|
|
|
| Internal Inquiry Senate Inquiry Bullying Legal representation Conflict of interest Hearing participants Expressions of Support Closing Arguments Union activities At the time of the "Please Explain" MV was candidate for CPSU State Secretary, Assistant State Secretary, and Committee Member of State Council. During the poll and the distribution of ballot papers MV discovered that there were many union members who reported that they had not received ballot papers. MV investigated and found that the ballots were distributed through Telstra Internal mail. Further investigation indicated that ballot papers had been sent from the central distribution centre. MV then discovered several members of the Site Delegate Committee (SDC) with cartons full of ballot papers. MV reported the matter to the Electoral Commission by phone. He was advised to make a formal complaint. MV decided not to do so as he did not want union delegates to be jailed. Despite this MV was elected as a delegate to the state committee of the CPSU and came within 1500 votes of becoming Assistant State Secretary . Ralston Inquiry Procedural Unfairness Ralston claimed to be a trained investigator for Telstra no evidence of such qualification was ever produced. MV requested copies of the procedures to be followed by investigating officers and the copies of the Training Manuals. The request was refused at both State and Federal Levels of Telstra MV was not given any copy of the rules or procedures of the inquiry On 16th January 1995 Danita Lowes then National General Manager of NTC in an email to all staff stated rumours suggest that NTC will be closed and their work outsourced. The email went on to say it was untrue. And that "…… on a practical level the company would be crazy to build such a centre……..only to outsource it’s activities." The fact is that Telstra did not build the centre and Telstra did outsource many of its activities. Mid June 1996 Senate Inquiry In mid June 1996 MV made a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the sale of Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership Bill). The submission opposed the sale, analyzed the management style and suggested improvements to Telstra including culture change. It made 37 recommendations including the reorganization of Human Resources Division, and of Telstra Learning . A question of Privilege After the end of the AIRC case MV wrote to the Senate Privileges Committee requesting investigation of what appeared to be a clear violation of parliamentary privilege. After some time the reply from the committee was that "the matter was noted". With no disrespect intended that provided little comfort for one who makes frank and open submissions believing them to be protected. Management Bullying and violation of Workplace Relations Act 14th May 1997 MV was verbally attacked in the workplace at his phone by Kelly Simpson. In the presence of his fellow workers and in the hearing of customers he was accused of "having interfered with the democratic process" in that he had spoken to a non union member of staff and had influenced her opinion. MV asked for the name of the person concerned it was refused. MV asked for the instruction in writing, it was refused. MV asked a number of times for KS to cease the harassment of him as a union representative. MV then informed her that she was in violation of the Industrial Relations Act, Human Rights Act and the Telstra Code of Conduct. MV then laid 8 charges against KS with the NTC Manager Robert Holland the complaint was signed by two independent witnesses. On the 22nd July he replied that all charges were dismissed by Robert Holland who stated that there was insufficient evidence on all charges.
DAB The CPSU was aware of the events. MV requested legal assistance both as a union member also as a Union representative. Surprised at the cool reception from the union MV pressed the issue at the State Conference at which he was a delegate The conference required the national executive to give legal support in the case MV was sent to the union solicitors. 3 times MV walked out on the lawyer stating that the attitudes expressed really belonged with an employer organization Second Opinion MV so concerned that called Law Institute asked for name of legal expert in area of unfair dismissal was given the names of 3 and a free half hour consultation with the chosen one From the list chose a Phillip Dinning. Gave Dinning information and documentation told him has no funds PD states was so concerned that he would give advice and assistance for free (pro bono) up to the point where his firm would incur cost. PD advice was that the charges were very badly drafted and "impossible to answer" In a letter to the CPSU He states that the matter was "of major concern to the CPSU , and all other unions." He further states "the proper function of a union delegate is being interfered with by Telstra and Telstra is attempting to fetter that function by the laying of charges which are both unfair and invalid" He also considered that there were beaches of Natural Justice MV sought to have Mr Dinning recognized as his solicitor by the CPSU that was denied and MV was forced back to the union’s solicitor. Briefing 2 days before the DAB hearing MV was called in the evening to the office of the barrister. At the end of the briefing MV being open and honest in his dealings revealed that he was a member also of the CEPU and the Media Arts Alliance and that there was likely to be another solicitor at the hearing. There was a look which passed between the two which MV wondered about The next day at 4 PM MV received a call from the Union solicitor who stated that after MV has left they had a long talk Result they felt there was something he should know though it should make no difference to the case TELL ME ! Answer :The barrister’s wife works for Telstra, but it should not make a difference. What does she do ? You guessed it she is a lawyer with Telstra. MV response get me another barrister NOW. On further investigation MV discovered that the particular Solicitor and Barrister had been friends for years and had a radio program together. Next morning MV briefed a new barrister in the car park This is this very young barrister’s first case in the Industrial Relations Area. Given the structure of the board MV is not hopeful of a positive result DAB Hearing was held on 31/7/97, 1/8/97 and 5/8/97 The legal firm retained by Telstra was Freehill, Hollingdale and Page. By some measures the top legal firm in the country. A firm with international connections. Their Barrister Mr. Gardiner Team manager Carl Anthony Group Manager Kelly Simpson Centre Manager Robert Holland Personnel Manager Simon Woodyard Telstra Legal Counsel Renato Marasco It is believed that Rob Cartwright (originally from CRA) orchestrated the case from the Telstra sidelines though he later denied ever having heard of me when we met face to face at a Telstra AGM. I find this proposition to have a creidbility gap. Chairperson Judy Bretherton Telstra Rep Bill McLeod CPSU Original Nominee Steve Ramsey who for some reason was replaced by Ruth Barton Letter of support received from Australian Civil Liberties Union. They prima facie suggested it was a court of "Star Chamber" and Telstra of using "bully boy" tactics to silence a whistleblower and "a violation of free speech". The Branch secretary of the CEPU Len Cooper came to the hearing and tendered a letter which stated that their union (of which I was a dual member) They had members at Burwood and the CEPU said (their) interests have been more than adequately represented by Mr. Vogt". They also stated that they encourage their reps to prepare and distribute information in the workplace. I approached the Media Arts Alliance of which I had been a member originally under Actors Equity, Musicians Union and at this time as a freelance journalist. The MAA did not wish to assist in any way and although freedom of information, freedom of expression and has references to the famous Melbourne University Farrago Case. The CPSU forced MV to ask Len Cooper to leave the hearing or they would withdraw legal assistance. At the start of the proceedings Telstra had tried to change the wording of 3 of the charges. Even the DAB would not permit them to change charge 5 in such a manner that it was in nature a different charge. Why Telstra was permitted to reword the charges is still not clear to me During the proceedings Telstra had to withdraw charges 2 & 3 (Policy charges) The DAB would not permit them to proceed with charge 5 (fear & insecurity) Charge 1
Vogt Closing Argument
|
For Whistleblowers Help. Whistleblowers Assistance, and Whistleblowers CommunicationsSend mail to mervyn@teksupport.net.au with questions or comments about this websiteAssociated web sites:
http://aspbergers2.tripod.com
|
