“Woe to those who build their houses by unrighteousness, and their upper rooms by injustice; who make their neighbours work for nothing, and do not give them their wages.”
Jeremiah 22:13
On the Fair and Dignified Working Conditions webpage of the Justice and Peace Office, an agency of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney
https://justiceandpeace.org.au/fair-and-dignified-working-conditions/
On 15 June 2020, a letter was sent from JFMLAW to R. Christmann, requesting to also know who the decision maker would be.
To quote from the letter: “We also request that the university confirms who the decision maker will be in this matter”…
The letter confirmed Q Workplace Solutions as the third party to investigate.
As I said in a previous post, how unfair is it to an already systemically abused person, to place on them two confusing and separate work-related “systems”.
I was forced to repeat the same “process” (legitimately and compliantly done or not) in an overlap of employment and workers compensation laws. But that’s what Christmann took advantage of. Employment lawyers representing workers should start learning some of the initial steps of a compliant workers compensation process, because rather than be useful and helpful, JFM Andreyev legal now started to screw me over.
On 16 June 2020, R. Christmann responded in an email, providing evidence of my suspicion CCI gave her access to the factual investigation report (breaching the Australian Privacy Principles). To quote from R. Christmann’s email in document #77, “I understand [Vicki] has also provided a detailed statement in support of her workers compensation claim, which will also be put to a number of university staff for their response”. Given this individual refused to use an updated version of the written complaint I provided in October 2019, because the initial one didn’t include names except for the perpetrator, then this “detailed statement” for CCI, that did include names, was used by R. Christmann and the “decision maker”.
This “detailed statement”, that included Christmann as a perpetrator in incident #24, should NEVER have been in their hands! I signed a confidentiality agreement that it was for Catholic Church Insurance only, as per Australian Privacy Principles! It was used to allow Christmann to continue to engage in recklessness and WHS violations, to identify which staff I mentioned as part of the psychological torture of mobbing, ostracism and isolation, AND not to actually “put” to these staff to respond or provide statements as part a legitimate investigation process, but to create yet another fraudulent report with false statements.
Catholic Church Insurance, along with the offenders of WHS violations that were the cause of the claim from the insured, violated the privacy of the staff mentioned in the factual investigation report, beyond my own. Perhaps we should put the report prepared by Q Workplace Solutions to those staff mentioned, for their responses.
R. Christmann also provides the name of the decision maker. The then Provost, now VC, Prof. Zlatko Skrbis.
To quote the email response from JFMLaw:
“Please see trailing email below received from Ms Christmann in relation to our correspondence of 15 June 2020. In summary, your complaint of 23 October 2019, will be relied upon by the investigators and the decision maker will be Provost, Professor Zlatko Skrbis.
Please let me know if you have an issue with Professor Skrbis being the decision maker, and if so why?”
Firstly, the complaint from 23 October 2019 had NO NAMES identified, except for the name of the perpetrator of bullying, harassment and discrimination. Given the report from an “investigation” allegedly done by Q Workplace Solutions had the names of staff, like the “detailed statement” did for CCI, on the balance of probabilities, my “detailed statement” that was confidential for CCI only, was used. It’s yet another privacy violation and more unethical conduct, including a fraudulent report with fraudulent statements. Did staff sign their names to these statements? No.
Secondly, how stupid was my legal representative in not asking why the complaint I submitted on 23 October 2019, was not investigated and handled sensitively and ethically then! Why take illegal adverse action, ignoring the serious complaint of repeated incidents of bullying, discrimination and harassment when I first reported it? The diabolical adverse action by offenders in HR and Christmann as a national manager of SAFETY was the primary reason the workers compensation claim was finally made!
Thirdly, regarding if I had an issue with Prof. Skrbis being the decision maker, how was I supposed to know, at this time, that I was about to deal with a worse corporate offender than his predecessor? He had a LEGAL OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH WHS REGULATIONS AND LAWS.
Furthermore, this lawyer wanted me to provide instructions without being informed how all this shit called a “process” was meant to work! And they are a top notch law firm! I’m not a mind reader!
Do people consider this professional negligence?
I read an article several months ago listing the salaries of Australian university VCs. This Vice-Chancellor’s salary package is $1 million, while I’m being defrauded of everything I worked ethically for since August 2001, way before his time, as adverse action! I’m not the criminal!
What’s worse, the Chancellor, who is aware of the corporate misconduct, WHS violations and offences committed against myself and my family, supported Prof. Skrbis’ contract renewal earlier this year. I guess he is OK with the heavy personal toll this has had (and still having) on me and my family, who were also violated, harassed and sent intimidating letters by a publicly funded university, that should be an exemplar employer. If senior executive leaders are not applying the University’s Catholic Identity and Mission in their own conduct, they should not be there.
But the offences committed to date, makes this far worse, especially the fraud, violation of my family’s privacy and then using a carrier to menace them into attempted silence, and the obstruction of justice. This is serious immoral conduct as adverse action for requesting workplace rights generally protected, especially the initial request for a safe work environment.
SIRA NSW also left me without an income because they chose not to enforce compliance on ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS. This is something far worse than complaints “mishandling”.
That goes for SafeWork NSW too, regarding WHS regulations!
This post is based on documents 76-77. It displays adverse action for requesting generally protected workplace rights, privacy violations, deception 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.
Recommended reading from an international publication exploring ethics in business and governmental leadership
Yamada, D. (2008). ‘Workplace Bullying and Ethical Leadership,’ The Journal of Values-Based Leadership 1(2). [Online open access]: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol1/iss2/5
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.