Boundaries : Basic Dignity - January 2021

When Reasonable Adjustments Became Evidence of Resistance

There is a point in prolonged organisational abuse where you are asking for basic dignity.

In a psychology session, while attempting to stabilise my health after sustained workplace harm, I articulated what should never have required explanation:

“My dignity, health and wellbeing is dependent on returning to my job, after suffering 1.5 years of organisational abuse because of the negligence and incompetence of the library associate director, who handed me over to HR.”

“I was taken advantage of in these last few months in my limited understanding of various systems and I had tried to get answers. I even tried an APVO application to stop the harassment. I was at a huge disadvantage. Was all this fair to me?”

“I don’t think it’s ‘fair’ for the university to cause me further stress by demanding and reminding me of my obligation to the university when I had a right to [personal leave including] carer’s leave and privacy. Temporarily. I met my obligations to the university. Where was their obligation and duty of care in return, for all my commitment and contribution?”

These were not emotional outbursts.

They were reasonable boundaries, articulated carefully, clinically, and in good faith — while injured.

⸻

When Medical Evidence Was Ignored

On 6 January 2021, I sent an email to my Nominated Treating Doctor (NTD) with my psychologist’s report attached. This was for my workers compensation solicitor.

Five days later, on 11 January 2021, the solicitor wrote advising me to agree to Catholic Church Insurance’s request for yet another Independent Medical Examination (IME).

This is the part of the system that few people understand until they are trapped inside it.

Injured workers are forced by law to attend repeated IMEs.

Refuse — and you forfeit your legal rights. 

Remember, in my case, my legal entitlements, including legally owed weekly payments, were never provided by Catholic Church Insurance. CCI also refused to co-operate and comply with their statutory responsibility to ensure the injury management plan agreement was implemented. CCI also did not ensure the application of protective control measures to keep the cause of my claim away from me, as I reported and requested in incident #24 of the Factual Investigation Report for the insurer.

I WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH MY LEGAL RIGHTS BY CATHOLIC CHURCH INSURANCE. 

There was no “forfeiting” of my legal rights. There was insurer “fraud”. 

But good luck informing SIRA NSW and IRO funded workers compensation solicitors of this, even with evidence. 

The “senior claims specialist” at CCI (now claiming to be the “case manager” - she has a lot to answer for), played ignorant to the statutory breaches CCI were committing.

These repeated examinations were retraumatising given my experience so far with both Deepinder Miller and Melissa Barrett. They knew it. It was a deliberate tactic, unnecessary and irrelevant.

For me the IMEs functioned as badgering tactics, not care.

And yet, in the NSW workers compensation “scheme”:

• Reports from nominated treating doctors

• Reports from nominated psychologists

• Reports prepared specifically for legal proceedings

…are audaciously ignored. Do they mean nothing?

This is the most disgusting, grossly unfair, and negligent aspect of what I now call the NSW workers compensation scam.

⸻

The Reasonable Adjustments I Had Proposed

(And Why They Were Necessary)

These were not demands. They were protective boundaries, proposed after harm had already occurred.

1. Respect for Seniority and Professional Judgement

When I am the most senior staff member present, my decisions must be respected.

Feedback — if required — must be:

• Constructive

• Private

• Respectful

Until I felt psychologically safe, I required a third person present in one-on-one meetings with my manager behind closed doors. This was to ensure meetings remained professional, respectful, and task-focused.

2. Addressing Demeaning Behaviour

If demeaned — especially in front of staff — I would raise it privately, with a witness, explaining how it affected me and why.

This is not insubordination. It is basic workplace decency.

3. Autonomy to Manage My Team

My team would be managed in my leadership style — a style trusted for 18 years.

This included:

• Applying the Code of Conduct fairly

• Approving leave appropriately

• Respecting staff privacy

• Upholding work-life balance

I would not be pressured to act unethically or violate personal boundaries — mine or anyone else’s.

4. Proper Complaint Pathways

If team members had concerns, they were to raise them with me first.

I cannot fix what I am not told.

Confidentiality and respect were non-negotiable.

5. No Gossip, Labels, or Coercion

Judgement, labelling, and gossip about staff cause harm.

I refused to participate in it.

6. Clear, Agreed Expectations Only

Only the objectives in my Performance Review Plan were to be assessed.

No vague expectations.

No moving goalposts.

No constant irrelevant criticism.

7. Language Matters

The repeated use of the word “should” to impose unrealistic demands needed to stop.

8. Zero Tolerance for Gossip

Gossip hurts people.

Full stop.

9. Fair Feedback Timing

Feedback from my team should occur after one year of management without unhealthy interference or harassment.

10. Role Clarity and Realistic Workload

Management was my priority.

That meant less client liaison — and therefore fewer engagement statistics.

Quality leadership is not measured by spreadsheets.

11. Protected Work Time

I required uninterrupted time for focused work, with agreed meeting times and a third person present to ensure professionalism.

12. Inclusion in All Debriefs

If any future incident occurred in the building, I was to be included in all debriefs.

No conflicting instructions.

No expectation to be a mind reader.

⸻

What Still Hurts

None of these boundaries were unreasonable.

They were textbook psychosocial safety controls.

And yet, instead of protection, I was met with:

• Escalation

• Surveillance

• Procedural weaponisation

• Medical evidence being disregarded

• Repeated retraumatisation through IMEs

I met my obligations.

The question that still remains — and that no regulator has answered — is simple:

Where was the organisation’s obligation and duty of care in return?

⸻

This record stands not just for me, but for every injured worker who learns too late that asking for dignity is treated as resistance.

(Documents 139-140).