Employment lawyer #3 - Part 1 - 2020

25 March - 14 April 2020 – enter employment lawyer #3. I had to repeat myself, again, again, again. With each new attempt I made for compliance from the university, there was retaliation and new distressing incidents added to my now growing volume of evidence. 

Between the above dates was the beginning of communication with employment lawyer #3. I was retraumatised by having to repeat myself, along with new aggressive, abusive, malicious, vexatious, defamatory, negligent and reckless adverse action, now mostly by the national manager of employment relations and SAFETY - a senior executive with a core responsibility for WHS and compliance.

On 24 April 2020, the first formal letter was sent to the HR Director from my larger, more “experienced” law firm representative.

Reviewing these documents now (without the cognitive impairment caused by the psychological violence, distress and trauma inflicted on me by the SAFETY MANAGER), I realise that parts of these letters are inaccurate. But how fair is it to force this power imbalance onto me, being abandoned by EVERYONE to have to navigate how employment lawyers, in a failed fair work system, function, and trying to repeatedly explain the situation again and again, while becoming more injured in my health? ENOUGH. 

And ultimately, THE LAWYERS ALL FAILED ME IN A BIG WAY, AS READERS WILL FIND OUT IN MY STORY. IT IS PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE. I EXPECTED BETTER FROM THIS EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM. 

Do employment lawyers not know what GASLIGHTING TACTICS do to a target? Half the letter is inaccurate and actually gave AMMUNITION TO THE PSYCHO IN SAFETY TO CONTINUE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE!

I AM EXTREMELY ANGRY! 

I will reveal who this law firm was in a later post. They need to drop the arrogance a few notches. I SHOULD NOT have to convince those I pay to legally represent me, of my resilience and strength and THE TRUTH. 

I quote some of the more accurate parts of the letter:

“[The university] has failed to ensure procedural fairness in respect to the handling and investigation of the complaint by:

a. failing to investigate the complaint, and the extent and nature of each allegation raised.

b. failing to provide notice to [our client] regarding the person (or persons) who will be investigating the complaint, whether the investigation person (or persons) are independent, and the person (or persons) who would be the decision-makers in respect of the allegations raised in the complaint.

c. failing to adequately respond to [our client’s] concerns regarding the manner in which she has been treated in her employment.

d. failing to comply with [the University’s] Staff Enterprise Agreement...

[The university] has further continued to discriminate against [our client] by deliberately ignoring her and her genuine attempts to engage with [the university], its processes and attempts to return to work … 

 [“The university] has shown a decided failure to comply with the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice in relation to the allegations which have been made... [The university] is advised to adequately respond to [our client’s] complaint and ensure that it hereby provides [our client] with procedural fairness moving forward, particularly, ensuring the independence of the investigating officer of the allegations”. 

To this date, there still has been no procedural fairness in my case, although it is coming. I exhausted every government and professional avenue I could think of, for guidance, protection, support, resolution and procedural fairness. I WAS FAILED, BETRAYED, NEGLECTED, EXPLOITED AND ABUSED BY EACH ONE. 

Readers will start to find out, one by one, who these hypocrites were. And still are, given the public interest, as voters, taxpayers and stakeholders.  

Where were the regulators, both federal and state? Employment lawyers are useless for these circumstances. There should not be a need for workers to pay a fortune to ironically save their job from illegal tactics of abusive and diabolical adverse action. As for the National Tertiary Education Union, you will learn the truth about them too. They enter my story soon, in May 2020. 

This post is based on documents 40-42. It displays adverse action for requesting generally protected workplace rights, discrimination, deception, malicious, vexatious and reckless conduct that condones engaging in WHS breaches and creating psychosocial hazards, not managing the risks as the PCBU is reasonably expected to do so, BY LAW.