons, M. (2022, August 4). Lawyers not moral judges - Clayton Utz chief. Sunday Age.
Skulley, M. (2002, June 27). Vic panel omits Clayton Utz. The Australian Financial Review.
Spencer, M., Keenan, A. and Legge, K. (2002, May 3). Clayton Utz quits case. The Australian.
Towers, K. and Lindsay, N. (2002, April 19). Clayton Utz denies pressure. The Australian Financial Review.
Example Two
Montgomery, G. (2005, September 9). Clayton Utz in hot water over witness. The Australian.
Montgomery, G. (2005, September 16). Clayton Utz trio facing inquiry. The Australian.
Example Three
Alberici, E. (2006, December 21). Law firm Clayton Utz faces criminal investigation; Law firm giant under investigation. ABC Transcripts.
Drummond, M. and Moran, S. (2006, December 21). Clayton Utz faces criminal probe. The Australian Financial Review.
Example Four - Fair Work Commission
Clayton Utz congratulates Joe Catanzariti on appointment to Fair Work Commission. (2013, April 3). Mondaq Business Briefing.
Example Five - Another example of the Revolving Door
Leading government partner to join Clayton Utz in 2016. (2015, December 18). Mondaq Business Briefing.
Example Six
AMP and Clayton Utz surrender in ASIC court battle over failure to produce documents. (2019, March 11). Contify Investment News.
ASIC challenges AMP and Clayton Utz over failure to produce documents. (2018, December 17). Contify Investment News.
Frost, J. (2019, March 12). AMP and Clayton Utz roll over for ASIC. The Australian Financial Review.
Fullerton, T. (2018, April 24). What will ASIC make of Clayton Utz links in the bank royal commission. The Australian.
Gibson, G. (2018, April 27). AMP and Clayton Utz chancing their arm. The Australian Financial Review.
Gluyas, R. (2018, April 30). AMP to defend Brenner over Clayton Utz report. The Australian.
Han, M. (2018, April 19). Clayton Utz caught up in misleading ASIC. The Australian Financial Review.
Han, M. (2018, April 20). AMP counsel feels heat over Clayton Utz report. The Australian Financial Review.
Han, M. and Pelly, M. (2018, December 18). ASIC takes AMP, Clayton Utz to court. The Australian Financial Review.
Khadem, N. (2018, December 17). ASIC challenges AMP, Clayton Utz on documents relating to fees-for-no-service scandal. ABC News.
McIlroy, T. (2018, May 4). Clayton Utz part of law draft outsourcing trial. The Australian Financial Review.
Merritt, C. (2018, April 22). Clayton Utz clears the air on AMP report. The Australian.
Merritt, C. (2018, April 26). Banking royal commission: Clayton Utz ready for ‘real story’ on AMP report. The Australian.
Merritt, C. (2018, May 4). Clayton Utz suffers collateral damage. The Australian.
Merritt, C. (2018, July 27). Clayton Utz in firing line as Four Corners drops the ball. The Australian.
Thomson, J. (2018, September 29). AMP may have misled ASIC on amended Clayton Utz report. The Australian Financial Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.